Collection Laws and Regulations Feed Link

Collection Laws and Regulations

Debt collectors are regulated by the FTC on the federal level. At the state level, attorneys general are typically responsible for enforcing state and federal laws. A few local governments also separately regulate debt collectors.

The laws that govern the ARM industry are civil, meaning that liability is almost always monetary. So a state’s attorney general will not file criminal charges against a debt collector accused of violating the law, rather, he/she will sue for damages. Collection laws include federal and state statutes that govern the proper operation of companies and personnel that work in the debt collection industry. The most comprehensive collection law is the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Other federal laws that collectors must follow include the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and the data security requirements of the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLBA).

Opinion on Red Keyboard Button.

Debt Collection Litigation in the Cross Hairs: CFPB’s Consent Order Against New Jersey Law Firm Creates More Problems Than Solutions

Lightning can strike twice. With the ink barely dry on the Consent Order against the Hanna Law Firm (Hanna) in Georgia, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) yesterday took action against another debt collection law firm for the filing of debt collection complaints that the CFPB alleges were unsubstantiated by a lack of […]

one-complaint-unhappy-person

Former CFPB Senior Advisor: Debt Collection Industry Must Press CFPB to Put Complaint Data in Context

Data can be accurate, but without context it could mislead. That was the message former CFPB Senior Advisor Jim McCarthy delivered to industry attendees of last week’s insideARM Larger Market Participant Summit in Washington, D.C. The CFPB cares about data and accuracy, McCarthy noted, but it is not pairing collections complaint data with necessary context […]

speaker, opinion, voice

Pressler and Pressler Offers Response to CFPB Settlement Agreement

PARSIPPANY, N.J. — Pressler and Pressler, a law firm specializing in retail collections, today announced it has entered into a settlement agreement with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). While the CFPB rigorously and thoroughly scrutinized the firm for more than a year and a half, the settlement ultimately involves no consumer redress or restitution, no […]

mortgage

Florida’s Third DCA Reverses Course on Statute of Limitations for Mortgage Foreclosure

This article previously appeared on The Consumer Finance Litigation Blog and is republished here with permission. Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal retreated from one of its most unpopular opinions this morning. The Third DCA surprised many with its original ruling in Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas v. Beauvais¸ 3D14-575 when it split with the Fourth District Court […]

wrong-way

CFPB Targets ARM Industry — Which Practices Should Your Company Avoid?

The CFPB intends for its consent orders to set industry-wide precedents. In March 2016, CFPB Director Richard Cordray referred to consent orders as a guide “to all participants in the marketplace to avoid similar violations and make an immediate effort to correct any such improper practices,” telling the Consumer Bankers Association that any company not following the precedents set by the CFPB’s consent orders is committing “compliance malpractice.”

letters2

Appellate Courts Hold Typical Collection Letters Violate FDCPA

The requirements for what debt collectors are required to provide in “snail mail” notices to consumers arises from a patchwork of Federal, State and local laws — as well as case law that often varies by jurisdiction — and many of the requirements are antiquated, dating back to the 1970s. Unfortunately, these dated and contradictory collection letter requirements continue to result in lawsuits and adverse Court decisions against debt collectors.

consent

Summary Judgment Granted in TCPA Case Against Navient and Affiliate – Awards $360K, Possibly More

An Order granting partial summary judgment in favor of a plaintiff in a TCPA case against Navient and its affiliate, Student Assistance Corporation, was entered on April 6. The summary judgment order translates to an award of over $360,000, with the potential for additional liability once the case proceeds to trial on the issue of whether the defendants should be liable for treble damages under the statute. The case presents several interesting facts and issues.