On June 15, the Federal Trade Commission and the Office of the New York State Attorney General hosted a “Debt Collection Dialogue” in Buffalo, New York. FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection Director Jessica Rich and New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman delivered opening remarks, and officials from the New York State Department of Financial
All Entries
District Court Issues Favorable FDCPA Decision Addressing “Materiality” and the “Competent Attorney” Standard for Alleged Misrepresentations
In Simon v. FIA Card Services, N.A., the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey addressed whether the defendants engaged in false, misleading, or deceptive conduct in connection with their service of a subpoena for a Rule 2004 examination in the context of a bankruptcy proceeding. In granting the defendants’ …
New York City “Bans the Box” in Limiting Inquiry into Job Applicants’ Criminal History
On June 10, the New York City Council became the latest governmental body to “ban the box” by prohibiting private employers within the city from inquiring into a job applicant’s criminal history, and instead requiring that criminal background inquiries be deferred until the time of a job offer. In so doing, New York City joins …
CFPB Argues Processors Facilitated Debt Collection Fraud
On June 5, 2015, the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau (the “CFPB”) argued that a lawsuit against four payment processors for their involvement in a debt collection scheme should not be dismissed. According to the CFPB’s complaint (found here), filed on March 26, 2015, this scheme involved Marcus Brown and Mohan Bagga and their …
CFPB Argues that Guarantor is Credit Applicant in Supreme Court Amicus Brief
According to a Supreme Court amicus brief filed last month by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, consumers who are required to guarantee their spouses’ credit applications are themselves credit applicants who are protected from discrimination under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and Regulation B.
The CFPB claims that courts should defer to Regulation B’s “reasonable”…
CFPB Releases Results of Study on Reverse Mortgage Advertisements
Authored by D. Kyle Deak
Today the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau released the results of a study on reverse mortgage advertisements. The study was based upon personal interviews conducted in November and December 2014 with 59 homeowners aged 62 or older in Chicago, Los Angeles, and Washington, D.C. concerning 97 print, radio, online, and television…
Connecticut Attorney General Applauds General Assembly’s Passage of Data Breach Notification Legislation
On June 1, the Connecticut legislature passed a bill that would require businesses exposed to a data breach to notify victims within 90 days of the breach. The bill would also require businesses to provide victims with one year of identity-theft protection if their Social Security number is compromised. Senate Bill 949, An Act…
District Court Holds That Mailing Pre-Adverse and Adverse Action Letters Five Business Days Apart is Plausible FCRA Claim When It Conflicts With Content of Pre-Adverse Action Letter
In Moore v. Rite Aid Headquarters, the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled that the plaintiff had stated a plausible employment adverse action claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. In doing so, the Court’s decision raises questions about a widely accepted safe harbor of mailing pre-adverse and adverse action notices…
Recent FCRA Lawsuit Demonstrates Growing Trend of Class Actions Challenging Employment Background Screening Disclosure Forms
A putative nationwide class action was recently filed under the Fair Credit Reporting Act against Dollar Tree Stores Inc. The lawsuit was filed in federal district court in Florida.
The complaint alleges that Dollar Tree failed to properly disclose in a separate document that it was going to obtain employees’ consumer reports for hiring purposes…
New Jersey Court Finds Ascertainability Not Required to Certify Class
In a matter of first impression, a New Jersey appellate court found that whether a class is ascertainable – a factor that is commonly analyzed in federal court – played no role in its consideration of a “low-value” consumer class action. In Daniels v. Hollister Co., the court determined that ascertainability is not …