Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect

In 2018, the D.C. Court of Appeals issued ACA International, et al. v. FCC that set aside key determinations of the FCC's interpretations of what qualifies as an automated telephone dialer service (ATDS). The D.C. Circuit concluded that the focus of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act's (TCPA) definition of an ATDS should be on the device's "present capacity" to store and produce telephone numbers, as opposed to its "potential functionalities" or "future possibility." Since this decision, courts have remained split as to what qualifies as an ATDS, although there is a growing trend of courts concluding that a predictive dialer is not an ATDS unless it has the present capacity to store and produce phone numbers randomly and sequentially. On July 30, 2019, the Northern District of Texas joined that trend with its decision in Adams v. Safe Home Security Inc.

The Second Circuit, in King v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., and the Third Circuit, in Dominguez v. Yahoo!, Inc., relied upon the D.C. Circuit's decision in ACA International v. FCC in limiting the definition of an autodialer under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Dominguez found that Yahoo's text message system did not fit the definition of autodialer, while King emphasized that only a device that currently has the ability to perform autodialing functions can qualify as an autodialer system.

At the close of a 108 page decision filed in response to motions to dismiss a CFPB enforcement action, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. RD Legal Funding, LLC, C.A. No. 17-cv-890, Judge Loretta Preska of the U.S. District for the Southern District of New York (within Second Circuit jurisdiction) granted the motions by concluding the CFPB's structure was unconstitutional. This is significant because the D.C. Circuit had determined en banc earlier this year that the CFPB was constitutional in PHH Corp. v. CFPB.

In a case we have been tracking closely, a unanimous panel of the D.C. Court of Appeals set aside two key determinations of the FCC's interpretations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. In ACA International, et al. v. FCC, Judge Sri Srinivasan found that the FCC's "explanation of what qualifies" as an automated telephone dialer service (ATDS) and its one-call safe harbor for calling a phone number that has been reassigned to a non-consenting person was arbitrary and capricious. However, the Court sustained the FCC's rulings on revocation of consent "through any reasonable means clearly expressing a desire to receive no further messages" and the scope of the exemption for "time-sensitive healthcare calls."

We've been following PHH's longstanding challenge of the CFPB's imposition of a fine against it for alleged RESPA kickback violations, through which elemental questions regarding the Bureau's constitutionality were tested.

For more than an hour and half on Wednesday, May 24, lawyers for PHH Mortgage and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau discussed, debated, and decried the CFPB’s authority before the full D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. There was minimal discussion of the underlying RESPA claims that formed the basis of the CFPB’s $109 million dollar judgment obtained against PHH. The major debate focused on whether the CFPB’s single director leadership and the President’s limited, for cause removal of that single director violated the Constitution’s separation of powers clause. The parties debated, among other issues, (1) the diminishment, if any, of the President's ability to faithfully execute the laws; (2) the effect and nature of the for-cause removal provisions; (3) the single director structure v. multi-member commission structure; (3) the effect and nature of the Bureau's other structural features, such as budget & appropriations; and, (4) departure, if any, from historical traditions and ideals.