InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
11th Circuit affirms FCRA suit dismissal
On December 23, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a lower court’s dismissal of an FCRA case where a furnisher (defendant) allegedly failed to conduct a reasonable investigation in response to materials that the plaintiff had sent to two credit reporting agencies (CRAs), which was then forwarded to the furnisher. According to the opinion, the plaintiff had submitted a letter to each CRA requesting they remove a dispute notation on her credit report with respect to her account with the furnisher because the account in question was no longer being disputed. The CRAs forwarded the plaintiff’s request to the furnisher, who then investigated and notified the CRAs that the account was still being disputed. The plaintiff did not otherwise directly tell the furnisher that she no longer disputed the tradeline. After discovering that the account was still reported as disputed, the plaintiff filed suit under the FCRA against the furnisher for failing to investigate the dispute and failing to direct the CRAs to remove the notation of account in dispute. The district court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss for the plaintiff’s failure to state a claim.
On appeal, the 11th Circuit found that the letter sent by the plaintiff to the CRAs failed “to make anything clear” to the furnisher. The appellate court explained that the plaintiff “could have written a better letter: one that made clear that she was attempting to revoke her dispute for the first time or, better yet, one addressed to the bank itself. But that is not the letter on which she premised her lawsuit.” The appellate court also noted that, although the furnisher could have contacted the plaintiff directly, the FCRA does not require the furnisher to do so. In effect, “[w]hat [the plaintiff] wants [the bank] to do — either (1) to intuit that she no longer disputed the tradeline from her report to the CRAs or (2) to reach out to her directly to clarify and confirm that she no longer wished to dispute the tradeline — goes beyond what FCRA reasonableness requires,” the appellate court explained in its ruling. The appellate court therefore found that it was reasonable for the furnisher to review its official records, which indicated that the tradeline was still in dispute, and retain the dispute notation on the plaintiff’s credit report.
7th Circuit: Collector did not violate FCRA by obtaining a “propensity-to-pay score”
On December 22, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of a defendant debt collector in an FCRA action alleging a plaintiff’s credit information was acquired without a permissible purpose. The plaintiff and her husband jointly filed for bankruptcy protection. The bankruptcy court ordered a discharge of their debts, which included a debt incurred by the plaintiff’s husband that was being serviced by the defendant. The defendant was notified of the discharge (which included each of the four former last names used by the plaintiff) and scanned its system for affected accounts; however, by the time it received notice of the bankruptcy, it had already closed the account it had been servicing. Later, another account bearing one of the plaintiff’s former names was placed with the defendant. The defendant sent the account to a third-party vendor to see if the individual had filed for bankruptcy protection and did not received any bankruptcy results. It then ordered a “propensity-to-pay-score” from a credit reporting agency. The plaintiff’s records were eventually updated by the third-party vendor with information about the bankruptcy, and the defendant closed the account. However, the plaintiff noted the soft inquiry on her credit report and sued, alleging the defendant did not have a permissible purpose to make such an inquiry. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendant.
On appeal, the 7th Circuit determined that the plaintiff had suffered a concrete injury, concluding that an “unauthorized inquiry into a consumer’s propensity‐to‐pay score is analogous to the unlawful inspection of one’s mail, wallet, or bank account.” However, after reviewing the merits of the case, the appellate court held that an alleged invasion of privacy was not enough for it to overturn the district court’s ruling. There was no negligent violation of the FCRA “because no reasonable juror could conclude that the inquiry into [the plaintiff’s] propensity‐to‐pay score resulted in actual damages,” the appellate court wrote. Additionally, while the 7th Circuit acknowledged that the plaintiff’s debt was discharged by the time the defendant obtained her propensity-to-pay score, there was no willful violation of the FCRA because the defendant “lacked actual knowledge of the bankruptcy” and “did not recklessly disregard the possibility that debt had been discharged.” The appellate court added that the evidence showed that the defendant “had a reasonable basis for relying on its procedures.”
DOJ, FTC ban firm and CEO from negative option marketing
On December 16, the DOJ and the FTC announced that a brokerage firm and its CEO (collectively, “defendants”) must pay $21 million in consumer redress and are permanently banned from engaging in deceptive negative option marketing for allegedly violating, among other things, the FCRA, TSR, and the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA). According to the FTC’s complaint filed by the DOJ, the defendants claimed that the company’s background reports on certain individuals had particular criminal records, even when they did not include such information, to mislead consumers into signing up for auto-renewing, premium subscriptions. The FTC claimed consumers who allegedly searched the firm’s website for an individual’s background report were shown search results that often falsely implied that the subject of the search may have records of criminal or sexual offenses, which could only be viewed by purchasing a subscription from the firm. The complaint alleged that the firm’s misleading statements resulted in some consumers believing that they, or other individuals, had arrest or criminal records. The complaint further alleged that the firm operated as a consumer reporting agency and violated the FCRA by, among other things, failing to maintain verifiable, reasonable procedures on how its reports would be utilized to ensure the information was accurate and to ensure that the information it sold would be used for legal purposes. Additionally, the defendants allegedly violated the TSR by misrepresenting its refund and cancellation policies. The complaint also alleged that the defendants’ misleading billing practices violated ROSCA by, among other things, failing to clearly disclose upfront charges.
Under the terms of the settlement, the defendants agreed to separate judgments, which total approximately $33.9 million. The settlement also banned the defendants from engaging in deceptive negative option marketing. The CEO is ordered to pay a total of $5 million, and the firm is ordered to pay a partially suspended judgment of $16 million due to the company’s inability to pay the full amount. Together, the money will be used to provide refunds to consumers. The firm is required to pay the full remaining amount of the judgment if the company is found to have misrepresented its finances and must implement a monitoring program to ensure the company is complying with the FCRA.
CFPB sets 2022 FCRA asset threshold
On November 29, the CFPB announced the annual adjustment to the maximum amount that consumer reporting agencies are permitted to charge consumers for making a file disclosure to a consumer under the FCRA. According to the rule, the ceiling on allowable charges under Section 612(f) of the FCRA will increase to $13.50, which is a $0.50 increase from the ceiling on allowable charges for 2021. The rule is effective on January 1, 2022.
District Court grants defendant’s motion in FCRA, FDCPA case
On November 10, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York granted a defendant debt agency’s motion for judgment resolving FCRA and FDCPA allegations. A father allegedly co-signed an apartment lease for his daughter (collectively, “plaintiffs”), which included a provision that allowed the plaintiffs to terminate the lease if another individual took over the lease. The plaintiffs allegedly did not move in but identified two replacement tenants to take over the lease. The owner of the apartment allegedly signed separate leases with the identified replacement tenants and “thwarted [plaintiffs’] efforts to have someone take over [the] [l]ease.” The owner placed the debt with the defendant for collection, who reported the debt to three credit reporting agencies. The plaintiffs disputed the debt, but the defendant confirmed the accuracy of the information. The plaintiffs sued, alleging the defendant violated the FCRA for not conducting a proper investigation of the dispute, and the FDCPA for attempting to collect the allegedly invalid debt, which allegedly negatively impacted the plaintiffs’ credit scores, their ability to obtain a car loan, and efforts to apply for an apartment.
With respect to the FCRA claim, the district court found that the plaintiffs’ allegation regarding an inaccurate debt “turns on an unresolved legal question, a section 1681s-2(b) claim that a furnisher failed to conduct a reasonable investigation of disputed credit information cannot stand.” Additionally, since the claim was “tethered to a legal dispute,” the district court found that it cannot form the basis of an FCRA claim. With respect to the FDCPA allegations, the district court dismissed the claim finding that the plaintiffs did not adequately state a claim because the plaintiffs’ claim was based on “nothing more than their conclusory and self-serving allegations that they do not owe the [d]ebt.”
CFPB affirms name-only matching practices violate FCRA
On November 4, the CFPB issued an advisory opinion to express its interpretation that credit reporting companies, including tenant and employment screening companies, are in violation of the FCRA if they engage in the practice of matching consumer records solely by name. According to the Bureau, the use of name-only matching procedures (without the use of other personally identifying information such as address, date of birth, or Social Security number) does not assure maximum possible accuracy of consumer information. The Bureau emphasized that there is a heightened risk of mistaken identity from name-only matching among Hispanic, Black, and Asian communities due to less surname diversity among those populations as compared to the White population. “When background screening companies and their algorithms carelessly assign a false identity to applicants for jobs and housing, they are breaking the law,” Director Rohit Chopra stated. “Error-ridden background screening reports may disproportionately impact communities of color, further undermining an equitable recovery.” The advisory opinion affirms consumer reporting companies’ obligation to use reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy, and “does not create a safe harbor to use insufficient matching procedures involving multiple identifiers.” Other practices, such as combining a name with date of birth, could also lead to cases of mistaken identity, the Bureau warned. The Bureau will work closely with the FTC to eliminate illegal conduct in the background screening industry, while the FTC may be able to take actions against unfair or deceptive conduct not covered by the CFPA. The Bureau further emphasized that violating the FCRA can lead to civil penalties, restitution, damages, and other relief.
Chopra issued a statement on the Bureau’s intention to curb false identity matching, pointing out that name-only matching is just one example of an inadequate procedure and that nothing in the advisory opinion “suggests that the responsibility to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy can be met with a thoughtless application of any particular loose matching criteria, even if more than names alone are matched.” He also warned companies they should not try to evade their FCRA responsibilities “by issuing a disclaimer that their report might not be matched to the right person.” Chopra further noted that the Bureau will support the FTC in its work to monitor business models that rely on harvesting and monetizing personal data, as well as big tech companies and lesser-known data brokers that traffic data and consumer reports.
CFPB reaches $850,000 settlement with debt collectors
On October 26, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland entered a stipulated final judgment and order against defendants (a debt collection entity, its subsidiaries, and their owner) in an action alleging FCRA and FDCPA violations. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Bureau filed a complaint against the defendants in 2019 with alleged violations that included, among other things, the defendants’ failure to ensure accurate reporting to consumer-reporting agencies (CRAs), failure to conduct reasonable investigations and review relevant information when handling indirect disputes, and failure to conduct investigations into the accuracy of information after receiving identity theft reports before furnishing such information to CRAs. The Bureau separately alleged that the FCRA violations constitute violations of the CFPA, and that the defendants violated the FDCPA by attempting to collect on debts without a reasonable basis to believe that consumers owed those debts.
Under the terms of the order, the defendants—who neither admitted nor denied any of the allegations except as specified in the order—are required to, among other things, (i) update existing policies and procedures to ensure information is accurate before it is furnished to a CRA or before commencing collections on an account; (ii) ensure policies and procedures are designed to address trends in disputes; and (iii) hire an independent consultant, subject to the CFPB Enforcement Director’s non-objection, to conduct a review to ensure management-level oversight and FCRA and FDCPA compliance. The defendants must also submit a compliance plan and pay an $850,000 civil money penalty.
CFPB releases report on consumer credit disputes
On November 2, the CFPB released a report on credit report disputes that outlined the demographic characteristics of disputers and the outcomes for accounts with dispute flags. The report highlighted that consumers in majority Black and Hispanic neighborhoods, as well as younger consumers and those with low credit scores, are far more likely to have disputes on their credit reports. The post—part of a series documenting trends in consumer credit outcomes during the Covid-19 pandemic (the first covered by InfoBytes here)—used data on auto loan, student loan, and credit card accounts opened between 2012 and 2019. Among other things, the report found that majority Black and Hispanic neighborhoods continue to face significant challenges with credit records; for example, in almost every credit category outlined in the report, consumers residing in majority Black areas were more than twice as likely to have disputes on their credit reports compared to consumers residing in majority white areas. For auto loans, consumers in majority Black areas were more than three times as likely to have disputes appear on their credit reports compared to majority white areas. The report also noted that approximately 40 percent of student loans with dispute flags are deleted within four years of the dispute, although this represents less than 0.2 percent of all student loans opened between 2012 and 2019.
According to Director Rohit Chopra, “[e]rror-ridden credit reports are far too prevalent and may be undermining an equitable recovery.” The report noted that “an important subject for future research is whether these patterns are driven by differences across groups and credit types in the type or frequency of the underlying issues that result in a dispute flag, or whether they are driven by furnishers’ practices for reporting dispute flags or responding to disputes.” Additionally, the Bureau said in its press release that it “is committed to further researching the root causes of credit information disputes, as well as investigating the reasons for the demographic disparities found in the report.” As previously covered by InfoBytes, the CFPB, along with the FTC and the North Carolina Department of Justice, filed an amicus brief in support of the consumer plaintiffs in Henderson v. The Source for Public Data, L.P., arguing that a public records website, its founder, and two affiliated entities cannot use Section 230 liability protections to shield themselves from credit reporting violations.
CFPB, FTC, and North Carolina argue public records website does not qualify for Section 230 immunity
On October 14, the CFPB, FTC, and the North Carolina Department of Justice filed an amicus brief in support of the consumer plaintiffs in Henderson v. The Source for Public Data, L.P., arguing that a public records website, its founder, and two affiliated entities (collectively, “defendants”) cannot use Section 230 liability protections to shield themselves from credit reporting violations. The case is currently on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit after a district court determined that the immunity afforded by Section 230 of the Communication and Decency Act applied to the FCRA and that the defendants qualified for such immunity and could not be held liable for allegedly disseminating inaccurate information and failing to comply with the law’s disclosure requirements.
The plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that because the defendants’ website collects, sorts, summarizes, and assembles public record information into reports that are available for third parties to purchase, it qualifies as a consumer reporting agency under the FCRA. According to the amicus brief, the plaintiffs’ claims do not seek to hold the defendants liable on the basis of the inaccurate data but rather rest on the defendants’ alleged “failure to follow the process-oriented requirements that the FCRA imposes on consumer reporting agencies.” According to plaintiffs, the defendants, among other things, (i) failed to adopt procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy when preparing reports; (ii) refused to provide plaintiffs with copies of their reports upon request; (iii) failed to obtain required certifications from its customers; and (iv) failed to inform plaintiffs they were furnishing criminal information about them for background purposes. The defendants argued that they qualified for Section 230 immunity. The 4th Circuit is now reviewing whether a consumer lawsuit alleging FCRA violations seeking to hold a defendant liable as the publisher or speaker of information provided by a third party is preempted by Section 230.
In their amicus brief, the CFPB, FTC, and North Carolina urged the 4th Circuit to overturn the district court ruling, contending that the court misconstrued Section 230—which they assert is unrelated to the FCRA—by applying its immunity provision to “claims that do not seek to treat the defendant as the publisher or speaker of any third-party information.” According to the brief, liability turns on the defendants’ alleged failure to comply with FCRA obligations to use reasonable procedures when reports are prepared, to provide consumers with a copy of their files, and to obtain certifications and notify consumers when reports are furnished for employment purposes. “As the consumer reporting system evolves with the emergence of new technologies and business practices, FCRA enforcement remains a top priority for the commission, the Bureau, and the North Carolina Attorney General,” the brief stated. “The agencies’ efforts would be significantly hindered, however, if the district court’s decision [] is allowed to stand.”
Newly sworn-in CFPB Director Rohit Chopra and FTC Chair Lina M. Khan issued a joint statement saying “[t]his case highlights a dangerous argument that could be used by market participants to sidestep laws expressly designed to cover them. Across the economy such a perspective would lead to a cascade of harmful consequences.” They further stressed that “[a]s tech companies expand into a range of markets, they will need to follow the same laws that apply to other market participants,” adding that the agencies “will be closely scrutinizing tech companies’ efforts to use Section 230 to sidestep applicable laws. . . .”
District Court orders student loan debt-relief defendant to pay $20 million
On September 23, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California entered a judgment in favor of the CFPB against an individual defendant in an action taken by the Bureau against a lender and several related individuals and companies (collectively, “defendants”) for alleged violations of the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA), Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR), and Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). As previously covered by InfoBytes, the CFPB filed a complaint in 2020 claiming the defendants violated the FCRA by, among other things, illegally obtaining consumer reports from a credit reporting agency for millions of consumers with student loans by representing that the reports would be used to “make firm offers of credit for mortgage loans” and to market mortgage products. However, the Bureau alleged that the defendants instead resold or provided the reports to numerous companies, including companies engaged in marketing student loan debt relief services. The defendants also allegedly violated the TSR by charging and collecting advance fees for their debt relief services, and violated both the TSR and CFPA by placing telemarketing sales calls and sending direct mail to encourage consumers to consolidate their loans, while falsely representing that consolidation could lower student loan interest rates, improve borrowers’ credit scores, and allow borrowers to change their servicer to the Department of Education. Settlements have already been reached with certain defendants (covered by InfoBytes here, here, and here).
In August the court granted the Bureau’s motion for summary judgment against the individual defendant after determining that undisputed evidence showed that the individual defendant, among other things, “obtained and later used prescreened lists from [a consumer reporting agency] without a permissible purpose” in order to send direct mail solicitations from the businesses that he controlled to consumers on the lists as opposed to firm offers of credit or insurance. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) At the time, the court found that injunctive relief, restitution, and a civil money penalty were appropriate remedies. While the individual defendant objected to the proposed judgment, the court ultimately ordered that the Bureau is entitled to a judgment for monetary relief of over $19 million as redress for fees paid by affected consumers. This restitution is owed jointly and severally with the student loan debt relief company defendants in the amounts imposed in default judgments entered against each of them (covered by InfoBytes here). Additionally, the court determined that the individual defendant “recklessly” violated the CFPA, TSR, and FCRA, warranting a $20 million civil money penalty. The individual defendant is also permanently banned from participating in telemarketing activities or from using or obtaining prescreened consumer reports.