Welcome to the Research Assistant Weekly Newsletter - a subscriber-only resource for insight into emerging compliance challenges, details on peer calls, and links to new Research Assistant reports, documents, tools, and more.
|
Sponsored by TCN
|
During this week’s Research Assistant Peer Call, a member encountered a potential lawsuit due to communication with a consumer after receiving a refusal to pay via email. This timing issue, though common, has gained new significance with the rise of digital communications, necessitating timely updates to systems to avoid potential violations.
In this specific case, the collection agency had already set up an email campaign hours before receiving the refusal to pay. Consequently, the agency sent the email after the refusal was received, albeit within a 24-hour timeframe. Our discussion centered on supporting case law and implementing proactive measures to prevent such issues.
One member referred to Gebhardt v. LJ Ross Assocs., Inc, where a similar scenario involved receiving mailed attorney representation and cease communication notices. The court found that the debt collector had reasonable procedures in place, supporting a bona fide error defense.
To address these timing issues proactively, companies should engage with their communication vendors. Many use multiple vendors connected via APIs, causing delays in system updates. Companies should inquire about shortening update times and consider syncing with their system of record before launching email, text, or call campaigns to ensure compliance with communication restrictions.
Closing the gap between receipt of consumer communication restrictions and system updates reduces the likelihood of timing issues. However, to leverage a bona fide error defense, companies must ensure their policies and procedures include update times and preventative measures to avoid potential FDCPA violations.
Top Reads:
Upcoming Webinars/ Other Announcements:
|