InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
7th Circuit: Court upholds dismissal of FDCPA lawsuit over debt information sharing
On October 23, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a consumer’s putative class action lawsuit alleging that a collection agency violated the FDCPA by sharing the consumer’s debt information with a third-party vendor. The court ruled that the consumer lacked standing because she did not sustain an injury from the sharing of her information.
To collect a defaulted credit-card debt, the defendant collection agency used a third-party vendor to print and mail a collection letter to the consumer. The consumer alleged that the collection agency violated the FDCPA by disclosing to the vendor the consumer’s personal information, and the disclosure was analogous to the tort of invasion of privacy. The appeals court disagreed, reasoning that the sharing of a debtor’s data with a third-party mail vendor to populate and send a form collection letter that caused no cognizable harm, legally speaking. The court also noted that the U.S. Courts of Appeal for the Tenth and Eleventh Circuits have reached similar conclusions. “The transmission of information to a single ministerial intermediary does not remotely resemble the publicity element of the only possibly relevant variant of the privacy tort.”
Court infers receipt of validation notice to allow pro se plaintiffs’ FDCPA claim to survive
On September 19, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted in part and denied in part a complaint filed by two pro se plaintiffs who alleged that the defendant’s debt collection efforts related a balance due from a timeshare membership program violated the FCRA, TILA, and FDCPA. In reaching its decision, the court explained that complaints filed by pro se pleadings must be construed more liberally than those drafted by lawyers. Notwithstanding this more liberal approach, however, the court still determined that plaintiffs’ TILA and FCRA claims were insufficiently pled. With respect to the TILA claim, the court stated that plaintiffs failed to specify which provisions were allegedly violated and only alleged that “Defendant has computed and imposed an internal alleged account balance on plaintiff including principal balance, interest rates, fees and terms without property consumer transparency of mode of accounting verification methods,” which was insufficient to allege a TILA violation. The court noted that to the extent it could interpret plaintiffs’ complaint to implicate specific provisions of the FCRA, plaintiffs still failed to state claim under any of the potentially relevant provisions, either because there was no private right of action or there were no facts supporting any alleged claims.
By contrast, plaintiffs did allege specific provisions of the FDCPA that defendant’s conduct purportedly breached. While the court still concluded that plaintiffs failed to state a claim with regard to most of the cited FDCPA provisions, it determined that plaintiffs had plausibly stated a claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1692g, which, among other things, requires a debt collector to cease debt collection efforts if, within 30 days of receiving a validation notice from the debt collector, a consumer disputes the debt or any portion thereof.
Although the record did not reflect whether the defendant had sent plaintiffs a validation notice, the court, in liberally construing plaintiffs’ complaint, found it reasonable to “infer” that such notice had been provided to the plaintiffs. Specifically, the court reasoned that plaintiffs’ notarized letter to defendant, titled “Validation of Debt / Claim” was likely sent in response to a validation notice from defendant, and therefore, under Section 1692g, all collection activity should have ceased following receipt of plaintiffs’ letter.
9th Circuit affirms summary judgment finding in favor of debt collector in lawsuit over retail card debt collection
On August 28, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the decision of a district court to throw out a pair of consolidated punitive class action lawsuits brought against a nationwide debt collector company that alleged the company unlawfully attempted to collect debts incurred on retail-branded credit cards. A three-judge panel held that the debt collector did not “intentionally” violate provisions of the FDCPA when it circulated collection letters that did not disclose the time-barred natures of the debts under Oregon law and rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the district court had erred in granted summary judgment in favor of the company. The 9th Circuit noted that “mistakes about the time-barred status of a debt can be bona fide errors” and that the debt collector company presented evidence indicating that its failure to disclose that certain Oregon debts were time-barred were not intentional. Moreover, the 9th Circuit rejected plaintiff’s claim that a four-year statute of limitations applied to store-branded credit card accounts at the time the collection letters were sent, in part because the debt collector had sound reason to take the position that a six-year statute of limitations applied for an “account stated” under Oregon law. Ultimately, the applicable statute of limitations in this scenario remains “unsettled” under Oregon law. This, along with the fact that the 9th Circuit agreed that the company’s alleged violations were unintentional, resulted in the court’s decision to affirm the summary judgment finding in favor of the debt collector.
District Court denied motion to dismiss CFPA and FDCPA claims against debt buyers
On August 22, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York refused to dismiss CFPA and FDCPA claims brought by the CFPB that alleged violations related to misrepresentations made to debtors by debt collectors. The CFPB’s complaint alleged that defendants purchased defaulted consumer debt and then placed it for collection with, or sold it to, a network of debt collectors who consistently violated consumer protection laws by making false statements to debtors. These false statements included informing consumers that (i) they would be sued for failing to pay the debts; (ii) that their credit score would be impacted by paying or not paying the debt; and (iii) that they could face criminal charges for failing to pay the debt. The complaint additionally alleged that defendants were aware of the allegedly unlawful acts by the debt collectors they used through monitoring of the debt collectors and consumer complaints made to defendants.
The CFPB’s complaint alleged violations against a variety of corporate entities responsible for the alleged debt collection practices, as well as individual executives at those entities. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on several grounds. The defendants argued that they are not “covered persons” under the CFPA, because they do not actually collect debts themselves. The district court held that the defendants were “covered persons” under the CFPA since they were engaged in the collection of consumer debt, writing that it would “strain ordinary understanding to say that a company is not engaged in collecting debt when it purchases defaulted debt, places that debt with other companies for collection, and then receives some of the money recovered by those debt collectors.” Similarly, the defendants argued that they are not “debt collectors” under the FDCPA. The court also rejected this argument, reasoning that defendants’ principal purpose was debt collection making them a “debt collector” for FDCPA purposes, because they purchased portfolios of debts and derived most of their revenue from collecting those debts.
The district court also rejected defendants’ arguments that they could not be held vicariously liable for the conduct of the third-party debt collectors under the CFPA or FDCPA, reasoning that parties can be found vicariously liable for the acts of their agents under both statutes. The court held that because the CFPB’s complaint alleged that the defendants exercised authority over the debt collectors, vicarious liability for the violations by the debt collectors was appropriate.
The district court further held that the complaint adequately alleged violations of the CFPA by the individual defendants. The court held that the individual defendants enabled violations of the CFPA, relying on the fact that the individual defendants had both knowledge of the violations and the ability to control the violations, by either providing instructions to the debt collectors or by refusing to place debts with those collectors. Further, the court held that the individual defendants could be liable for “substantially assisting” violations of the CFPA, because the complaint alleged that the individual defendants recklessly disregarded unlawful behavior by the debt collectors and continued to place or sell debts to those collectors.
Finally, defendants also argued that both the CFPA and the FDCPA claims are time barred by the statute of limitations. The court rejected the defendants’ argument that the CFPB’s FDCPA claims were barred by the FDCPA’s one-year statute of limitations, holding that this provision applies only to private plaintiffs. The court held that FDCPA claims brought by the CFPB are subject to the CPFA’s statute of limitations, which bars claims brought more than three years after the CFPB’s discovery of the violations. The court further rejected the defendants’ argument that the claims were barred by this three-year statute of limitations, holding that it is unclear from the complaint when the CFPB became aware of facts constituting the violation and that the receipt of a consumer complaint by the CFPB will not necessarily constitute the date that the CFPB discovered or should have discovered the facts constituting the violation.
DFPI launches actions against crypto scams, initiates education campaign
On August 9, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) announced that it issued cease and desist orders against three entities (orders here, here, and here) for allegedly offering and selling unqualified securities, and making material misrepresentations and omissions to investor related to cryptocurrency investments. The entities allegedly created high-yield investment programs (HYIPs), which DFPI characterizes as “investment frauds that typically promise high returns with low risk, promise overly consistent returns, provide little details about the people running the HYIP, use vague language to describe how the HYIP makes money, offer referral bonuses, facilitate deposits and withdrawals with crypto assets, and use social media to gain attention and attract investors.”
The cease and desist orders are just one of the tools DFPI employs to address investment scams involving crypto assets, also using enforcement actions, social media, and a Crypto Scam Tracker. DFPI has posted videos to its social media accounts that are directed towards the same group of individuals targeted by the crypto community in order to educate investors about its enforcement actions and violations of law. The Crypto Scam Tracker was launched earlier this year to help Californian’s identify and avoid scams involving cryptocurrency. (Covered by InfoBytes here).
7th Circuit affirms dismissal of FDCPA case
On August 11, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed a lower court’s decision to grant defendants’ motion to dismiss, ruling that the plaintiff lacked standing. Plaintiff defaulted on a credit card debt that was purchased by one of the defendants and hired another defendant to collect said debt. The debt collector defendant sued plaintiff for the outstanding debt along with "statutory attorney fees,” but also appended an affidavit to the complaint asserting that no additional amounts were being pursued beyond the charge-off date, including attorney's fees. Plaintiff sued under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) in federal district court, claiming that the two declarations were in conflict and amounted to false, misleading, and deceptive communications.
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois held that plaintiff did not show concrete harm for Article III standing, adding that plaintiff did not raise an FDCPA claim in the amended complaint regarding the underlying debt, and that plaintiff made conflicting statements. The court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
On appeal, the 7th Circuit affirmed the district court ruling, holding that plaintiff did not demonstrate harm to establish Article III standing, and that the complaint was properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in the district court. In doing so, the 7th Circuit noted that plaintiff’s decision to hire an attorney was insufficient to establish standing and that plaintiff made contradictory statements when he denied owing the debt during discovery, but on appeal contended he would have paid the debt but for defendants’ contradictory statements.
Judge grants MSJ in class action over disputed debt investigation
On July 28, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama granted summary judgment in favor of a defendant third-party debt collector in an FCRA and FDCPA putative class action, holding that the defendant carried out a reasonable investigation following plaintiff’s dispute of the debt it had reported to credit reporting agencies (CRAs) and that the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant knew or should have known that the debt was inaccurate or invalid. Defendant entered into an asset purchase agreement with another third-party debt collector and reported debts to credit reporting agencies under the name of the non-defendant third-party debt collector, including an account erroneously associated with plaintiff. When defendant received notice that plaintiff disputed the erroneous account information, defendant verified the account information in its system and provided by the CRA, asked the creditor to provide account documentation, and then requested that the CRAs delete their reporting of the account once the creditor failed to provide account documentation within the requested thirty-day period.
In relation to the FCRA claim, the court found that the defendant “did everything required by the FCRA in response to Plaintiff’s dispute” such that the plaintiff “failed to establish how this investigation was not reasonable” or in violation of the FCRA. The court also found that plaintiff “failed to show that any different result would have occurred had [defendant] conducted any part of its investigation differently.” Finally, plaintiff’s claim failed as a matter of law concerning defendant’s initial report of the debt to the CRAs because the defendant was not required under the FCRA to “investigate the validity of a debt before commencing to report on that account to the CRAs.” While the defendant was prohibited from reporting inaccurate consumer information, no private cause of action exists for violations of this initial reporting provision of the FCRA.
For the FDCPA claim, the court held that the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant had knowledge that the debt it reported was not accurate or was otherwise disputed or invalid. Because the CFPB passed Regulation F in November 2021, after the events at question in this litigation, furnishing information regarding a debt to a CRA before communication with plaintiff was not unlawful at that time. Finally, the court found that plaintiff failed to timely assert that defendant violated the FDCPA provision prohibiting false, deceptive, or misleading representation by using the non-defendant third-party debt collector’s name when reporting the account to the CRAs because this allegation was not present in plaintiff’s complaint.
Supreme Court of New York: FDCPA does not require collectors to explain how debt is acquired
On July 19, the Supreme Court of the State of New York filed an order granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment, ruling that the FDCPA does not require debt collectors to provide debtors with proof of how they came to acquire the debt from the original creditor. One of the defendants purchased plaintiff’s defaulted credit card debt, which was placed with the second defendant for collection. The second defendant sent plaintiff a collection letter that identified the original creditor, along with the last four digits of the account number and identified the current creditor by name. Plaintiff sued, alleging violations of several sections of the FDCPA, claiming the letter was “false, deceptive, and misleading” because he never entered into a transaction with the current creditor and that the defendants reported the alleged debt to the credit reporting agencies. Plaintiff also maintained that prior to filing the lawsuit, he sought to validate the alleged debt but that neither defendant provided information sufficient to establish the current creditor’s ownership of the debt. Defendants filed for summary judgment seeking dismissal of plaintiff’s claims. In granting the motion, the court held that nothing in the FDCPA requires debt collectors “to educate the debtor ‘with proof, or at least a narrative, as to how it came to acquire the debt from [the] original creditor,’” and that the statute does not require plaintiffs to be notified when their debt is sold.
CFPB issues Summer ’23 supervisory highlights
On July 26, the CFPB released its Summer 2023 issue of Supervisory Highlights, which covers enforcement actions in areas such as auto origination, auto servicing, consumer reporting, debt collection, deposits, fair lending, information technology, mortgage origination, mortgage servicing, payday lending and remittances from June 2022 through March 2023. The Bureau noted significant findings regarding unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts or practices and findings across many consumer financial products, as well as new examinations on nonbanks.
- Auto Origination: The CFPB examined auto finance origination practices of several institutions and found deceptive marketing of auto loans. For example, loan advertisements showcased cars larger and newer than the products for which actual loan offers were available, which misled consumers.
- Auto Servicing: The Bureau’s examiners identified unfair and abusive practices at auto servicers related to charging interest on inflated loan balances resulting from fraudulent inclusion of non-existent options. It also found that servicers collected interest on the artificially inflated amounts without refunding consumers for the excess interest paid. Examiners further reported that auto servicers engaged in unfair and abusive practices by canceling automatic payments without sufficient notice, leading to missed payments and late fee assessments. Additionally, some servicers allegedly engaged in cross-collateralization, requiring consumers to pay other unrelated debts to redeem their repossessed vehicles.
- Consumer Reporting: The Bureau’s examiners found that consumer reporting companies failed to maintain proper procedures to limit furnishing reports to individuals with permissible purposes. They also found that furnishers violated regulations by not reviewing and updating policies, neglecting reasonable investigations of direct disputes, and failing to notify consumers of frivolous disputes or provide accurate address disclosures for consumer notices.
- Debt Collection: The CFPB's examinations of debt collectors (large depository institutions, nonbanks that are larger participants in the consumer debt collection market, and nonbanks that are service providers to certain covered persons) uncovered violations of the FDCPA and CFPA, such as unlawful attempts to collect medical debt and deceptive representations about interest payments.
- Deposits: The CFPB's examinations of financial institutions revealed unfair acts or practices related to the assessment of both nonsufficient funds and line of credit transfer fees on the same transaction. The Bureau reported that this practice resulted in double fees being charged for denied transactions.
- Fair Lending: Recent examinations through the CFPB's fair lending supervision program found violations of ECOA and Regulation B, including pricing discrimination in granting pricing exceptions based on competitive offers and discriminatory lending restrictions related to criminal history and public assistance income.
- Information Technology: Bureau examiners found that certain institutions engaged in unfair acts by lacking adequate information technology security controls, leading to cyberattacks and fraudulent withdrawals from thousands of consumer accounts, causing substantial harm to consumers.
- Mortgage Origination: Examiners found that certain institutions violated Regulation Z by differentiating loan originator compensation based on product types and failing to accurately reflect the terms of the legal obligation on loan disclosures.
- Mortgage Servicing: Examiners identified UDAAP and regulatory violations at mortgage servicers, including violations related to loss mitigation timing, misrepresenting loss mitigation application response times, continuity of contact procedures, Spanish-language acknowledgment notices, and failure to provide critical loss mitigation information. Additionally, some servicers reportedly failed to credit payments sent to prior servicers after a transfer and did not maintain policies to identify missing information after a transfer.
- Payday Lending: The CFPB identified unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts or practices, including unreasonable limitations on collection communications, false collection threats, unauthorized wage deductions, misrepresentations regarding debt payment impact, and failure to comply with the Military Lending Act. The report also highlighted that lenders reportedly failed to retain evidence of compliance with disclosure requirements under Regulation Z. In response, the Bureau directed lenders to cease deceptive practices, revise contract language, and update compliance procedures to ensure regulatory compliance.
- Remittances: The CFPB evaluated both depository and non-depository institutions for compliance with the EFTA and its Regulation E, including the Remittance Rule. Examiners found that some institutions failed to develop written policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the Remittance Rule's error resolution requirements, using inadequate substitutes or policies without proper implementation.
9th Circuit partially reverses FDCPA dismissal
On July 14, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit partially affirmed and partially reversed a district court’s dismissal of an FDCPA suit. The district court reviewed plaintiff’s claims under the FDCPA, which alleged that defendants violated the bankruptcy court’s order discharging his debt and knowingly filed a baseless debt collection lawsuit. The district court determined that the claims should be dismissed because (i) debtors do not have a private right of action for violations of the Bankruptcy Code; and (ii) the claim was time-barred due to the FDCPA’s one-year statute of limitations. On appeal, the 9th Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims based on a violation of his bankruptcy discharge order but reversed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s baseless lawsuit claim, holding that it was not barred by the FDCPA’s statute of limitations.
The 9th Circuit reasoned that the plaintiff “correctly asserts that some litigation acts can constitute independent FDCPA violations and that each such violation triggers its own one-year statute of limitations under the FDCPA.” In making its decision “to determine whether a litigation act constitutes an independent violation of the FDCPA and thus has its own statute of limitations,” the appellate court derived a test, stating: “Under this test, if a debt collector decides to take a certain action during litigation, courts must assess whether that act was the debt collector’s ‘last opportunity to comply’ with the FDCPA.” Because the appellate court determined that service and filing are separate FDCPA violations and plaintiff brought suit within one year of defendants’ state law claim, the 9th Circuit held that plaintiff’s action was timely.