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.”
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.
On April 7, 2016 a Judge for the US District Court, Eastern District of Texas, granted a motion for Summary Judgment against a Dallas-based debt collector, Commercial Recovery Systems, Inc. (CRS), and its owner Timothy L. Ford, in an FTC enforcement action. The behavior that was identified is appalling. If true, how it developed and continued is beyond belief.
The Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies is performing a “sunset review” of Colorado’s Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Colorado General Assembly sets specific dates that a particular agency, board, or, in this case, function of government will terminate unless the legislature passes new legislation to continue. A sunset review will generally question the need for regulation […]
This article previously appeared on The Consumer Financial Services Blog and is re-published here with permission. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently held that the fact that a debt is in default at the time it is purchased by a third party does not necessarily make that third party a “debt collector” subject […]
A federal judge in Michigan has dismissed a proposed class action accusing publicly traded debt buyer Encore Capital Group and its affiliated entities of suing consumers over old debts that were no longer legally enforceable. The Judge ruled that that the case must be decided in arbitration.
Two attorneys — one for collections, one for consumers — talk through urgency channels, convenience fees, and due dates. It’s another example of how language that, on the surface, seems helpful and clarifying for a collection agency, can also be seen as deceptive, by a consumer attorney, to the Least Sophisticated Consumer.
Yesterday the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Pamela Gillie, et al. (Plaintiff), v. Law Office of Eric A. Jones, LLC, et al. (Defendant). This is the first case in ten years regarding the FDCPA to be heard by the highest court, Ohio state officials are looking to overturn a […]
Yesterday, CBE Group obtained a very favorable decision on its Motion for Summary Judgment in a TCPA action concerning its product, Manual Clicker Application (MCA).
The following was posted yesterday afternoon on the Federal Trade Commission business blog. It’s a reminder (warning) to debt collectors about the parameters under which they may engage consumers through text messages or social media. — We get this question a lot: “Is it OK to use text messages or social media to collect debts?” Do you […]