InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
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.
FTC fines two companies $6M for inaccurate background reports
The FTC fined two companies that sell consumer background reports through subscriptions for violations of the FTC Act and Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”). In addition to allegedly claiming, without substantiation, to have the most accurate reports available to the public, the complaint says two companies deceptively claimed individuals had criminal or arrest records when the individual did not; deceptively claimed consumers can remove information or flag it as inaccurate, and deceptively failed to disclose that third-party reviews were incentivized and biased.
The companies also furnished consumer reports to subscribers “without reason to believe those subscribers have permissible purposes to obtain such reports.”
The stipulated order requires the companies to pay a civil penalty of $5.8 million, prohibits them from advertising, marketing, promoting, or offering for sale certain reports including arrest records, bankruptcy records, and eviction records until the establish and implement a comprehensive monitoring program, and prohibits them from continuing any of the deceptive practices set forth in the complaint.
USDA urges Supreme Court to overturn FCRA 3rd Circuit ruling
On August 15, the USDA filed a brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit decision to reverse its FCRA lawsuit brought by a plaintiff who alleged that the consumer credit reporting agency reported two loans as past due even though he claimed both were closed with a $0 balance. In August 2022, the 3rd Circuit reversed a district court’s decision to grant a student loan servicer, consumer credit reporting agency, and the USDA’s (defendants) motion to dismiss a case finding that Congress unambiguously waived the government’s sovereign immunity in enacting FCRA (covered by InfoBytes here). The USDA argues that the district court was wrong in its decision, and that the FCRA does not waive the U.S.’s sovereign immunity for claims under 15 U.S.C. 1681n and 1681o because, among other things, (i) a waiver of sovereign immunity requires “unmistakably clear” statutory language; (ii) the FCRA does not create a cause of action that “‘expressly authorizes suits against sovereigns,’ and ‘recognizing immunity’ would ‘negate[]’ that express authorization”; (iii) the FCRA uses “persons” in a way that does not distinguish between sovereign and non-sovereign senses; (iv) “inexplicable incongruencies” with the term “person” within the context of §§ 1681n and 1681o includes a sovereign entity, which would not only expose the federal government but also individual states to potential lawsuits seeking monetary damages; and (v) interpreting the FCRA to permit lawsuits against the U.S. would significantly broaden the scope of liability for federal agencies, creating “overlap” already provided by the Privacy Act.
Chopra announces rulemaking for data brokers
On August 15, CFPB Director Rohit Chopra delivered remarks at the White House Roundtable on the harms of data broker practices. Referencing the prevalence of artificial intelligence in data surveillance, Chopra highlighted a common practice employed by companies: the gathering, leveraging, and sharing of data concerning consumers, including individual pieces of data or consumer profiles, without consumers’ awareness with third parties that employ AI to formulate forecasts and decisions. These detailed data sets can also easily be exploited by bad actors, Chopra warned. Chopra announced that after conducting an inquiry into data broker practices, the Bureau will endeavor to make rules regulating data broker surveillance to ensure sensitive data is not misused and on par with FCRA requirements.
Two proposals are being considered: the first proposal would define the term “consumer reporting agency” to include a data broker that sells certain types of consumer data, thereby triggering requirements to ensure accuracy and to govern disputes concerning the reporting of inaccurate information. The second proposal will address existing confusion by clarifying the existing confusion concerning “the extent to which credit header data constitutes a consumer report, [and] reducing the ability of credit reporting companies to impermissibly disclose sensitive contact information that can be used to identify people who don’t wish to be contacted, such as domestic violence survivors.” The rulemaking will also complement efforts put forth by the FTC.
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.
CFPB alleges UDAAP violations by “lease-to-own” financer
On July 19, the CFPB announced it is suing a lease-to-own finance company that provides services that allows consumers, typically with limited access to traditional forms of credit for their financing, to finance merchandise or services over a 12-month period. According to the complaint, the Bureau claims that once a consumer falls behind on payments, the company’s purchase agreement essentially “lock[s] [consumers] into the 12-month schedule—even if they want to return or surrender their financed merchandise.” The alleged violations include:
- Misleading consumers. The company is accused of designing and implementing its financing program in a way that misleads consumers by using print advertisements featuring the phrase “100 Day Cash Payoff” without including details of the purchase agreement financing. The company is accused of misrepresenting that consumers could not terminate their agreement, that consumers could not return their merchandise, and that the “best” or “only” option for consumers who no longer want to finance their merchandise is to enter a “buy-back” agreement. The Bureau alleges that such conduct, among other things, violated the CFPA's prohibition on deceptive and abusive acts and practices.
- Unlawful conditioning of credit extension. The company is accused of violating the EFTA and its implementing Regulation E by allegedly improperly requiring consumers to repay credit through preauthorized automated clearing house debits.
- Failing to establish reasonable policies concerning consumer information. The Bureau alleges that the company violated the FCRA and its implementing Regulation V by not having adequate written policies and procedures to ensure the accuracy and integrity of consumer information that it furnished, considering the company’s “size, complexity, and scope.”
The Bureau seeks, among other things, injunctions to prevent future violations, rescission or reformation of the company's financing agreements, redress to consumers, and civil money penalties.
7th Circuit affirms dismissal of FCRA claims against subservicer
On July 5, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of a defendant data furnisher in an FCRA case, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant provided “patently incorrect or materially misleading information” to a credit reporting agency (CRA). Defendant was the subservicer for plaintiff’s mortgage and was responsible for accepting and tracking payments and providing payment data to the CRAs. After plaintiff failed to make her monthly payments, she resolved the delinquency through a short sale of her home. Several years later, plaintiff noticed that the closed mortgage account appeared on her credit reports as delinquent. She disputed the information to several CRAs. To confirm the accuracy of its records on plaintiff’s mortgage, one of the CRAs sent the defendant data furnisher four automated consumer dispute verification (ACDV) forms. In the ACDV responses, the defendant amended or verified several contested data points, including the pay rate and account history. The CRA reported this amended data to indicate on plaintiff’s credit report that she was currently delinquent on the mortgage with missed payments in the months following the short sale. After plaintiff applied for and was denied a new mortgage based on the credit report, plaintiff sued the defendant data furnisher for alleged violations of the FCRA, alleging that the defendant failed to conduct a reasonable investigation of the disputed data and provided false and misleading information to CRAs. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, finding that plaintiff failed to make a threshold showing that the defendant’s data was incomplete or inaccurate.
On appeal, the 7th Circuit disagreed with plaintiff that “completeness or accuracy” under the FCRA “must be judged based, not on the ACDV response the data furnisher provided, but on the credit report generated from it.” The court reasoned that the text of the statute “says nothing about a credit report, let alone a duty of a data furnisher with respect to credit reports produced using its amended data. To the contrary, the statute sets out the data furnisher’s duties to investigate disputes, correct incomplete or inaccurate information, and report results from an investigation” to the CRA. Holding that “context can play a large role in determining completeness or accuracy” in this situation, the appellate court agreed with the district court that the data provided by the defendant to the CRA was “not materially misleading” and that “no reasonable jury could find” that the data meant that plaintiff was currently delinquent on her debt, particularly because of strong “contextual evidence”—specifically, that the disputed data appeared directly beside a status code showing that the account was closed. The appeals court affirmed summary judgment for the data furnisher.
Split 9th Circuit: Nevada’s medical debt collection law is not preempted
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently issued a split decision upholding a Nevada medical debt collection law after concluding the statute was neither preempted by the FDCPA or the FCRA, nor a violation of the First Amendment. SB 248 took effect July 1, 2021, in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic, and requires debt collection agencies to provide written notification to consumers 60 days “before taking any action to collect a medical debt.” Debt collection agencies are also barred from taking any action to collect a medical debt during the 60-day period, including reporting a debt to a consumer reporting agency.
Plaintiffs, a group of debt collectors, sued the Commissioner of the Financial Institutions Division of Nevada’s Department of Business and Industry after the bill was enacted, seeking a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. In addition to claiming alleged preemption by the FDCPA and the FCRA, plaintiffs maintained that SB 248 is unconstitutionally vague and violates the First Amendment. The district court denied the motion, ruling that none of the arguments were likely to succeed on the merits.
In agreeing with the district court’s decision, the majority concluded that SB 248 is not unconstitutionally vague with respect to the term “before taking any action to collect a medical debt” and that any questions about what constitute actions to collect a medical debt were addressed by the statute’s implementing regulations. With respect to whether SB 248 violates the First Amendment, the majority held that debt collection communications are commercial speech and thus not subject to strict scrutiny. As to questions of preemption, the majority determined that SB 248 is not preempted by either the FDCPA or the FCRA. The majority explained that furnishers’ reporting obligations under the FCRA do not include a deadline for when furnishers must report a debt to a CRA and that the 60-day notice is not an attempt to collect a debt and therefore does not trigger the “mini-Miranda warning” required in a debt collector’s initial communication stating that “the debt collector is attempting to collect a debt.”
The third judge disagreed, arguing, among other things, that the majority’s “position requires setting aside common sense” in believing that the FDCPA does not preempt SB 248 because the 60-day notice is not an action in connection with the collection of a debt. “The only reason that a debt collector sends a Section 7 Notice is so that he can later start collecting a debt,” the dissenting judge wrote. “It is impossible to imagine a situation where a debt collector would send such a notice except in pursuit of his goal of ultimately obtaining payment for (i.e., collecting) the debt.” The dissenting judge further argued that by delaying the reporting of unpaid debts, SB 248 conflicts with the FCRA’s intention of ensuring credit information is accurately reported.
CFPB looking at privacy implications of worker surveillance
On June 20, the CFPB released a statement announcing it will be “embarking on an inquiry into the data broker industry and issues raised by new technological developments.” The Bureau requested information in March about entities that purchase information from data brokers, the negative impacts of data broker practices, and the issues consumers face when they wish to see or correct their personal information. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) The findings from this inquiry will help the Bureau understand how employees’ personal information can find its way into the data broker market.
With similar intentions, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) released a request for information (RFI) to learn more about the automated tools employers use to monitor, screen, surveil, and manage their employees. The OSTP blog post cited to an increase in the use of technologies that handle employees’ sensitive information and data. The OSTP also highlighted the Biden administration’s Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights (covered by InfoBytes here), which underscored the importance of building in protections when developing new technologies and understanding associated risks. Responses to the RFI will be used to “inform new policy responses, share relevant research, data, and findings with the public, and amplify best practices among employers, worker organizations, technology vendors, developers, and others in civil society,” the OSTP said.
The CFPB’s response to the RFI described the agency’s concerns regarding risks to employees’ privacy, noting that it has long received complaints from the public about the lack of transparency and inaccuracies in the employment screening industry. Specifically mentioned are FCRA protections for consumers and guidelines around the sale of personal data. The Bureau also commented that employees may not be at liberty to determine how their information is used, or sold, and have no opportunity for recourse when inaccurately reported information affects their earnings, access to credit, ability to rent a home or buy a car, and more.
CFPB releases regulatory agenda
The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs recently released the CFPB’s spring 2023 regulatory agenda. Key rulemaking initiatives that the agency expects to initiate or continue include:
- Overdraft fees. The Bureau is considering whether to engage in pre-rulemaking activity in November to amend Regulation Z with respect to special rules for determining whether overdraft fees are considered finance charges.
- FCRA rulemaking. The Bureau is considering whether to engage in pre-rulemaking activity in November to amend Regulation V, which implements the FCRA. In January, the Bureau issued its annual report covering information gathered by the Bureau regarding certain consumer complaints on the three largest nationwide consumer reporting agencies (CRAs). CFPB Director Rohit Chopra noted that the Bureau “will be exploring new rules to ensure that [the CRAs] are following the law, rather than cutting corners to fuel their profit model.” (Covered by InfoBytes here.)
- Insufficient funds fees. The Bureau is considering whether to engage in pre-rulemaking activity in November regarding non-sufficient fund (NSF) fees. The Bureau commented that while NSF fees have been a significant source of fee revenue for depository institutions, recently some institutions have voluntarily stopped charging such fees.
- Amendments to FIRREA concerning automated valuation models. On June 1, the Bureau issued a joint notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with the Federal Reserve Board, OCC, FDIC, NCUA, and FHFA to develop regulations to implement quality control standards mandated by the Dodd-Frank Act concerning automated valuation models used by mortgage originators and secondary market issuers. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) Previously, the Bureau released a Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) outline and report in February and May 2022 respectively. (Covered by InfoBytes here.)
- Section 1033 rulemaking. Section 1033 of Dodd-Frank provides that covered entities, such as banks, must make available to consumers, upon request, transaction data and other information concerning consumer financial products or services that the consumer obtains from the covered entity. Over the past several years, the Bureau has engaged in a series of rulemaking steps to prescribe standards for this requirement, including the release of a 71-page outline of proposals and alternatives in advance of convening a panel under the SBREFA and the issuance of a final report examining the impact of the Bureau’s proposals to address consumers’ personal financial data rights. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) Proposed rulemaking may be issued in October.
- Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) financing. The Bureau issued an NPRM last month to extend TILA’s ability-to-repay requirements to PACE transactions. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) The proposed effective date is at least one year after the final rule is published in the Federal Register (“but no earlier than the October 1 which follows by at least six months Federal Register publication”), with the possibility of a further extension to ensure compliance with a TILA timing requirement.
- Supervision of Larger Participants in Consumer Payment Markets. The Bureau is considering whether to engage in pre-rulemaking activity next month to define larger participants in consumer payment markets and further the scope of the agency’s nonbank supervision program.
- Nonbank registration. The Bureau announced its intention to identify repeat financial law offenders by establishing a database of enforcement actions taken against certain nonbank covered entities. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) The Bureau anticipates issuing a final rule later this year.
- Terms and conditions registry for supervised nonbanks. At the beginning of the year, the Bureau issued an NPRM that would create a public registry of terms and conditions used in non-negotiable, “take it or leave it” nonbank form contracts that “claim to waive or limit consumer rights and protections.” Under the proposal, supervised nonbank companies would be required to report annually to the Bureau on their use of standard-form contract terms that “seek to waive consumer rights or other legal protections or limit the ability of consumers to enforce or exercise their rights” and would appear in a publicly accessible registry. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) The Bureau anticipates issuing a final rule later this year.
- Credit card penalty fees. The Bureau issued an NPRM in February to solicit public feedback on proposed changes to credit card late fees and late payments and card issuers’ revenue and expenses. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) Under the CARD Act rules inherited by the Bureau from the Fed, credit card late fees must be “reasonable and proportional” to the costs incurred by the issuer as a result of a late payment. A final rule may be issued later this year.
- LIBOR transition. In April, the Bureau issued an interim final rule, amending Regulation Z, which implements TILA, to update various provisions related to the LIBOR transition. Effective May 15, the interim final rule further addresses LIBOR’s sunset on June 30, by incorporating references to the SOFR-based replacement—the Fed-selected benchmark replacement for the 12-month LIBOR index—into Regulation Z. (Covered by InfoBytes here.)