InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
District Court grants summary judgment in favor of debt collector
On January 31, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted summary judgment in favor of a defendant debt collector concerning alleged violations of the FDCPA. The plaintiff alleged that she received six phone calls from the defendant, starting in May of 2020, seeking to collect debt owed by the plaintiff’s granddaughter. The plaintiff allegedly explained to the defendant during the first call that she did not live with her granddaughter and that the defendant would not be able to reach the granddaughter through that number. She also allegedly requested the defendant stop calling. On June 27, 2020 the plaintiff filed suit alleging violations of Sections 1692d, 1692c(a)(1), and 1692e of the FDCPA and the Florida Consumer Collections Practices Act (FCCPA). The court dismissed the state law claim, as well as the plaintiff’s Section 1692d claim, after determining that “neither the volume and frequency nor the content of the calls constituted abusive or harassing conduct under the FDCPA or FCCPA.”
After reviewing the remainder of the FDCPA claims, the court ruled that the plaintiff’s Section 1692c(a)(1) claim failed because the protections afforded by Section 1692c(a)(1) are applicable only to a “consumer” meaning “any natural person obligated or allegedly obligated to pay any debt.” The court explained that because the plaintiff “did not owe the subject debt” the defendant was “entitled to judgment as a matter of law on” the Section 1692c(a)(1) claim. Additionally, the court determined that the plaintiff failed to show evidence that the defendant violated Section 1692e by making false, deceptive, or misleading representations when attempting to collect on the debt, because “[a] reasonable jury could not conclude from this record that the least sophisticated consumer would have been misled to believe that the purpose of the phone calls was to attempt to collect a debt from [the plaintiff].”
CFPB files emergency motion to hold phantom debt scammers in contempt
On January 22, the CFPB filed an emergency motion seeking to hold two individual defendants in contempt of court for allegedly failing to honor the terms of a default judgment and order related to a 2015 enforcement action. The defendants are two of multiple participants that were allegedly involved in an illegal phantom debt collection scheme involving payment processors and a telephone broadcast service provider. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Bureau claimed that the defendants attempted to collect debt that consumers did not owe or that the collectors were not authorized to collect, used harassing and deceptive techniques in violation of the CFPA and FDCPA, and placed robo-calls through a telephone broadcast service provider to millions of consumers stating that the consumers had engaged in check fraud and threatening them with legal action if they did not provide payment information. At the time, the Bureau obtained a preliminary injunction to halt the debt collection activities and freeze the assets of all defendants named in the lawsuit.
According to the Bureau, the two defendants named in the emergency motion failed to comply with any of the required terms under the default judgment entered last October, which required, among other things, the payment of civil money penalties ranging from $100,000 to $500,000, and permanently banned the defendants from attempting collections on any consumer financial product or service and from selling any debt-relief service. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) The defendants’ disregard for court orders “has been a recurring theme of this case,” the Bureau wrote in its the motion, claiming that the defendants, among other things, failed to show up for scheduled depositions or produce requested documents, and violated the preliminary injunction by transferring assets and concealing properties that they owned. After both defendants were found to be in contempt for not complying with the preliminary injunction, a receiver was appointed to conserve the assets for the benefit of affected consumers, which one of the defendants “promptly” violated. After the defendants failed to respond to additional requests, the Bureau filed the motion to have them both found in contempt. The defendants have “provided no cause for comfort that they will respect rulings of the Court or that they will comply with the law unless the Permanent Injunction Order is enforced,” the Bureau stated in its motion.
9th Circuit partially reverses FDCPA ruling
On January 24, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part a district court’s summary judgment for a collection law firm (defendant) that “expressly” informed an individual in a collection letter that any dispute must be filed in writing. The plaintiff sued after receiving a collection letter from the defendant that noted, “[u]nder the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, if you dispute this debt, or any portion thereof, you must notify this office in writing within thirty (30) days of receipt of this letter. After notifying this office of a dispute, all debt collection activities will cease until this office obtains verification of the debt and a copy of such verification is mailed to you. If you do not dispute the validity of this debt or any portion thereof within thirty (30) days of receipt of this letter, the debt will be assumed valid. You may request in writing, within thirty (30) days of receipt of this letter, the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor, which is the homeowners association named above, and we will provide you with the information.” The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, ruling that the passage did not violate the FDCPA because the third sentence of the disclosure did not mention that the dispute had to be filed in writing.
On appeal, the 9th Circuit noted that “the court must view the letter ‘through the eyes of the least sophisticated debtor,’” stating that “… the least sophisticated debtor would not extract each sentence of the challenged paragraph, line them up against the disclosures the FDCPA requires, and analyze whether each sentence, in isolation, accurately conveys the required warnings.” The 9th Circuit also noted that, “[i]nstead, the least sophisticated debtor would examine the letter as a whole and would conclude based on the bold text expressly stating that he must dispute the debt in writing that he was required to dispute the debt in writing.” The 9th Circuit also upheld the ruling in favor of the defendant over its assessment of a prelien fee as a reasonable attorney’s fee and “that any implication that the fee was an ‘attorney’s fee’ was true.” The case was remanded back to the district court to address remaining arguments and the plaintiff’s summary judgment motion.
District Court says letter’s disclosure did not violate FDCPA
On January 14, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania entered judgment in favor of a defendant debt collector accused of violating the FDCPA in a consolidated action concerning disclosure language used in a letter sent to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, who had previously been sued by the defendant, hired an attorney who sent a letter to the defendant requesting additional information about the plaintiffs’ debts. The defendant responded and included in its letter a disclosure that stated, “This communication is from a debt collector but is not an attempt to collect a debt. Notice: See Reverse Side for Important Information.” The plaintiffs sued, claiming that the disclosure was a “‘false representation or deceptive means’ used to collect a debt in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(10)” because “the letter was, indeed, an attempt to collect a debt.” The court disagreed. The court held that “[t]he letters do not demand payment, offer alternatives to default, or request financial information,” and noted that “[i]n fact, the letters make no request of any kind from the debtors,” and that“[t]he letters contain contact information, but do not offer any means of making payment on the alleged debt and expressly disclaim that the letter is an ‘attempt to collect a debt.’” Moreover, the court found that because the defendant’s letter was sent in response to a request from the plaintiffs’ attorney, it could not be considered an attempt to collect a debt. In addition, the court ruled that two new theories put forward in plaintiffs’ summary judgment were procedurally barred.
CFPB issues guidance on medical debt covered by the NSA
On January 13, the CFPB released a new Bulletin to remind debt collectors and credit reporting agencies (CRAs) of their legal obligations under the FDCPA and the FCRA when collecting, furnishing information about, and reporting medical debts covered by the No Surprises Act (NSA). Effective for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2022, the NSA establishes new federal protections against surprise medical bills arising out of certain out-of-network emergency care. The CFPB notes that medical debt often poses special risks to consumers as consumers are “rarely informed of the costs of medical treatment in advance” and are “generally ill suited to the task of identifying [medical] billing errors.” Specifically, the Bulletin reminds debt collectors of the FDCPA prohibition against “false representation of the ‘character, amount, or legal status of any debt’” and the use of any “unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt.” According to the Bulletin, these would include “misrepresenting that a consumer must pay a debt stemming from a charge that exceeds the amount permitted by the [NSA].” The Bulletin also reminded debt collectors, as furnishers of information to CRAs, and the CRAs themselves of their obligations under the FCRA to assure the accuracy of information furnished or included in a consumer report, as well as to “conduct reasonable and timely investigations of consumer disputes to verify the accuracy of furnished information.” The Bulletin clarified that the accuracy and dispute obligations imposed by the FCRA “apply with respect to debts stemming from charges that exceed the amount permitted” by the NSA. The Bulletin further offered several examples of acts or practices that may be violative of the FDCPA and/or the FCRA in connection with medical debt covered by the NSA. According to the Bulletin, the CFPB “will hold debt collectors accountable for failing to comply with the FDCPA and Regulation F, and it will hold CRAs and furnishers accountable for failing to comply with the FCRA and Regulation V.” The Bureau also noted that it “will continue to work with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and other partners to address medical debt abuses.”
District Court denies plaintiff’s motion to remand FDCPA
On December 22, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied a plaintiff’s motion to remand, ruling that a default judgment allegedly obtained fraudulently in an underlying collection lawsuit qualifies as a concrete injury in fact to the plaintiff in an FDCPA suit. According to the order, the plaintiff sued the defendants, a process server and its employee, for fraudulently certifying that service of process had been made to the plaintiff in a state debt collection action and obtaining a default judgment against the plaintiff as a result, which the plaintiff described as engaging in the practice of “sewer service.” The plaintiff sued the defendants in state court and the action was removed to federal court by the defendants. The plaintiff filed a motion to remand for lack of standing, claiming that his complaint “does not sufficiently allege a concrete harm to confer [Article III] standing to Plaintiff” because the complaint “solely asserts a bare procedural violation of the [FDCPA].” While “Article III requires plaintiff to show ‘(i) that he suffered an injury in fact that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; (ii) that the injury was likely caused by the defendant; and (iii) that the injury would likely be redressed by judicial relief,’” the court noted that the plaintiff’s argument “focuses only on the ‘concreteness’ of the ‘injury in fact.’” Applying the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s two-step framework for determining whether a statutory violation is a “concrete” harm, and considering the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez decision (covered by InfoBytes here), the court found that the plaintiff’s complaint sufficiently alleged a “concrete” injury in fact for alleged violations of the FDCPA arising from alleged sewer service.
Specifically, the court indicated that the 9th Circuit’s first step requires the court “‘[t]o identify the interests protected by the FDCPA’ by examining the ‘[h]istorical practice’ and the ‘legislative judgment’ underlying the provisions at issue’” and determine whether “the FDCPA ‘provisions at issue were established to protect the plaintiff’s concrete interests.’” Although the defendants failed to identify any historical or common-law practices, the court found that legislative history of the FDCPA indicates that Congress enacted the statute to protect consumers from abusive collection practices, which include engaging in sewer service. The court further cited to district courts’ decisions concluding that “the ‘FDCPA codifies Plaintiff's concrete interest in being free from abusive debt collection practices.’” Turning to step two of the 9th Circuit’s framework, the court considered whether the sewer service allegations present a material risk of harm that had materialized and “actually harm[ed] Plaintiff’s interests under the FDCPA.” The court found that the “Complaint sufficiently allege[d] that the risk of harm to Plaintiff’s concrete interests materialized” because the “Complaint plead[ed] that the fraudulent proof of service specifically targeted Plaintiff, advanced the state debt collection action against Plaintiff to a stage where default judgment was pending, and caused Plaintiff to obtain legal representation to defend Plaintiff in the state debt collection action [which] do more than present a ‘risk of harm’ to Plaintiff’s interests under step two.” On this basis, the court denied the plaintiff’s motion to remand the action.
CFPB sues debt collectors
On January 10, the CFPB filed a complaint against three debt collection companies and their owners (collectively, “defendants”) for allegedly engaging in illegal debt-collection practices. According to the Bureau, the defendants purchase debt portfolios and place them with other collection companies or sell them. The complaint states that from September 2017 through April 2020, the defendants placed debts valued at more than $8 billion and asserts that the defendants knew or should have known that these third-party collection companies were engaging in unlawful and deceptive debt collection measures. The Bureau alleges the defendants were aware of the companies’ false statements to consumers because they received hundreds of complaints from consumers claiming the companies were threating to arrest or file lawsuits if the consumers’ debts were not paid imminently, and the defendants received recorded phone calls alerting them to the companies’ threats and false statements regarding credit reporting. Further, the Bureau claims that the defendants continued to place debts with and sold debts to these companies even after an internal review found major violations of federal law. The Bureau’s complaint, which alleges violations of the CFPA and the FDCPA, seeks consumer restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, and civil money penalties.
FTC settles with debt collectors
On December 13, the FTC announced a settlement with several South Carolina-based debt collection companies and an individual (collectively, "defendants") for allegedly engaging in fraudulent debt collection practices. The FTC filed a complaint against the defendants alleging that they violated the FTC Act and the FDCPA by, among other things: (i) using robocalls to leave deceptive messages; (ii) falsely representing that an individual is an attorney or is in communication with an attorney; (iii) “falsely claiming or implying that nonpayment of a debt will result in the arrest or imprisonment of a person”; (iv) threatening to take unlawful legal action; and (v) making false representations or using deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect a debt. The action was taken as part of the FTC’s “Operation Corrupt Collector”—a nationwide enforcement and outreach effort established by the FTC, CFPB, and more than 50 federal and state law enforcement partners to target illegal debt collection practices (covered by InfoBytes here). The effort previously resulted in settlements with two other debt collectors, which included permanent bars from the industry.
Under the terms of the settlement, in addition to being permanently banned from participating in debt collection and debt brokering activities, the defendants will also be prohibited from making misrepresentations to consumers, including (i) whether consumers are legally obligated to pay defendants; (ii) whether defendants are attorneys or affiliated with a law firm; (iii) the terms of any refund policy; and (iv) any material facts concerning products or services. The order also requires the defendants to surrender the contents of numerous bank and investment accounts, including property and the value of certain assets. An approximately $12 million monetary judgment will be partially suspended upon completion of asset transfers from all financial institutions holding accounts in the defendants’ names.
District Court: Debt collectors may rely on information supplied by credit card issuer
On December 2, the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment in an FDCPA action over an alleged disputed debt, ruling that defendants are allowed to rely on information supplied by a credit card issuer that a “debt owned has been verified and is owed.” The plaintiff opened a credit card in 2015 and stopped making payments on the card in June 2018. After she stopped making payments, the plaintiff sent notices of dispute to the credit card issuer contesting, among other things, whether the issuer owned the account, and received correspondence back from the issuer with information about where disputes about the debt should be directed. The issuer also explained that based on an investigation into her account, the issuer believed the account to be valid. Several months later, the defendants sent a demand letter on behalf of the issuer to the plaintiff using the address associated with the account, and later filed a collection lawsuit in state court seeking judgment to recover the unpaid balance.
The plaintiff sued, accusing the defendants of violating Sections 1692e(2)(A), 1692e(5), and 1692e(10) of the FDCPA when they initiated the collections action. Among other claims, the plaintiff argued that she never received the demand letter. She also contended that the defendants should have known about the disputes. The court, however, agreed with the magistrate judge’s final orders and judgment, which ruled that it is not a requirement of the FDCPA for the defendants to confirm that a notice was received as a condition of filing the state court action. According to the court, the plaintiff identified no evidence that mail sent to the address used by the defendants was returned as undeliverable. The court also agreed that the plaintiff’s notices of dispute “did not challenge that she opened the account or was responsible for the charges,” and that the defendants submitted bank statements showing that the plaintiff made payments on the account.
CFPB supervisory highlights cover wide range of violations
On December 8, the CFPB released its fall 2021 Supervisory Highlights, which details its supervisory and enforcement actions in the areas of credit card account management, debt collection, deposits, fair lending, mortgage servicing, payday lending, prepaid accounts, and remittance transfers. The report’s findings cover examinations that were completed between January and June of 2021 in addition to prior supervisory findings that led to public enforcement actions in the first half of 2021. Highlights of the examination findings include:
- Credit Card Account Management. Bureau examiners identified violations of Regulation Z related to billing error resolution, including instances where creditors failed to (i) resolve disputes within two complete billing cycles after receiving a billing error notice; (ii) reimburse late fees after determining a missed payment was not credited to a consumer’s account; and (iii) conduct reasonable investigations into billing error notices concerning missed payments and unauthorized transactions. Examiners also identified deceptive acts or practices related to credit card issuers’ advertising practices.
- Debt Collection. The Bureau found instances of FDCPA violations where debt collectors represented to consumers that their creditworthiness would improve upon final payment under a repayment plan and the deletion of the tradeline. Because credit worthiness is impacted by numerous factors, examiners found “that such representations could lead the least sophisticated consumer to conclude that deleting derogatory information would result in improved creditworthiness, thereby creating the risk of a false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect a debt in violation of Section 807(10).”
- Deposits. The Bureau discussed violations related to Regulation E, including error resolution violations related to misdirected payment transfers and failure to investigate error notices where consumers alleged funds were sent via a person-to-person payment network but the intended recipient did not receive the funds.
- Fair Lending. The report noted instances where examiners cited violations of ECOA and Regulation B by lenders "discriminating against African American and female borrowers in the granting of pricing exceptions based upon competitive offers from other institutions,” which led to observed pricing disparities, specifically as compared to similarly situated non-Hispanic white and male borrowers. Among other things, examiners also observed that lenders’ policies and procedures contributed to pricing discrimination, and that lenders improperly inquired about small business applicants’ religion and considered religion in the credit decision process.
- Mortgage Servicing. The Bureau noted that it is prioritizing mortgage servicing supervision attributed to the increase in borrowers needing loss mitigation assistance due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Examiners found violations of Regulations Z and X, as well as unfair and deceptive acts and practices. Unfair acts or practices included those related to (i) charging delinquency-related fees to borrowers in CARES Act forbearances; (ii) failing to terminate preauthorized EFTs; and (iii) assessing fees for services exceeding the actual cost of the performed services. Deceptive acts or practices found by examiners related to mortgage servicers included incorrectly disclosed transaction and payment information in a borrower’s online mortgage loan account. Mortgage servicers also allegedly failed to evaluate complete loss mitigation applications within 30 days, incorrectly handled partial payments, and failed to automatically terminate PMI in a timely manner. The Bureau noted in its press release that it is “actively working to support an inclusive and equitable economic recovery, which means ensuring all mortgage servicers meet their homeowner protection obligations under applicable consumer protection laws,” and will continue to work with the Federal Reserve Board, FDIC, NCUA, OCC, and state financial regulators to address any compliance failures (covered by InfoBytes here).
- Payday Lending. The report identified unfair and deceptive acts or practices related to payday lenders erroneously debiting consumers’ loan balances after a consumer applied and received confirmation for a loan extension, misrepresenting that consumers would only pay extension fees on the original due dates of their loans, and failing to honor loan extensions. Examiners also found instances where lenders debited or attempted one or more duplicate unauthorized debits from a consumer’s bank account. Lenders also violated Regulation E by failing “to retain, for a period of not less than two years, evidence of compliance with the requirements imposed by EFTA.”
- Prepaid Accounts. Bureau examiners found violations of Regulation E and EFTA related to stop-payment waivers at financial institutions, which, among other things, failed to honor stop-payment requests received at least three business days before the scheduled date of the transfer. Examiners also observed instances where service providers improperly required consumers to contact the merchant before processing a stop-payment request or failed to process stop-payment requests due to system limitations even if a consumer had contacted the merchant. The report cited additional findings where financial institutions failed to properly conduct error investigations.
- Remittance Transfers. Bureau examiners identified violations of Regulation E related to the Remittance Rule, in which providers “received notices of errors alleging that remitted funds had not been made available to the designated recipient by the disclosed date of availability” and then failed to “investigate whether a deduction imposed by a foreign recipient bank constituted a fee that the institutions were required to refund to the sender, and subsequently did not refund that fee to the sender.”
The report also highlights recent supervisory program developments and enforcement actions.