AUTO LENDER SETTLES FTC CHARGES OF CONSUMER HARASSMENT BY PAYING $5,5 MILLION

FROM:  FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 
Auto Lender Will Pay $5.5 Million to Settle FTC Charges It Harassed Consumers, Collected Amounts They Did Not Owe

A national subprime auto lender will pay more than $5.5 million to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that the company used illegal tactics to service and collect consumers’ loans, including collecting money consumers did not owe, harassing consumers and third parties, and disclosing debts to friends, family, and employers.

Consumer Portfolio Services, Inc. (CPS), headquartered in Irvine, Calif., agreed to refund or adjust 128,000 consumers’ accounts more than $3.5 million and forebear collections on an additional 35,000 accounts to settle charges the company violated the FTC Act. CPS will pay another $2 million in civil penalties to settle FTC charges that the company violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)’s Furnisher Rule.

“At the FTC, we hold loan servicers responsible for knowing their legal obligations and abiding by them,” said Jessica Rich, director, FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “The law is very clear: Loan servicers can’t charge consumers more than they owe. And they can’t threaten and harass consumers about delinquent debts.”

The order settling the charges requires CPS to change its business practices to comply with the requirements of the appropriate laws. In addition, the company is required to establish and maintain a comprehensive data integrity program to ensure the accuracy, integrity and completeness of its loan servicing processes, and the data and other information it services, collects or sells. CPS must also provide the FTC with periodic independent assessments of its data integrity program for 10 years.

According to the FTC’s complaint, CPS’ loan-servicing violations include:

Misrepresenting fees consumers owed in collection calls, monthly statements, pay-off notices, and bankruptcy filings;
Making unsubstantiated claims about the amounts consumers  owed;
Improperly assessing and collecting fees or other amounts;
Unilaterally modifying contracts by, for example, increasing principal balances;
Failing to disclose financial effects of loan extensions;
Misrepresenting that consumers must use particular payment methods requiring service fees; and
Misrepresenting that the company audits verified consumer accounts balances.
The company’s collection violations include disclosing the existence of debts to third parties; calling consumers at work when not permitted or inconvenient; calling third parties repeatedly with intent to harass; making unauthorized debits from consumer bank accounts; falsely threatening car repossession; and deceptively manipulating Caller ID. Because for many of its accounts CPS is a creditor, the complaint charges these practices violated Section 5 of the FTC Act. For those accounts where CPS is a debt collector, the complaint charges these practices violated the FDCPA.

CPS is also charged with failure to establish and implement reasonable written procedures and failure to reasonably investigate and respond timely to consumer disputes under the Furnisher Rule.

Under the order, the company will begin sending refunds to consumers and adjusting affected account balances within 90 days. Consumers with questions about their elgibility for a refund or account adjustment should contact CPS directly via telephone at 1-888-806-2367, email FTCsettlement@consumerportfolio.com, or visit the company’s website.

The FTC provides information for businesses regarding debt collection and the Furnisher Rule. For consumers, the FTC has resources on credit and loans and dealing with debt.

The Commission vote to authorize the staff to refer the complaint to the Department of Justice, and to approve the proposed consent decree, was 4-0-1, with Commissioner Terrell McSweeny not participating. The DOJ filed the complaint and proposed consent decree on behalf of the Commission in the Central District of California on May 28, 2014. The proposed consent decree is subject to court approval.

NOTE: The Commission authorizes the filing of a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. Consent decrees have the force of law when signed by the District Court judge.

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them.

CHECK SERVICES COMPANY WILL PAY $3.5 MILLION SO SETTLE ALLEGED FCRA VIOLATIONS

FROM:  U.S. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
Certegy Check Services to Pay $3.5 Million for Alleged Violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and Furnisher Rule

Penalty is Second-largest in a Fair Credit Reporting Act Matter
Certegy Check Services, Inc., one of the nation’s largest check authorization service companies, has agreed to pay $3.5 million to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

Certegy, based in St. Petersburg, Florida, is a consumer reporting agency (CRA) that compiles consumers’ personal information and uses it to help retail merchants throughout the United States determine whether to accept consumers’ checks.  Under the FCRA, consumers whose checks are denied based on information Certegy provides the merchant, have the right to dispute that information and have Certegy correct any inaccuracies.

The FTC’s complaint alleges, among other things, that Certegy did not follow proper dispute procedures.  The complaint further alleges that Certegy failed to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information it provided to its merchant clients, as required by the FCRA.

Among other things, the settlement requires Certegy to make improvements in these areas.  This case is part of a broader initiative to target the practices of data brokers, which often compile, maintain, and sell sensitive consumer information.  Consumer reporting agencies like Certegy are data brokers that sell information to companies making important decisions about consumers, such as their ability to get credit or pay for goods and services by check.

“Inaccurate information in a consumer reporting agency’s file can have a huge impact on a person’s everyday life, starting with their check being denied at the grocery store,” said Jessica L. Rich, Director of FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection.  “In this case, we alleged that Certegy delivered a one-two punch:  the company not only failed to assure that the information it provided to retailers was accurate, but it also failed to follow proper dispute procedures.  Today’s settlement will benefit consumers who use checks to pay for essential goods and services, including many older consumers and people without alternate means of payment, such as credit cards.”

In addition to the allegations described above, the complaint alleges that Certegy violated the FCRA by failing to create a streamlined process for consumers to obtain free annual reports that they are entitled to; and establish and implement reasonable written policies and procedures regarding the accuracy and integrity of information it furnishes to other CRAs.  This is the first Commission action alleging violations of the Furnisher Rule, which went into effect on July 1, 2010.  The settlement requires Certegy to comply with the Furnisher Rule, as well as the requirement to maintain a streamlined process so that consumers can request their free annual reports.

U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ALLEGES RESALE OF CREDIT REPORT DATA

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

Thursday, October 11, 2012
Justice Department Files Lawsuit Against Three Related Companies for Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act

The United States has filed a complaint against three related companies that bought and sold consumer credit reports, the Justice Department announced today. The government’s complaint charges these companies with violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The companies have agreed to pay a $1.2 million civil penalty to resolve these charges.

In a complaint filed Oct. 9, 2012, the United States alleged that Direct Lending Source Inc., and Bailey & Associates Advertising Inc., both Florida corporations, Virtual Lending Source LLC, based in San Diego, Calif., and the principals of all of these entities, Robert M. Bailey, Jr. and Linda Giordiano , violated the FCRA by failing to comply with provisions forbidding the sale of credit reports without a "permissible purpose." The complaint alleges that the defendants purchased thousands of "pre-screened" consumer lists, or collections of credit report data. The only permissible purpose under the Act for using such prescreened lists is to make "firm offers of credit or insurance" to consumers. However, the complaint alleges that the defendants re-sold the lists to dealers who marketed loan modification, debt relief and credit repair services rather than making firm offers of credit. According to the complaint, some of the dealers who purchased the defendants’ credit report data have become the subject of law enforcement actions or warnings involving fraud committed against consumers in financial trouble.

The complaint also alleges that the defendants did not take reasonable steps to identify the ultimate purchasers of the credit reports. In some cases, according to the complaint, the defendants sold lists to brokers who then re-sold them to unidentified entities.

"The sensitive financial information in credit reports must be protected from those who would use it to target vulnerable consumers for sham offers," said Stuart Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division. "We will work with the Federal Trade Commission to aggressively enforce the laws that safeguard these reports."

Along with the $1.2 million civil penalty, the defendants agreed to injunctions against future FCRA and FTC violations in a proposed consent decree that must be approved by the court. The proposed order would prohibit the defendants from using, obtaining or reselling consumer reports for unauthorized purposes. The proposed order also would prohibit the defendants from selling consumer reports in connection with solicitations for debt relief and mortgage relief services that charge advance fees.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which oversees the FCRA, referred the case to the Department. The lawsuit, United States v. Direct Lending Source et al., was filed in the Southern District of California.

Acting Assistant Attorney General Delery thanked the FTC for referring this matter to the Department. The Consumer Protection Branch of the Justice Department’s Civil Division brought the case on behalf of the United States.