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 […]
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.”
On Jan. 7, the Expired Debt Act (EDA) was introduced in the Rhode Island House of Representatives and referred to the House Committee on Judiciary. Rhode Island has had its own Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (RIFDCPA) that is, for the most part, identical to its federal counterpart. The EDA, however, introduces new definitions and restrictions related to debt collection.
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida recently dismissed allegations that a debt buyer violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by filing a proof of claim on time-barred debt, holding that such claims are precluded by the Bankruptcy Code, and that the FDCPA does not provide a private right of action against debt collectors who file time-barred proofs of claim in bankruptcy court.
Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey’s Office offered support this week for proposed legislation related to statute of limitations, collection of judgments, and more, that would have a significant effect on creditors and debt collectors.
Plaintiffs in an FDCPA class action suit filed earlier this year against Portfolio Recovery Associates have filed a motion to modify the class. PRA opposed the motion, offering multiple arguments, all of which were all rejected earlier this month.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has been talking about disparate impact for years and the agency’s favorite controversial methodology – finding evidence of discriminatory practices in data and outcomes rather than intent – has been plenty of trouble for bankers. But the collections industry has not had to deal head-on with the CFPB’s methodology. Does that mean collections firms have nothing to worry about?
In response to many inquiries regarding its out-of-statute requirements, the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs (NYC) issued official guidance on July 31, 2015. The requirements have caused confusion because of their apparent conflict with those issued by the New York State Department of Financial Services (NYDFS).
The total number of lawsuits filed by consumers claiming violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) increased substantially in June. The increase was 16% over the same time last year. There was also a double digit increase from the prior month. According to data from Web Recon, Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) cases […]
The Compliance Professionals Forum held local meetings last week for compliance peers in Rochester, NY and Wheaton, IL. The groups shared information and best practices about TCPA, policies and procedures, and their most pressing pain points.