Illinois Public Act No. 227 was quietly signed into law earlier this month, containing several substantive updates to the Illinois Collection Agency Act (ICAA). It is important to note that there is no implementation period on these changes; they took effect upon signing of the law on August 3, 2015.
Earlier this week, Reilly Dolan, Associate Director, Division of Financial Practices at the Federal Trade Commission posted a blog about the debt buying industry and its efforts to self-regulate. Click here to read the full text of the piece, which offers insight into the regulator’s expectations. Also of interest is the link to the 75 bad apples recently banned from the debt collection business.
If an entity acquires a debt in default and tries to collect on it, does that automatically make it a “debt collector” under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act? Several courts, including the Third, Seventh, and Sixth Circuit Courts of Appeals, all said yes it does. In a surprise ruling earlier this week, however, the […]
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently held, in a matter of first impression among all of the Courts of Appeals, that a debt collector bears the burden of proving that a communication with a third party falls within the exception for location information contained in subsection 1692b of the federal FDCPA.
According to a monthly report by Webrecon, FDCPA litigation is up 17.5% YTD over the same period in 2014, with 6,888 cases filed through the end of July compared to 5,862 for the same period last year. FCRA cases also increased YTD compared with last year, by 26.8%. TCPA are still down for the YTD comparison, […]
The CFPB has ordered Springstone Financial to provide $700,000 in relief to victims of deceptive credit enrollment tactics, stating that many consumers who signed up for Springstone’s deferred-interest loan product at dental offices to pay for dental work were led to believe that the product was interest free. In fact, interest accrued from the date of the consumer’s purchase and was charged if the balance was not paid in full before the promotional period ended. Turns out this is a lesson in training, monitoring, and UDAAP violations.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently reversed the dismissal of a consumer’s claim alleging that a mortgage loan servicer violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by sending a servicing transfer notice that did not contain the disclosures required under the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. 1692g.
Last week the CFPB, jointly with the FTC, filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Bock v. Pressler & Pressler, LLP. In the case a U.S. district court previously ruled that a debt collection law firm violated the Fair Debt FDCPA by filing a complaint without “meaningful attorney involvement.”
In a seemingly endless debt collection pre-rulemaking process, John McNamara from the CFPB’s Division of Research Markets & Regulations has circulated a questionnaire with approximately 60 questions to a random sample of debt collection firms and service providers. This is part of the so far nearly two-year debt collection rulemaking process.
At issue is what Congress meant when it defined “consumer” as a “natural person,” but then didn’t take the next step to define what a person, in FDCPA situations, is. With nothing else to guide it, the Sixth Circuit was left with the language of Citizens United, and the ability to name corporations as consumers under the FDCPA.