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.
This week the CFPB released its second Monthly Complaint Report. This month’s focus is credit reporting. Last month was debt collection. What’s interesting is the significant difference from a supervisory/enforcement standpoint between these two markets.
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.
Using historical industry data, Kaulkin Ginsberg projects the total revenue and bad debt levels for the health insurance market through 2019.
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.
The New York Times reported yesterday that Promontory Financial Group has agreed to a settlement with the New York DFS. The firm will pay a $15M penalty and will abstain from certain consulting projects in New York for six months.
Unfortunately, you have completely missed the mark. In your desire to end “robo-calling” you have dramatically injured and hindered many legitimate businesses, including every legitimate company in the ARM industry.
Kaulkin Ginsberg recommends ARM companies focused on the healthcare vertical take a regional approach to their analyses. Most healthcare providers are strongly linked to the communities they serve, and the state-level unemployment rate is one of the best indicators of whether individuals in a certain region are likely to have health insurance. Studying this data allows you to examine the local labor force, providing insight into the types of consumers you’ll be working with and their propensity to pay.
“This order is forcing the dialer companies to come up with solutions that they should have come up with years ago. So here again, I think this order has given us some clarity and it has forced the hand of the dialer companies to come up with solutions.” — John Rossman, Moss & Barnett