The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the Attorneys General of North Carolina and Virginia announced legal action against a retailer that caters to members of the U.S. military, and an affiliated lender and debt collection agency, for using illegal collection tactics against their customers.
A federal judge this week sided with a consumer plaintiff in denying a motion to dismiss an FDCPA class action case. The collection agency defendant argued that the debt did not fall under the FDCPA because it was incurred in a transaction required by law. The case also involves a claim concerning disclosure through a clear envelope window, a recent development that is sure to pop up more frequently.
It’s been seven years since the start of the Great Recession, and the impact of this event has been dramatic, long-lasting and widespread. The economy has only recently shown evidence of returning to pre-downturn levels of performance.
More than ever, the need to incorporate Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) is imperative to creating an effective compliance system. Why? Because organizations cannot possibly address every new issue simultaneously without negatively impacting potentially more important matters
Ask any collection agency executive about their top three compliance issues, and “voicemail messages” will most likely be among them. The reason? The FDCPA can present agencies with a real Catch 22. But the Zortman case offers an intriguing workaround with specific language.
Collection organizations and agencies are under intense scrutiny concerning the manner in which they contact consumers, and compliance risks are at an all-time high. There are many different statutes and regulations enforced at the federal and state levels. Additionally, collection organizations often have their own internal governance rules.
Think you’ve seen it all in the ARM industry? Here’s a new one: The Securities and Exchange Commission last week launched legal action against a hedge fund and its owners for defrauding investment customers. Investors allegedly lost millions because the fund was managed by a former debt collector who had no investment experience.
The New York State Department of Financial Services announced recently revised debt collection regulations, culminating more than a year of proposals and comments. While the new regulations provide clarity and consumer protection in some areas, they are fraught with ambiguities and overlap existing laws in several key aspects
A district judge in Wisconsin last month denied a plaintiff’s petition for class certification in a TCPA case concerning debt collection calls. In an epic footnote discussing his reasoning, the judge noted that the FCC has been lacking in clarifying its rules on consent under the TCPA, and that efforts have revealed that the regulator “appears to be allergic to brevity and clarity.”
Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi warned state residents to protect themselves against debt collection scams, particularly when the number appears to be from a legitimate governmental entity, such as the IRS or Attorney General’s Office.