The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama recently issued a decision in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) case highlighting the importance of clear and unambiguous communication in debt collection practices and the need for debt collectors to have robust procedures in place to handle disputes.
On June 11, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) released a proposed rule amending Regulation V, which implements the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), concerning medical debt. The proposed rule would remove a regulatory exception that currently allows creditors to obtain and use information on medical debts for credit eligibility determinations. Additionally, the proposed rule would generally prohibit consumer reporting agencies (CRAs) from furnishing consumer reports containing medical debt information to creditors. Comments on the proposed rule are being accepted until August 12, 2024. The Bureau aims to finalize the rule by early 2025.
On June 3, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) issued its final rule requiring covered nonbanks to register enforcement orders, and it is a doozy. Not only will covered nonbanks be required to register public orders issued by agencies and courts with the CFPB, but they will have to go back to 2017. And not only will the CFPB publish the orders, but a large subgroup will have to certify on a yearly basis their full compliance with the orders or make a self-disclosure to the CFPB of any compliance failures. This rule has obvious major consequences for any covered person caught in its web, making the exact ambit of the rule crucial. Given the final rule clocks in at a whopping 486 pages, this post will attempt to provide a roadmap through the rule, focusing on what is required and who is covered.
According to a recent report by WebRecon, court filings under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) were all up for the month of April. Only court filings under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) were slightly down. Still, year-to-date everything is up by double digits compared to 2023.
On May 16, the Illinois legislature passed Senate Bill (SB) 2933. The bill amends the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act making it unlawful for a consumer reporting agency (CRA) to create a consumer report containing any adverse information that the CRA knows or should know relates to medical debt incurred by the consumer or a collection action against the consumer to collect medical debt. The bill would also make it unlawful for a CRA to maintain a file on any consumer containing information relating to medical debt. The bill is currently awaiting Governor Pritzker’s signature.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed a district court’s decision holding that the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) preempted the plaintiff’s state law defamation claim based on information furnished to a consumer reporting agency (CRA).
Last week, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) filed a complaint against SoLo Funds, Inc., a fintech company operating a small-dollar, short-term lending platform. The CFPB alleges that SoLo Funds engaged in deceptive practices related to the total cost of loans, servicing, and collection of void and uncollectible loans in violation of the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA) and engaged in providing consumer reports governed by the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) but failed to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of those consumer reports.
In Holden v. Holiday Inn Club Vacations Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently upheld a consolidated district court ruling granting summary judgment for the defendant furnisher in two Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) actions centering on whether the consumers’ disputes with the furnisher were actionable. While the Eleventh Circuit declined to impose a bright-line rule that only FCRA claims based on factual disputes are actionable, it affirmed the district courts’ summary judgment ruling, finding that for consumer disputes to be actionable against furnishers, the alleged inaccuracy must be “objectively and readily verifiable.”
In Soliman v. Subway Franchisee Advertising Fund Trust, Ltd, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by sending a text message to her cell phone using an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) and which utilized an “artificial or prerecorded voice.” The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision to dismiss the case because the TCPA did not apply.
On May 2, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) released two sets of guidance addressing the applicability of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) to two areas where, in the agency’s view, algorithmic processes and artificial intelligence (AI) pose particular concerns: tenant screening and advertising of housing opportunities through online platforms that use targeted ads. The purpose of HUD’s guidance is to make housing providers, tenant screening companies, advertisers, and online platforms aware that the FHA applies to tenant screening and housing advertising, including when algorithms and AI are used to perform those functions.