Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect

According to the DCWP, the proposed amendments clarify that the definition of "debt collector" under the proposed rules will continue to include those collecting debts they originated. The amendments also update the effective date of the previously adopted rules.

Last week, the North American Collection Agency Regulatory Association (NACARA) hosted its annual conference at the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation’s Sacramento office. The event served as a platform for state regulators and collection agency representatives to discuss the latest challenges and emerging trends affecting the industry.

In September, the New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP) requested comment on proposed amendments to its rules relating to debt collectors, which could significantly change the requirements and procedures concerning debt collection with New York City consumers. DCWP had previously proposed amendments in November 2022, which were not finalized.

Effective May 3, 2023, Utah House Bill 20 (Collection Agency Amendments) will repeal a majority of Utah's collection agency statutes located in Title 12 of the Utah Code. Signed by Utah Governor Spencer Cox on March 13, 2023, the bill will repeal long-standing requirements for collection agencies to file a collection agency application, pay the registration fees, and obtain a surety bond with the Utah Department of Commerce, Division of Corporations and Commercial Code (the Division) in order to receive approval for conducting business in Utah.

On October 29, 2021, the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS) posted proposed amendments to its debt collection rules for Third-Party Debt Collectors and Debt Buyers (under 23 New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations Part 1) that could significantly change procedures for communicating with consumers.

Last month, the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) published proposed regulations under the Debt Collection Licensing Act (DCLA). The regulations largely address procedural matters related to obtaining a license. However, the DFPI's proposed regulations also appear to implicitly address the scope of the license requirement, potentially expanding the category of licensees beyond what the statutory text contemplates.

In its recent Special Edition of Supervisory Highlights on COVID-19 Prioritized Assessments, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) summarized challenges and risks with respect to several industries it had informally examined since the start of the pandemic. Beginning in May 2020, the Bureau rescheduled about half of its planned examinations and instead conducted "prioritized assessments" in response to the pandemic. These assessments included seeking information on how institutions were responding and communicating with consumers, and also examining how institutions were confronting and adapting compliance in response to the pandemic.

With a major U.S. Supreme Court decision leading the way, recent developments continue to reshape the landscape of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently issued a Declaratory Ruling clarifying the definition of an autodialer. Exactly what constitutes an autodialer under the TCPA has been a burgeoning topic in consumer litigation. The TCPA prohibits any person from texting or calling a cellular telephone number using an automatic dialing system (“autodialer” or “ATDS”) without prior express consent. The TCPA defines an ATDS as equipment which has the capacity to (A) to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator; and (B) to dial such numbers.

Yesterday, a federal court granted ACA International's request for a temporary restraining order of the Massachusetts Attorney General's emergency regulations prohibiting debt collection calls and enforcement actions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

On May 1, 2020, U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts Judge Richard Stearns heard oral arguments in ACA International's suit to halt the emergency debt collection regulations enacted in Massachusetts, which included a request for a temporary restraining order. In response to ACA's said request, Stearns expressed particular interest in whether the regulations constitute an improper ban on commercial speech under the First Amendment, as well as AG Maura Healey's argument that the federal court does not have jurisdiction to strike down the regulations under the Eleventh Amendment.

We recently reported on Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey's implementation of temporary regulations halting collection of debt from Massachusetts' consumers in the wake of the COVID-19 crisis. With certain exemptions, the regulations declare the performance of many regular debt collection activities—including placing telephone calls to debtors or initiating collection actions—an unfair or deceptive practice under the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act. The emergency regulations apply until June 25, 2020, or until the end of Massachusetts' state of emergency, if longer. Now, a leading industry group has sued the Attorney General to enjoin immediate enforcement and to strike down the regulations.

On April 3, 2020, New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo signed New York's 2021 Executive Budget into law. Many of Governor Cuomo's and lawmakers' legislative agenda priorities were not included in the budget, due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Notably, Governor Cuomo's call for formal licensing and regulation of the debt collection industry was removed from the final budget.

From March 27 through June 25, 2020—or until the end of Massachusetts' state of emergency—Attorney General Maura Healey has implemented temporary regulations on the collection of debt from Massachusetts consumers, which supplements existing regulations codified at 940 CMR 7.00. Important exemptions apply, including attempts to collect a debt which is owing as a result of a loan secured by a mortgage on real property.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued an en banc decision in Riccio v. Sentry Credit, overturning Graziano v. Harrison, after finding that there is no written dispute requirement in Section 1692g(a)(3) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). According to the court, this decision ends "a circuit split and restores national uniformity to the meaning of §1692g." Moreover, the decision applies retroactively to any claim still open on the issue, thus closing the chapter on a written requirement for Section 1692g.

The Governors of California and New York have announced 2020 policy agendas that aim to expand consumer protections in response to what they describe as federal inaction, roll backs, and failures. We explore these proposed changes in detail below.

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.

In Taggart v. Lorenzen, the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals' Order, which affirmed the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's Order vacating civil contempt sanctions against Bradley Taggart's ("Bradley") creditors for violation of a Bankruptcy Court discharge Order. On certiorari to the Court, the central issue was to determine "what the appropriate criteria should be for a Court to hold a creditor in civil contempt for attempting to collect a debt that a discharge order has immunized from collection." And, SCOTUS adopted an objective standard, which creditors should be mindful of going forward.

We previously discussed Avila v. Reliant (Avila II) and U.S. District Court Judge Spatt’s dismissal of a consumer’s attempt to sue on the “safe harbor” language she helped establish in Avila v. Riexinger & Associates (Avila I). As predicted, Avila II was appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Although the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal, the Court did not address Judge Spatt’s reasoning for the dismissal.

On May 7, 2019, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for application of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The significance of this NPRM cannot be understated. The CFPB's proposed rules cover multiple aspects of debt collection and are one of most substantial developments in the debt collection industry since the enactment of the FDCPA in 1977. The proposed rules seek to modernize application of the FDCPA to match the sophistication of today's electronic communications (e.g., voicemails, text messages, and electronic mail) and provide safe harbors and prescribe prohibited conduct. We've highlighted some of the proposed rules that demonstrate the significant impact on both debt collectors and debtors below.