Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

March 2017

Fair Debt Collection

Practices Act

CFPB Annual Report 2017

Message from

Richard Cordray

Director of the CFPB

The year 2017 marks the fortieth anniversary of the enactment of the Fair Debt Collection

Practices Act (“FDCPA”). In enacting that law, Congress found “abundant evidence of the use of

abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices by many debt collectors” and enacted the

law to put an end to such practices and assure “that those debt collectors who refrain from using

abusive debt collection practices are not competitively disadvantaged.” Much has changed in the

ensuing forty years in the ways in which debt is collected and even in the types of entities engaged

in debt collection. But the Act remains as important today as it was the day that it was signed into

law.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“Bureau” or “CFPB”) is the only federal government

agency dedicated solely to consumer financial protection. Among our important responsibilities is

administering and enforcing the FDCPA. We recognize that debt collection is a necessary part of a

functioning financial system. At the same time, we recognize that illegal practices have no place in

the debt collection process, and that if such practices are not stopped, those collectors seeking to

adhere to the law will find themselves at a competitive disadvantage. It is therefore vitally

important that the protections built into the FDCPA are vigorously enforced. The Bureau is

authorized to do so along with our partners at the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”). In 2016, the

Bureau and the FTC took important steps to vindicate the rights set forth in the FDCPA.

The CFPB seeks to assure compliance with the FDCPA through its Supervision program and

through public enforcement actions. The CFPB is the first federal agency to have the authority to

supervise non-depository institutions, including debt collectors, in the same manner that banks

and other depositories have long been examined. In 2016, our examinations of debt collectors

identified a number of violations of the law, including false representations made by debt

collectors to consumers, unlawful fees charged by debt collectors, and illegal disclosure of debts to

third parties. CFPB examinations also found instances in which debt sellers sold accounts for

collection that did not properly reflect that the accounts were discharged in bankruptcy, were

fraudulent, or had already been paid. Where appropriate, the CFPB required debt collectors to

provide consumer redress and undertake remedial and corrective actions.

Additionally, in 2016 the CFPB brought ten new public enforcement actions involving debt

collections and continued litigation in three other such cases that had been filed previously. In the

cases that were concluded in 2016, $39 million was paid in restitution for consumers who were

impacted by illegal debt collection practices and $20 million in civil penalties.

Likewise, as described more fully in the Report and in the FTC letter included as the Appendix, the

FTC brought or resolved 12 debt collection cases in 2016, including a focus on phantom debt

collection and a sweep on unlawful text messages and emails as a means of collecting debt. The

CFPB also filed amicus curiae briefs in two appellate court FDCPA actions raising significant legal

issues, and assisted the Solicitor General’s office in the preparation of two amicus briefs that were

filed in the Supreme Court in cases implicating the FDCPA. Those four cases are still pending.

Additionally, three cases before federal courts of appeals in which CFPB filed amicus briefs in

prior years were decided in 2016, two of which had been filed jointly with the FTC.

Another important tool through which the Bureau is able to protect consumers is through its

Consumer Response program, which receives and processes complaints from consumers who

believe they have been mistreated by debt collectors or other providers of consumer financial

products or services. In 2016, as in past years, debt collection was the category in which the

Bureau received the most complaints from consumers. The most common complaint involved

“continued attempts to collect debt not owed.” The Office of Consumer Response receives these

complaints and, where appropriate, sends them to the debt collector to provide them with the

opportunity to respond to or remedy the complaint and/or sends them to other agencies.

These figures include actions related to unlawful collection conduct in violation of the FDCPA, the Consumer Financial

Protection Act of 2010 (“CFPA”), or both.

The Bureau also continues to provide a variety of resources to consumers who face debt collection

attempts and to social services workers and volunteers that serve populations that may face debt

collection attempts. One of these resources, “Ask CFPB,” provides answers to common questions

across a number of consumer financial topics. The debt collection category continues to be one of

the most viewed topics.

In 2013, the Bureau created five sample letters which consumers can use

to communicate when debt collectors contact them. These letters have since been downloaded

approximately 389,800 times. The Bureau also created a financial empowerment training and

toolkit called Your Money, Your Goals for use by social services workers and other front-line staff

and volunteers working with economically vulnerable consumers. This toolkit covers a variety of

financial topics, including debt management and consumer financial protection. As of the end of

2016, more than 13,500 staff and volunteers in social services, legal aid, worker, and community

organizations were trained on Your Money, Your Goals, reaching an estimated 600,000

consumers.

In enacting the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Congress granted

the CFPB general rulemaking authority to issue regulations under the FDCPA. The Bureau

commenced its rulemaking activity in 2013 by issuing an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

In July 2016, the Bureau released an Outline of Proposals Under Consideration (the “Outline”) for

those who are defined as “debt collectors” under the FDCPA. At the same time, the Bureau

published a Study of Third Party Debt Collection Operations, and preliminary results from the

Bureau’s Survey of Consumer Views on Debt.

On August 25, 2016, the Bureau convened a panel pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA). That panel, which was composed of the CFPB, Small

Business Administration (SBA), and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), obtained input

from small businesses in the debt collection industry on the possible impact of debt collection

rulemaking on their businesses. The Bureau is considering the feedback it received through the

SBREFA panel and from other stakeholders subsequent to publication of the Outline.

At the same time, the Bureau continues to conduct research and monitor the debt collection

market. In January 2017, the Bureau released two studies on the debt collection market: a white

The Bureau’s debt collection consumer education resources can be found at

https://www.consumerfinance.gov/consumer-tools/debt-collection/.

paper about the Online Debt Sales market, which describes websites where charged-off consumer

debts can be purchased and outlines potential consumer protection concerns that may arise in the

absence of appropriate safeguards; and a groundbreaking research report on Consumer

Experiences With Debt Collection, based upon the Bureau’s Survey of Consumer Views on Debt.

At the CFPB, we believe in a debt collection market where consumers know their rights and are

protected from harassment and deception while collectors are able to collect debts in an honest,

lawful, and cost-effective manner. On the FDCPA’s fortieth anniversary, we remain committed to

the law’s goal of protecting consumers while ensuring that debt collectors who follow the law and

respect consumers are not competitively disadvantaged.

Sincerely,

Richard Cordray

Table of contents

Message from Richard Cordray ................................................................. 2

Table of contents ...................................................................................... 6

1. Introduction ....................................................................................... 8

2. Background ........................................................................................ 9

2.1 Industry Breakdown ................................................................................ 10

2.2 Market Outlook ....................................................................................... 12

3. Consumer complaints ........................................................................ 14

3.1 Number and types of complaints received ............................................. 15

3.2 Responses to complaints received .......................................................... 19

4. Bureau supervision of debt collection activities ................................. 21

4.1 Miscoding of accounts unsuitable for sale ............................................. 22

4.2 Unlawful fees .......................................................................................... 22

4.3 False representations ............................................................................. 23

4.4 Communication with third parties ........................................................ 24

5. Debt collection amicus briefs ............................................................. 26

6. Enforcement ...................................................................................... 34

6.1 CFPB law enforcement actions .............................................................. 34

6.2 Continuation of pre-2016 matters ......................................................... 38

6.3 FTC law enforcement actions ................................................................. 40

7. Education and outreach initiatives .................................................... 50

7.1 Bureau education and outreach initiatives ............................................ 50

7.2

FTC education and public outreach

...................................................... 54

8. Rulemaking, research, and policy initiatives ..................................... 56

8.1 Bureau rulemaking and research ........................................................... 56

8.2 FTC’s research and policy development activities ................................. 62

Appendix: FTC Letter ........................................................................ 64

1. Introduction

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is pleased to submit to Congress its sixth annual report

summarizing activities to administer the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. §

1692 et seq. The Bureau and the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “the Commission”) share

government enforcement responsibility for the FDCPA. The Commission’s activities during the

past year are included in this report and a letter from the FTC describing them appears in the

Appendix. The CFPB and the FTC work closely to coordinate debt collection enforcement actions

and other matters related to debt collection.

This report provides a background on the debt collection market; contains an overview of

consumer complaints submitted to the CFPB and the FTC in 2016; summarizes the Bureau’s

supervisory activities in the debt collection market; describes the Bureau’s and the Commission’s

enforcement actions; describes amicus curiae briefs filed in cases related to the FDCPA; presents

the CFPB’s and FTC’s consumer education and outreach initiatives; and discusses developments in

the Bureau’s rulemaking activities and the FTC’s policy and research initiatives.

See Memorandum of Understanding between the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Federal Trade

Commission (March 2015), available at

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cooperation_agreements/150312ftc-cfpb-mou.pdf. As part of this

coordination, CFPB and FTC staff regularly meet to discuss ongoing and upcoming law enforcement, rulemaking, and

other activities, share debt collection complaints, cooperate on consumer education efforts in the debt collection arena,

and consult on debt collection rulemaking and guidance initiatives.

2. Background

Debt collection is an $11.4 billion dollar industry that employs more than 130,000 people across

approximately 8,500 collection agencies in the United States.

The debt collection industry affects

millions of Americans. According to a recent CFPB survey of US consumers, about one-third of

consumers with credit files – or about 70 million Americans – were contacted by a creditor or

third-party debt collector attempting to collect a debt in the past year.

Debt collection efforts

include calls, letters, filing lawsuits, and other methods to collect alleged debts from consumers.

In the course of attempting to collect debts, debt collectors must adhere to a variety of laws and

regulations which govern topics as diverse as telephone communications (e.g., the Telephone

Consumer Protection Act, or TCPA) and furnishing information to credit reporting agencies (e.g.

the Fair Credit Reporting Act, or FCRA) as well as various state statutes. The primary law that

governs the conduct of debt collectors is the FDCPA,

which establishes consumer protections in

the debt collection process including the rights to dispute a debt and instruct a collector to stop

communication about an alleged debt. The FDCPA prohibits debt collectors from harassing and

abusing consumers and prohibits them from discussing a consumer’s debts with third parties

(with some exceptions).

The law empowers the CFPB and FTC to enforce its provisions and establishes a private right of

action for any person affected by a violation of the FDCPA. The FDCPA also requires the CFPB to

Edward Rivera at IBIS World, Debt Collection Agencies in the US (December 2016).

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Consumer Experiences with Debt Collection. January 2017

Fair Debt Collection Practice Act. 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et. seq.

submit this report on “the administration of its functions” under the FDCPA and enables it to

“obtain … the views” of other agencies that enforce the FDCPA, such as the FTC.

2.1 Industry Breakdown

Debt collectors generate most of their revenue from collections of medical debt, student loans, and

financial services obligations such as credit cards, auto loans, and mortgages. Financial services

are the largest source of revenue for the industry, accounting for more than a third of all debt

collection revenue. However, telecommunications debt also accounts for a large share of industry

revenue – more than a fifth.

Government, retail, and medical debt are also significant drivers of

industry revenue.

FIGURE 1: DEBT COLLECTION MARKET SEGMENTS BY SHARE OF REVENUE, 2016 (IBIS WORLD)

15 U.S.C. § 1692m

Edward Rivera at IBIS World, Debt Collection Agencies in the US (December 2016).

35%

22%

14%

11%

10%

Financial Services

Telecommunications

Other

Healthcare

Retail and Commercial

Government

$6.27 billion – more than half the industry’s revenue – is generated by firms contracting with

creditors to collect their debts on a contingency fee basis, meaning that the creditor and the

collector each receive a share of the amount collected.

About one-third of debt collection revenue, $3.6 billion, comes from debt buyers, who purchase

accounts from the original creditor or other debt buyers and then generally seek to collect on that

debt, either themselves or through contingency debt collectors.

Although they represent about

one third of industry revenue, this overstates debt buyers’ share of dollars collected, since debt

buyer revenue includes all amounts recovered whereas the revenue of contingency collectors

includes only the share of recoveries retained by the collector.

FIGURE 2 DEBT COLLECTION AGENCY TYPES BY SHARE OF REVENUE, 2016 (IBIS WORLD)

Due to its low fixed costs and high susceptibility to fluctuations in the supply of debt and labor

costs, debt collection is a volatile industry with a large number of firms – according to some

estimates, about 8,500.

Edward Rivera at IBIS World, Debt Collection Agencies in the US (December 2016).

The industry has been experiencing consolidation in recent years. According to a study by the

Association of Credit and Collection Professionals, there were 25% fewer debt collection agencies

in 2013 than in 2005,

despite industry revenues being slightly higher in 2013.

2.2 Market Outlook

The debt collection industry is substantially impacted by the credit cycle, which determines how

many charged-off debts are available to collect. As a result of increased consumer debt, especially

in non-housing categories where debt collectors are most frequently employed, it appears likely

that the availability of debt to collect will increase. This would be especially likely if an unfavorable

change in economic circumstances made it more difficult for consumers to pay their obligations.

Consumer debt has continued to increase since 2013 and is approaching its 2008 peak. However,

growth in consumer debt has been fueled primarily by increases in non-housing debt. In 2016

alone, credit card debt rose $46 billion, or 6.3%, student debt increased by $78 billion, or 6.3%,

and auto debt rose by $93 billion, or 8.7%.

Delinquency rates remain relatively stable, although

they have not returned to their pre-crisis levels.

However, the combination of these levels of debt

and an economic downturn could lead to a substantial increase in the amount of delinquent and

ultimately charged-off accounts.

An increase in portfolios of delinquent debt in the event of a downturn also looks somewhat likely

in auto finance. Total outstanding auto debt reached a record high in 2016

, and lending to

ACA International, Ernst and Young, Impact of Third-Party Debt Collection on the National and State Economies

(2013, 2011), available at http://www.acainternational.org/advocacy/industry-research-statistics

Edward Rivera at IBIS World, Debt Collection Agencies in the US (September 2015).

Andrew Haughwout et al. “Just Released: Total Household Debt Nears 2008 Peak but Debt Picture Looks Much

Different.” Liberty Street Economics. Federal Reserve Bank of New York. February 16, 2017.

http://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2017/02/just-released-total-household-debt-nears-2008-peak-but-

debt-picture-looks-much-different.html

Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Quarterly Report on Household Debt and Credit. 2016Q4. February 2017

subprime consumers is at a higher level than it has been for more than a decade.

Preliminary

results from a study by S&P Global Ratings suggest that net losses on subprime auto loans in the

event of a comparatively mild downturn, such as the one between 1998 and 2003, would be higher

than the losses that resulted from the 2009 financial crisis.

This suggests that a downturn, if one

occurs, could lead to a significant number of auto deficiencies, which are in some instances are

collected by third party debt collectors or sold to debt buyers.

Similarly, outstanding credit card debt continues to increase, reaching $927 billion in the third

quarter of 2016. The increase in debt in the third quarter was the largest such increase since 2007.

The average indebted American household owes about $8,000 in credit card debt.

As with auto

lending, a potential downturn would likely cause a spike in delinquencies, which could ultimately

increase the number of charged-off accounts available for collection.

Kyle Stock. Bloomberg. “The Next Financial Crisis Might Be in Your Driveway.” February 21, 2017. Analysis of data

from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-21/the-next-

financial-crisis-might-be-in-your-driveway

William Hoffman. Auto Finance News. “S&P Stress Tests Show Rising Subprime Auto Losses.” February 12, 2017

Alina Comoreanu. WalletHub. “2016 Credit Card Debt Study: Trends & Insights.” December 8, 2016

3. Consumer complaints

Collecting,

investigating, and responding to consumer complaints are integral parts of the

CFPB’s work.

The CFPB’s Office of Consumer Response (“Consumer Response”) hears

directly from consumers about the challenges they face in the marketplace, brings their

concerns to the attention of companies, and assists in addressing these complaints.

The CFPB, which began taking consumer complaints about debt collection in July 2013,

accepts complaints through its website and by telephone, mail, email, fax, and referral.

Consumers submit complaints on the Bureau’s website using complaint forms tailored to

specific products and can also log on to a secure consumer portal to check the status of a

complaint and review a company’s response. When completing the complaint form,

consumers provide a narrative of the events giving rise to their complaint and can elect to

publish a scrubbed narrative on the Bureau’s website. While on the website, consumers can

chat with a live agent to get help completing a complaint form. Consumers can also call the

Bureau’s toll-free number to ask questions, submit a complaint, check the status of a

complaint, and more.

The Bureau answers questions and refers consumers to other

regulators or additional resources as appropriate and forwards complaints to companies for

review and response.

The CFPB’s complaint handling process focuses on

collecting,

investigating, and responding to

complaints.

The Bureau also uses complaints for law enforcement purposes and shares

See Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 111-203, § 1021(c)(2) (2010). (“Dodd-

Frank Act”).

The CFPB’s U.S.-based contact centers provide services to consumers in more than 180 languages and to consumers

who are deaf, have hearing loss, or have speech disabilities via a toll-free telephone number.

See Dodd-Frank Act, Pub. L. No. 111-203, § 1021(c)(2), 124 Stat. 1376, 1979 (2010).

complaint data with the FTC. The FTC uses the Bureau’s information, as well as complaints

submitted directly to it by consumers and from other federal and state agencies, to compile

consumer complaints in its Consumer Sentinel system and makes them available to federal and

state law enforcement. The FTC uses consumer complaints generally to monitor the debt collection

industry, select targets for investigation, and conduct preliminary analysis that, with further

factual development, might reveal or help prove a law violation.

As in previous years, debt collection is the most complained about consumer financial product or

service in the Bureau’s complaint system. As shown in Table 1, in 2016, again the most common

issue selected by consumers submitting a complaint related to debt collection is continued

attempts to collect a debt that the consumer states is not owed (41%). These consumers often

report that debt collectors are contacting them about debts that either have a different balance or

have been fully paid. In response to these complaints, third-party debt collectors often close and

return the account to their clients, while first-party collectors report that they inform the

consumer about the current status of their account and make attempts to reach a resolution.

Consumers continue to submit complaints about a lack of debt verification by collectors in

response to consumer disputes; in fact, this issue saw the largest percentage increase from 2015

(see Table 2). These consumers report that they were not given enough information to verify a

debt. In complaints submitted against third-party collectors especially, some consumers report

that they do not have enough information to verify medical debt—often stating that they believed

their health insurance covered the expenses.

Consumers still commonly report issues with communication tactics used by collectors, though the

number of complaints about communication tactics decreased from 2015 (see Table 2). Consumers

complain about frequent or repeated calls from collectors. These consumers report that they

receive multiple calls weekly or even daily. In complaints submitted against first-party collectors,

some consumers report that they receive repeated calls early in their delinquency or during grace

periods.

3.1 Number and types of complaints

handled

From January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016, the CFPB handled approximately 88,000 debt

collection complaints—2,900 more complaints than the prior year. These complaints include

first-party (creditors collecting on their own debts) and third-party collections. Table 1 shows the

types of debt collection complaints the CFPB has handled, while Table 2 shows the change in

complaint volume by issue

TABLE 1: DEBT COLLECTION COMPLAINTS BY ISSUE

TABLE 2: CHANGE IN COMPLAINT VOLUME BY ISSUE

This report is based on dynamic data and may slightly differ from other public reports.

% change

2015 complaints 2016 complaints

Disclosure verification of debt

Continued attempts to collect debt not owed

Improper contact or sharing of info

False statements or representation

Communication tactics

Taking or threatening an illegal action

Grand Total

-11%

-16%

36%

-2%

-3%

85,100

9,000

15,200

8,100

5,600

34,300

12,900

Abc

88,000

7,500

13,500

7,800

5,400

36,200

17,500

Primary issue %

Continued attempts to collect debt not owed 41%

Disclosure/verification of debt 20%

Communication tactics 15%

False statements or representation 9%

Taking or threatening an illegal action 9%

Improper contact or sharing of information 6%

Total debt collection complaints 100%

For each of the six issues listed in Table 1 and Table 2, consumers also select additional, more-

detailed sub-issues when submitting a complaint.

As indicated in Table 1, the most common debt collection complaint is about continued attempts to

collect a debt that the consumer reports is not owed. The vast majority of these consumers report

that the debt is not their debt (61%) or that the debt was paid (27%), while the remaining

consumers report that the debt resulted from identity theft (8%) or was discharged in bankruptcy

(4%).

Issues with disclosures or providing information sufficient to verify the debt was the second-most

common issue selected by consumers in their complaints (see line 2 in Table 1). If a collector is

covered by the FDCPA, the law requires collectors within five days of that communication to

provide consumers with a written notice informing them, among other things, of their right to

dispute debts. Some consumers, however, complain that debt collectors do not provide this notice

(23%). Most consumers who complain about the dispute process raise the concern that when they

exercise their rights to dispute debts, collectors do not provide them with documentation that

consumers believe collectors need to verify the debt (69%). The complaints related to disputed

debts also reveal confusion on the part of consumers as to when and how they can dispute a debt.

Other consumers report that the company did not disclose that the communication was an attempt

to collect a debt (7%).

Communication tactics used when collecting debts were the third most common issue complained

about in 2016 (see line 3 of Table 1). Many of these types of complaints are about improper

telephone calls. The majority of complaints about communication tactics are about frequent or

repeated calls (53%). In a consumer complaint, one consumer told us that they were frustrated by

the amount of calls they received about a debt they didn’t understand.

“After missing multiple calls a day from this company I finally spoke with someone. They had

sent my final bill to my old address and I never got it. The person I spoke to at the company

corrected my address and arranged to send out a reprint of the bill. She waved the ridiculous

{$5.00} fee to have the bill reprinted. I let her know that I would be taking care of the bill as

soon as I received it.

As discussed in Section 6.1, the Bureau has developed and made available a form letter to assist consumers in

disputing debts.

Not 1 day later the calls started again.

I received a call this morning by a very pushy caller and was told that if I was taken off the

call list without making payment arrangements my bill would go into collections. I asked

why my file hadn't been updated to show that I was cooperating and s(he) said their system

just doesn't show everything.

When I complained about their repetitive calls the caller said that legally the system could

call my phone up to 6 times per day. This is harassment and also threatening by saying my

bill would go into collections.

By their admission, even though I was cooperating, they were going to call me up to 6 times

per day until my bill was paid.

These are unacceptable business practices.

Please look into the company.”

Consumers report that collectors contact them using alternative methods, in addition to telephone

calls. These methods include text messaging, emails, and social media. Other communication

tactics complaints relate to reports of companies threatening to take legal action (30%), using

obscene, profane, or abusive language (7%), calling after being sent written cease communication

notices (6%), or calling outside of the FDCPA’s assumed convenient calling hours from 8 a.m. to 9

p.m. at the consumer’s location (3%).

The majority of complaints about false statements or representations (see line 4 of Table 2) are

about attempts to collect the wrong amount from the consumer (66%). In addition, consumers

report that companies impersonated an attorney or a law enforcement or government official

(18%), indicated the consumer committed a crime by not paying debt (13%), or indicated that the

consumer should not respond to a lawsuit (2%).

Consumers also report companies taking or threatening to take an illegal action (see line 5 of Table

1). Most of these complaints are about threats to arrest or jail consumers if they do not pay (39%).

Other complaints relate to lawsuits including threats to sue on a debt that is too old (29%),

seizures or attempts to seize property (11%), being sued without proper notification of the lawsuit

(10%), collection or attempts to collect exempt funds such as child support or unemployment

benefits (7%), or being sued in a place that is different from where the consumer lives or where the

consumer signed the contract (3%).

For consumers submitting complaints about improper contact or sharing of information (see line

6 of Table 1), consumers most often report the collector talked to a third party about the debt

(55%), contacted the consumer after being asked not to do so (24%), or contacted an employer

after being asked not to do so (19%). A less common complaint relates to consumers reporting

that they are contacted directly, instead of the debt collector contacting their attorney (2%).

3.2 Responses to complaints handled

The CFPB has sent approximately 41,400 (47%) of the about 88,000 debt collection complaints it

has handled to companies for their review and response. The CFPB has also forwarded some of the

remaining debt collection complaints to other regulatory agencies (38%), while other complaints

were found to be incomplete (10%), or are pending

with the consumer or the CFPB (5%).

Companies have already responded to approximately 37,000 complaints or 89% of the

approximately 41,400 complaints sent to them for response. Consumers have disputed

approximately 6,400 company responses (18%) to their complaints.

The following table shows how companies have responded to consumer complaints.

TABLE 3: HOW COMPANIES HAVE RESPONDED TO CONSUMER COMPLAINTS TO THE CFPB

This category includes complaints that do not include information needed for the CFPB to send to companies for

responses or refer to other regulatory agencies.

All complaints handled by the Bureau, including those sent to other regulators, serve to inform the Bureau in its work

to supervise companies, to enforce consumer financial laws, to write better rules and regulations, and to educate and

engage consumers.

Company Response #

Closed with explanation 28,800 70%

Company responses include descriptions of steps taken or that will be taken, communications

received from the consumer, any follow-up actions or planned follow-up actions, and

categorization of the response. Response category options include “closed with monetary relief,”

“closed with non-monetary relief,” “closed with explanation,” “closed,” and other administrative

options. Monetary relief is defined as objective, measurable, and verifiable monetary relief to the

consumer as a direct result of the steps taken or that will be taken in response to the complaint.

Non-monetary relief is defined as other objective and verifiable relief to the consumer as a direct

result of the steps taken or that will be taken in response to the consumer’s complaint. “Closed

with explanation” indicates that the steps taken by the company in response to the complaint

included an explanation that was tailored to the individual consumer’s complaint. For example,

this category would be used if the explanation substantively meets the consumer’s desired

resolution or explains why no further action will be taken. “Closed” indicates that the company

closed the complaint without relief – monetary or non-monetary – or explanation. Consumers are

given the option to review and provide feedback on all company closure responses.

Due to rounding, volume and percentages for each company response category may not add up to the total.

Closed with non-monetary relief 4,900 12%

Company did not provide a timely response 3,400 8%

Company reviewing 1,500 4%

Closed (without relief or explanation) 1,400 3%

Closed with monetary relief 400 1%

Administrative response 1,200 3%

Total Complaints Sent to Companies for Response 41,400 100%

4. Bureau supervision of debt

collection activities

Under the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFPB has the authority to supervise certain bank and nonbank

entities that offer or provide consumer financial products or services.

In addition, for other

nonbank markets for consumer financial products or services, the Bureau has the authority to

supervise “larger participants” as the Bureau defines by rule. Under the Bureau’s larger participant

rule for the debt collection market, the Bureau has supervisory authority over any firm with more

than $10 million in annual receipts from consumer debt collection activities.

In 2016, the Bureau’s supervision of debt collectors uncovered a number of violations of the

FDCPA.

Specifically, the Bureau has authority to supervise certain banks and nonbank entities in the residential mortgage,

payday lending, and private education lending markets. The Bureau also has the authority to supervise nonbank entities

that offer or provide consumer financial products or services where it has “reasonable cause to determine, by order, after

notice to the person and a reasonable opportunity for such person to respond…that such person is engaging, or has

engaged, in conduct that poses risks to consumers with regard to the offering or provision of consumer financial

products or service.” 12 U.S.C. § 5514(a)(1)(C).

In deference to the importance of confidentiality and consistent with the policies of the prudential regulators, the

Bureau treats information obtained from companies through the supervisory process as confidential and privileged. See

12 C.F.R. pt. 1070; CFPB Bulletin 12-01: The Bureau’s Supervision Authority and Treatment of Confidential

Supervisory Information (January 2012), available at http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/2012/01/GC_bulletin_12-

01.pdf; see also 12 U.S.C. §§ 1821(t), 1828(x).

4.1 Miscoding of accounts unsuitable for

sale by debt sellers

The FDCPA prohibits unfair acts or practices in connection with the collection of a debt.

During

one or more examinations, examiners determined that debt sellers, as a result of widespread

coding errors, sold thousands of debts that did not properly reflect that: (1) the accounts were in

bankruptcy, (2) the debt sellers had concluded the debts were products of fraud, or (3) the

accounts had been settled in full. The relevant accounts sold were in, or likely to be subject to,

collections. Supervision concluded that this practice was unfair.

In some cases, coding failed to reflect a pending bankruptcy proceeding when the debt seller had

received notice that the consumer had filed for bankruptcy. In other instances, one or more debt

sellers either failed to code accounts to indicate that a fraud claim was pending or failed to code

accounts to indicate that fraud had occurred. In other cases, one or more debt sellers failed to

include codes indicating that the debt seller(s) had settled the relevant accounts in full. These

errors caused or were likely to cause substantial injury in the form of subjecting consumers to debt

collection efforts either: (1) prohibited by the automatic stay provisions of the Bankruptcy Code

or (2) on debts for which the consumer was not responsible because the relevant accounts were

impacted by fraud or were settled in full. Supervision directed one or more debt sellers to redress

consumers impacted by each category of the three coding errors and to enhance service provider

oversight to include critical vendors performing collections and processes relating to debt sale

arrangements, such as suppliers providing coding services.

4.2 Unlawful fees

The FDCPA limits situations where a debt collector may impose convenience fees. Under Section

808(1) of the FDCPA,

a debt collector may not collect any amount unless such amount is

expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law. In one or more

exams, examiners observed that one or more debt collectors charged consumers a “convenience

fee” to process payments by phone and online. Examiners determined that this convenience fee

12 USC 5531(c); 5536(a)(1)(B).

11 USC 362.

15 USC 1692f(1).

violated Section 808(1) where the consumer’s contract does not expressly permit convenience fees

and the applicable state’s law was silent on whether such fees are permissible. Additionally, under

Section 807(2)(B) of the FDCPA,

a debt collector may not make false representations of

compensation which may be lawfully received by the debt collector. Examiners determined that

collectors who demanded these unlawful fees, stated that the fees were “nonnegotiable,” or

withheld information from consumers about other avenues to make payments that would not

incur the fee after the consumer requested such information violated Section 807(2)(B) of the

FDCPA.

Supervision also found that one or more debt collectors violated Section 808(1) of the FDCPA by

charging collection fees in states where collection fees were prohibited or in states that capped

collection fees at a threshold lower than the fees that were charged. Examiners also observed a

compliance management system weakness at one or more collectors that had not maintained any

records showing the relationship between the amount of the collection fee and the cost of

collection.

The relevant entities have undertaken remedial and corrective actions regarding these violations;

these matters remain under review by the Bureau.

4.3 False representations

Section 807(10) of the FDCPA prohibits debt collectors from using any false representation or

deceptive means to collect a debt or obtain information concerning a consumer.

Examiners

determined that one or more collectors falsely represented to consumers that a down payment was

necessary in order to establish a repayment arrangement, when the collectors’ policies and

procedures included no such requirement.

In other cases, one or more collectors falsely represented that the only option for repayment was

using a checking account, when the debt collectors’ policies and procedures did not limit

repayment to checking accounts.

15 USC 1692e(2)(B).

15 USC 1692e(10).

At one or more debt collectors, examiners identified collection calls where employees purported to

assess consumers’ creditworthiness, credit scores, or credit reports, which were misleading

because collectors could not assess overall borrower creditworthiness. Collectors also misled

consumers by representing that an immediate payment would need to be made in order to prevent

a negative impact on consumers’ credit.

In one or more instances, examiners observed that collectors had impersonated consumers while

using the relevant creditors’ consumer-facing automated telephone system to obtain information

about the consumer’s debt. Examiners concluded that this constituted a false representation or

deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt or to obtain information concerning a

consumer.

On one or more collection calls, examiners heard collectors tell consumers that the ability to settle

the collection account was revoked or would expire. Examiners determined that these statements

were false or were a deceptive means to collect a debt because the consumers still had the ability to

settle. The relevant entities have undertaken remedial and corrective actions regarding these

violations; these matters remain under review by the Bureau.

4.4 Communication with third parties

Section 805 of the FDCPA

prohibits debt collectors from communicating in connection with the

collection of a debt with persons other than the consumer, unless the purpose is to acquire

information about the consumer’s location. Under Section 804 of the FDCPA,

when

communicating with third parties to acquire information about the consumer’s location, a

collector is prohibited from disclosing the name of the debt collection company unless the third

party expressly requests it.

At one or more debt collectors, examiners identified several instances where collectors disclosed

the debt owed by the consumer to a third party. These third-party communications were often

caused by inadequate identity verification during telephone calls. Additionally, examiners

15 USC 1692c(b).

15 USC 1692b(1).

observed several instances where collectors identified their employers to third parties without first

being asked for that information by the third party.

The relevant entities have undertaken remedial and corrective actions regarding these violations;

these matters remain under review by the Bureau.

5. Debt collection amicus briefs

In the past year, the Bureau has filed briefs as amicus curiae (friend of the court) in four cases

arising under the FDCPA. Two of these briefs were filed in the federal courts of appeals, and two of

these briefs were filed in the U.S. Supreme Court through the Office of the Solicitor General. In

addition, three cases in which the Bureau filed amicus briefs in prior years were decided in 2016.

Collection of Protected Social Security Funds: Arias amicus brief

On October 26, 2016, the Bureau filed an amicus brief in the Second Circuit case of Arias v.

Gutman, Mintz, Baker & Sonnenfeldt, PC to address when a debt collector violates the FDCPA in

the course of garnishing money from an account containing the consumer’s Social Security or

other protected funds.

The consumer in this case alleged, among other things, that a debt

collection law firm violated the FDCPA by telling a consumer that he could protect his Social

Security benefits from forcible collection only by showing that he had not commingled his benefits

with non-exempt funds. The district court dismissed the consumer’s suit for failure to state a claim

of either deceptive or unfair conduct in violation of the FDCPA.

The Bureau’s brief argued that the consumer had stated valid deception and unfairness claims.

The brief argued that the debt collection law firm’s alleged conduct was deceptive because it

misrepresented what the consumer had to do to avoid garnishment of his Social Security benefits.

The Bureau’s brief explained that the law firm’s alleged misrepresentation would violate the

FDCPA because the misstatement had the capacity to discourage the consumer from fully availing

himself of his legal rights. In particular, the Bureau contended that the law firm’s

Brief of Amicus Curiae, Arias v. Gutman, Mintz, Baker & Sonnenfeldt, PC, No. 16-2165 (2d Cir. Oct. 28, 2016),

available at https://www.consumerfinance.gov/policy-compliance/amicus/briefs/arias-v-gutman-mintz-baker-

sonnenfeldt-pc/.

misrepresentation would have led a consumer to believe that he had to surmount a potentially

daunting (but evidently fictitious) procedural hurdle to safeguard his exempt Social Security

benefits from garnishment.

The Bureau argued that the debt collection law firm’s alleged conduct would also constitute unfair

conduct. This is because the consumer alleged that the law firm filed a baseless pleading with the

purpose of intimidating the consumer into forfeiting his right to avoid garnishment of his Social

Security benefits. The Bureau argued that the district court had erred by relying on the fact that

the law firm used the right procedures to file its apparently baseless objection: Timely filing and

service are no substitute for a good faith, reasonable basis to act. Likewise, the Bureau explained

that the existence of a potential state law remedy for the law firm’s conduct did not deprive the

consumer of his rights under the FDCPA.

The court has not yet issued a decision in this case.

Debt Collector Letterhead: Sheriff amicus brief

On March 2, 2016, the Solicitor General, with the assistance of the Bureau, filed an amicus brief in

the Supreme Court case of Sheriff v. Gillie to address 1) whether special counsel appointed by the

attorney general of Ohio to collect debts owed to the state are exempt from the FDCPA’s definition

of “debt collector,” and 2) whether the special counsel’s use of the letterhead of the Ohio attorney

general violates the FDCPA.

The FDCPA defines the term “debt collector” to include any person

“who regularly collects or attempts to collect … debts owed or due another.”

But the definition

specifically excludes “any officer or employee of a creditor while, in the name of the creditor,

collecting debts for such creditor,” and “any officer or employee of … any State to the extent that

collecting or attempting to collect any debt is in the performance of his official duties.”

The

special counsel argued that they were officers of the state, and thus exempt from the FDCPA. They

also argued that, even if they were not exempt, they did not violate the FDCPA because, even

Brief of Amicus Curiae, Sherriff v. Gillie, No. 15-338 (U.S. Mar. 2, 2016), available at

https://www.consumerfinance.gov/policy-compliance/amicus/briefs/sheriff-gillie/.

15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6).

15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6)(A), (C).

though their debt collection letters used the letterhead of the Ohio attorney general, the letters

accurately represented their role as special counsel.

The amicus brief argued that the special counsel were not state officers because they did not

occupy any state office, and did not exercise any portion of the state’s sovereignty. Instead, their

duties were defined by contracts that declared them to be independent contractors. The brief

pointed out that the FDCPA draws a distinction between a creditor’s use of in-house personnel to

collect debts, and a creditor’s use of outside contractors to perform the same function. The FDCPA

applies to the latter, but not to the former. The brief argued that it would subvert the basic purpose

of the FDCPA to exempt Ohio’s use of independent contractors from the Act’s coverage.

The brief also argued that whether the special counsel’s use of the letterhead of the Ohio attorney

general was “false, deceptive, or misleading” should be judged from the perspective of an

“unsophisticated consumer” (also referred to as the “least sophisticated consumer”). Accordingly,

summary judgment was not appropriate because a reasonable jury could conclude that the use of

the letterhead violated the FDCPA. The purpose of a letterhead is to identify the sender of the

letter. Thus, a jury could determine that the special counsel’s use of the letterhead falsely implied

that special counsel worked within the office of the Ohio attorney general, not as independent

contractors. The FDCPA specifically prohibits false representations as to the source of a debt

collection letter.

On May 16, 2016, the Supreme Court resolved the case in favor of the special counsel.

The Court

assumed without deciding that the special counsel were not exempt from the FDCPA as officers or

employees of the state. But it sided with the special counsel because it did not believe that special

counsel’s use of the letterhead created by false or misleading representation. “The letterhead

identifies the principal – Ohio’s Attorney General – and the signature block names the agent – a

private lawyer hired as outside counsel to the Attorney General.”

The Court held it significant

that the attorney general required the special counsel to use the attorney general’s letterhead. The

Court also limited its decision to “special counsel” and noted that “considerations relevant to that

category may not carry over to other debt-collector relationships.”

Sheriff v. Gillie, 136 S.Ct. 1594 (2016).

Id. at 1601.

Id. at 1601 n.5.

Article III Standing: Bock amicus brief

On June 3, 2016, the Bureau filed a supplemental amicus brief in the Third Circuit in Bock v.

Pressler & Pressler, LLP, to address consumers’ Article III standing to bring suit under the

FDCPA.

In this case, a consumer brought suit against a debt-collection law firm that filed a

state-court debt-collection against him. The consumer alleged that the firm violated the FDCPA by

falsely representing that an attorney was meaningfully involved in filing the action. In 2015, the

Bureau and the FTC had jointly filed an amicus brief in the case arguing that a law firm violates

the FDCPA when it files a debt-collection lawsuit without any attorney meaningfully reviewing the

case first.

In the Bureau’s supplemental filing in 2016, the Bureau addressed the consumer’s

Article III standing to bring this suit in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Spokeo v.

Robins,

136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016). The Bureau’s supplemental amicus brief argued that a false representation

made to a consumer in violation of the FDCPA is a concrete harm sufficient to support a

consumer’s standing. On June 26, 2016, the Third Circuit issued an order remanding the case to

the district court for a determination on the consumer’s Article III standing.

Bankruptcy Proofs of Claim: Midland Funding amicus brief

On December 23, 2016, the Acting Solicitor General, with the assistance of the Bureau, filed an

amicus brief in the Supreme Court in Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson to address whether a debt

collector violates the FDCPA by filing an accurate proof of claim in a bankruptcy proceeding for an

unextinguished time-barred debt that the creditor knows is judicially unenforceable.

The

FDCPA bars a debt collector from

“us[ing] any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or

means in connection with the collection of any debt,” and specifically bars debt collectors from

Supplemental Brief of Amicus Curiae, Bock v. Pressler & Pressler, LLP, No. 15-1056 (3d Cir. June 3, 2016), available

at https://www.consumerfinance.gov/policy-compliance/amicus/briefs/bock-v-pressler-pressler/.

Brief of Amici Curiae, Bock v. Pressler & Pressler, LLP, No. 15-1056 (3d Cir. Aug. 13, 2015), available at

https://www.consumerfinance.gov/policy-compliance/amicus/briefs/bock-pressler-pressler/.

Brief of Amicus Curiae, Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson, No. 16-348 (U.S. Dec. 21, 2016), available at

https://www.consumerfinance.gov/policy-compliance/amicus/briefs/midland-funding-llc-v-johnson/.

making a “false representation of . . . the character, amount, or legal status of any debt.”

The

Act also provides that “[a] debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means to

collect or attempt to collect any debt.”

Prior judicial precedent holds that a debt collector

violates these prohibitions when it files a state-court collection action against a consumer on a

debt for which the statute of limitations has expired.

In this case, the debt collector argued, however, that the FDCPA does not prohibit from filing a

proof of claim in a consumer’s bankruptcy proceeding on debt that is known to be time-

barred. The debt collector also argued that, if the FDCPA did contain that prohibition, its

enforcement would be precluded by the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code.

The government’s amicus brief argued that the FDCPA did not permit a debt collector to

knowingly file a proof of claim on time-barred debt in a consumer’s bankruptcy proceeding. The

brief explained that the Bankruptcy Code does not authorize the filing of a proof of claim known to

be unenforceable but, instead, contemplates that such a claim will be disallowed and provides for

sanctions and other remedies for abuse of the bankruptcy process. In this context, the brief argues

that debt collectors that file a proof of claim are making a representation that the filer has a good-

faith basis for believing that the claim is enforceable in bankruptcy. Where that representation is

false or misleading, the brief argues that the debt collector has violated the FDCPA’s prohibitions

on misrepresentations and unfair debt collection practices, and that this violation can result in real

harm for consumers who are undergoing the bankruptcy process.

The court has not yet issued a decision in this case.

Definition of “debt”: Franklin case

On December 11, 2015, at the invitation of the court the Bureau and the Federal Trade Commission

jointly filed an amicus brief in Franklin v. Parking Revenue Recovery Services, taking the

position that an allegedly unpaid parking fee of $1.50 and a $45 nonpayment penalty constituted

15 U.S.C. § 1692e, 1692e(2)(A).

15 U.S.C. § 1692f.

“debt” covered by the FDCPA.

In a decision last year, the Seventh Circuit agreed with the joint

agency position.

The court grounded its decision in the FDCPA’s definition of “debt,” which refers to an “

obligation

of a consumer to pay money arising out of a transaction.”

The court explained that this

phrase

is “a broad reference to many different types of business dealings between parties,” but

includes “only those obligations that are created by the contracts the parties used to give legal

force to their transaction.”

The court concluded that the payment obligations at issue were debts

because they arose out of a contract between the parking lot operator and the consumer, and not

out of a tort or a violation of a municipal ordinance. In reaching this conclusion and reversing the

district court, the Seventh Circuit rejected the district court’s analogy comparing a consumer’s

alleged failure to pay a contractual debt to theft of services, which generally do not give rise to

FDCPA-covered debts.

Non-judicial foreclosure: Ho case

On August 7, 2015, the Bureau filed an amicus brief at the invitation of the Ninth Circuit in Ho v.

ReconTrust Co., NA, arguing that a trustee who forecloses on a deed of trust in a non-judicial action

in California can qualify as a “debt collector” under the general definition of that term in the

FDCPA.

In a 2-1 decision, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the trustee was not a debt collector

because it was not attempting to collect money from the plaintiff, but instead was attempting to

retake and resell the consumer’s secured property. The court reasoned that, in selling the property,

a trustee collects money from the purchaser of the home and not money owed by the consumer, and

Brief of Amici Curiae, Franklin v. Parking Revenue Recovery Servs., Inc., No. 14-3774 (7th Cir. Dec. 11, 2015),

available at https://www.consumerfinance.gov/policy-compliance/amicus/briefs/franklin-parking-revenue-recovery-

services/.

Franklin v. Parking Revenue Recovery Servs., Inc., 832 F.3d 741 (7th Cir. 2016)

15 U.S.C. 1692a(5).

832 F.3d at 744 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Brief of Amicus Curiae, Ho v. ReconTrust Company, N.A., No. 10-56884 (9th Cir. Aug. 7, 2015) (Ho Br.), available at

https://www.consumerfinance.gov/policy-compliance/amicus/briefs/ho-recontrust/.

therefore such money does not constitute “debt” as defined under the FDCPA. The court

acknowledged that its holding creates a conflict with contrary holdings of both the Fourth and Sixth

Circuits.

In a dissenting opinion, Judge Korman noted that a trustee institutes a foreclosure proceeding to

collect money by forcing a sale of the consumer’s secured property and, therefore, qualifies as a

debt collector under the FDCPA. He also reasoned that the FDCPA does not interfere with

California law in ways requiring nullification of the Act’s provisions, and that the FDCPA’s

preemption provisions allow for operation of California law without the need to exclude an entire

category of debt collectors from the Act.

A petition seeking rehearing by the panel or rehearing en banc is currently pending before the

court.

“Initial Communication”: Hernandez case

In August 2014, the FTC joined the CFPB in filing an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit in

Hernandez v. Williams, Zinman & Parham, P.C., urging it to reject an interpretation of the phrase

“initial communication” that was both overly narrow and contravened the text of, and legislative

intent behind, the FDCPA.

In July 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a

decision in a case agreeing with that position.

The FDCPA provision requires that “a debt

collector” send a debt-validation notice either “[w]ithin five days after the initial communication

with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt” or in “the initial communication”

itself.

This notice triggers a thirty-day period in which consumers may dispute the debt and

request information about the original creditor.

The joint amicus brief argued that this

provision applies to each debt collector that contacts a consumer about a debt, not just the initial

debt collector to collect a given debt (as the defendant argued and the district court held). Agreeing

Brief of Amici Curiae, Hernandez v. Williams, Zinman & Parham, P.C., No. 14-15672 (9th Cir. Aug. 20, 2014),

available at https://www.consumerfinance.gov/policy-compliance/amicus/briefs/hernandez-williams-zinman-

parham/.

Hernandez v. Williams, Zinman & Parham PC, 829 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2016).

15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a).

Id. § 1692g(b).

with that position, the court unanimously held that, although the text is ambiguous when read in

isolation, the provision unambiguously applies to all debt collectors when it is read in light of the

statutory context and purposes. In particular, the court noted that the Act uses the phrase “a debt

collector” throughout the statute to impose obligations and restrictions on all debt collectors

throughout the entire debt collection process, and that imposing the validation-notice requirement

only on initial debt collectors as the defendant urged would create loopholes that would

undermine the statute’s protections.

6. Enforcement

Enforcement

The Bureau announced ten new law enforcement actions in 2016 related to unlawful collection

conduct in violation of the FDCPA, the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (“CFPA”), or

both. Some of these actions are still pending. The Bureau also continues to be in active litigation

on one debt collection matter filed in 2013 and two filed in 2015. In addition to the Bureau’s public

enforcement actions involving debt collection practices, the Bureau is conducting a number of

non-public investigations of companies to determine whether they engaged in collection practices

that violate the FDCPA or the CFPA.

In 2016, public actions involving debt collection have resulted in over $39 million in consumer

relief and over $20 million paid into the civil penalty fund, which is used to provide relief to

eligible consumers who would not otherwise get full compensation or, to the extent that is not

practicable, to provide consumer education and financial literacy programs designed to help

consumers.

6.1 CFPB law enforcement actions

In the Matter of Citibank, N.A.

(File No. 2016-CFPB-0003) (consent order entered February 23, 2016)

The Bureau took two separate actions against Citibank for illegal debt sales and debt collection

practices, and two actions against Citibank’s law firms for unlawful debt collection litigation

practices.

In the first action (File No. 2016-CFPB-0003), the Bureau found that Citibank provided inaccurate

and inflated APR information for almost 130,000 credit card accounts it sold to debt buyers. The

buyers then used the exaggerated APR in debt collection attempts. Citibank also failed to promptly

forward to debt buyers approximately 14,000 customer payments totaling almost $1 million.

Citibank was ordered to provide $4.89 million in consumer relief and pay a $3 million civil

penalty. The CFPB’s order also requires Citibank to provide certain account documentation when

it sells debt, include provisions in its debts sales contracts that prohibit the resale of debt, and

upon request make certain information available to consumers about the debt being sold.

In the Matter of Citibank, N.A. et al.

(File No. 2016-CFPB-0004) (consent order entered February 23, 2016)

In the Matter of Solomon & Solomon

(File No. 2016-CFPB-0005) (consent order entered February 23, 2016)

In the Matter of Faloni & Associates

(File No. 2016-CFPB-0006) (consent order entered February 23, 2016)

In the second action (File No. 2016-CFPB-0004), the CFPB found that Citibank and two of its

affiliates – Department Stores National Bank and CitiFinancial Servicing, LLC –, filed altered

affidavits in numerous New Jersey state court debt collection actions. In 2011, Citibank learned

that at least two of its local law firms, Faloni & Associates, LLC, and Solomon & Solomon, P.C., had

taken affidavits signed by Citibank employees and altered the dates of affidavits, the amount of the

debt allegedly owed, or both, after the affidavits were executed. Citibank later ceased sending new

accounts to the law firms and dismissed all pending actions in which the affidavits were used. The

CFPB’s order requires Citibank to comply with a New Jersey state court order, in which Citibank

had to refund $11 million collected from consumers and stop collection of an additional $34

million in debts, both of which Citibank has done. Consistent with the Bureau’s Responsible

Business Conduct bulletin, the CFPB did not impose civil money penalties on Citibank for this

violation, in light of its efforts to recompense harmed consumers. Solomon & Solomon, P.C., was

ordered to pay a $65,000 civil penalty. Faloni & Associates, LLC, was ordered to pay a $15,000

civil penalty. In addition, the CFPB ordered Citibank to enhance its oversight and compliance

management systems to ensure that its service providers, including local debt collection counsel,

do not alter affidavits or file altered affidavits in court regarding the collection of consumer

financial debt.

http://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-orders-citibank-to-provide-relief-to-consumers-for-

illegal-debt-sales-and-collection-practices/

In the Matter of Pressler & Pressler, LLP, Sheldon H. Pressler and Gerard J. Felt

(File No. 2016-CFPB- 0009) (consent order entered April 25, 2016)

In the Matter of New Century Financial Services

(File No. 2016-CFPB- 0010) (consent order entered April 25, 2016)

The Bureau took action against the debt collection law firm Pressler & Pressler, LLP, two principal

partners, and New Century Financial Services, Inc., a debt buyer. The Bureau found that the

companies and individuals made false or empty allegations about consumer debts, filed lawsuits

based on unreliable or false information, and harassed consumers with unsubstantiated court

filings. The consent orders bar the companies and individuals from illegal practices that can

deceive or intimidate consumers, such as filing lawsuits without determining if debts in question

are valid. The orders also require the firm and the named partners to pay a $1 million civil penalty,

and New Century to pay a $1.5 million civil penalty.

In the Matter of TMX Finance LLC

(File No. 2016-CFPB-0022) (consent order entered September 26, 2016)

The Bureau took action against TMX Finance LLC, one of the nation’s largest auto title loan

lenders, for presenting consumers with misleading loan information and engaging in unfair in-

person debt collection tactics that illegally exposed information about debts to borrowers’

employers, friends, and family. The Bureau ordered TMX Finance, which operates through a host

of state subsidiaries under the names TitleMax, TitleBucks, and InstaLoan, to stop abusive loan-

repayment policies and intrusive visits to consumers’ homes and workplaces and to pay a $9

million civil penalty.

http://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-takes-action-halt-illegal-debt-collection-practices-

lawsuit-mill-and-debt-buyer/

http://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-fines-titlemax-parent-company-9-million-luring-

consumers-more-costly-loans/

In the Matter of Navy Federal Credit Union

(File No. 2016-CFPB-0024) (consent order entered on October 11, 2016)

The Bureau took action against Navy Federal Credit Union for subjecting its members, which

include active-duty military, retired servicemembers, and their families, to unlawful debt

collection practices. The Bureau found that Navy Federal falsely threatened legal action and wage

garnishment, falsely threatened to contact commanding officers to pressure servicemembers to

repay, misrepresented the credit consequences of falling behind on a loan, and illegally froze

members’ access to their accounts. In the consent order, the credit union agreed to correct its debt

collection practices, pay approximately $23 million in redress to victims, and pay a $5.5 million

civil penalty.

CFPB, et al. v. MacKinnon, et al.

(W.D.N.Y. Case 1:16-cv-00880) (complaint filed November 2, 2016)

In partnership with the New York Attorney General, the Bureau filed a lawsuit in a federal district

court against the leaders of a massive debt collection scheme based out of Buffalo, N.Y. The lawsuit

alleges Douglas MacKinnon and Mark Gray operate a network of companies – Northern

Resolution Group LLC, Enhanced Acquisitions LLC, and Delray Capital LLC – that harass,

threaten, and deceive millions of consumers across the nation into paying inflated debts or

amounts they may not owe. The Bureau is seeking to shut down this illegal operation and to obtain

compensation for victims and a civil penalty against the companies and partners. This action is

still pending.

In the Matter of: Moneytree, Inc.

(File No. 2016-0028) (consent order entered on December 16, 2016)

The Bureau took action against Moneytree, Inc., a financial services company that offers payday

loans and check-cashing services, for misleading consumers regarding the cost of tax-refund

http://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-orders-navy-federal-credit-union-pay-285-million-

improper-debt-collection-actions/

http://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-and-new-york-attorney-general-file-lawsuit-against-

illegal-nationwide-debt-collection-scheme/

http://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-takes-action-against-moneytree-deceptive-advertising-

and-collection-practices/

check-cashing services, withdrawing money from consumers’ bank accounts without required

preauthorization, and misrepresenting the company’s ability to repossess consumer vehicles when

attempting to collect overdue unsecured loans. In the consent order, the company agreed to cease

its illegal conduct, provide over $255,000 in redress to consumers, and pay a $250,000 civil

penalty.

6.2 Continuation of pre-2016 matters

CFPB v. CashCall, Inc., et al.

(C.D.Cal. File CV 15-7522-JFW (RAOx) (complaint filed December 16, 2013 in D. Mass. No. 1:13-

cv-13167; order denying defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings entered on December

30, 2015; order granting plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment entered on August 31,

2016; order granting defendants’ motion for certification of interlocutory appeal and stay entered

on January 3, 2017).

In 2013, the Bureau filed a lawsuit against online loan servicer CashCall Inc., its owner, a

subsidiary, and an affiliate, for collecting money consumers do not owe, because the underlying

loans were void under state lending or licensing laws. In December 2015, the court denied the

defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, holding that a CFPA UDAAP claim could be

predicated on conduct which also constituted a state law violation and that the CFPA prohibition

against establishing a usury cap does not prevent the CFPB from enforcing the UDAAP prohibition

in connection with the collection of void debts.

In August 2016, the district court granted the Bureau’s motion for partial summary judgment and

denied the defendants’ summary judgment motion. The Court’s ruling resolves all issues of

liability in the Bureau’s favor, and leaves open only the issues of relief, penalty, and injunction. In

January 2017, the district court granted defendants’ motion for certification of interlocutory

appeal and stay. This action is still pending.

http://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-sues-cashcall-for-illegal-online-loan-servicing/

CFPB v. Universal Debt & Payment Solutions, LLC, et al.

(N.D.GA No. 1:15-CV-0859) (complaint filed March 26, 2015; preliminary injunction issued April

7, 2015).

On April 7, 2015, the Bureau obtained a preliminary injunction that froze the assets and enjoined

unlawful conduct related to a phantom debt collection scheme. The Bureau’s suit against a group

of seven debt collection agencies, six individual debt collectors, four payment processors, and a

telephone marketing service provider alleges violations of the FDCPA and the CFPA’s prohibition

on unfair and deceptive acts and practices, and providing substantial assistance to unfair or

deceptive conduct. The complaint alleges that the individuals, acting through a network of

corporate entities, used threats and harassment to collect debt that is not payable to those

attempting to collect it. The complaint alleges that the debt collectors’ misconduct was facilitated

and substantially assisted by payment processors and a telephone service provider, which were

also named as defendants in the lawsuit. This action is still pending.

CFPB v. NDG Financial Corp., et al.

(S.D. N.Y. No.1:15-cv-05211-CM) (complaint filed July 31, 2015; amended complaint filed

December 11, 2015; order denying defendants’ motion to dismiss entered on December 2, 2016;

order denying defendants' motions for reconsideration and certification for interlocutory appeal

entered on December 19, 2016).

In December 2015, the Bureau filed an amended complaint against the NDG Financial

Corporation, nine of its affiliates, and four individual defendants for engaging in unfair, deceptive,

and abusive practices relating to its payday lending enterprise. The amended complaint alleges

that the enterprise, which has companies located in Canada and Malta, originated, serviced, and

collected payday loans that consumers were not obligated to repay under state licensing and usury

rules, represented that U.S. federal and state laws did not apply to the Defendants or the payday

loans, and secured repayment using unfair and deceptive collections practices, all in violation of

the CFPA. The Bureau also named twelve corporations and individuals affiliated with NDG as

http://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-sues-participants-in-robo-call-phantom-debt-collection-

operation/

http://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-sues-offshore-payday-lender/

relief defendants, alleging that they received funds via the aforementioned practices to which they

were not legally entitled. On December 2, 2016, the Court denied all defendants’ motions to

dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. This action is still

pending.

6.3 FTC law enforcement actions

From January 1 through December 31, 2016, the FTC brought or resolved 12 debt collection cases.

In several of its Section 13(b) cases, the Commission obtained preliminary relief that included ex

parte temporary restraining orders with asset freezes, immediate access to business premises, and

appointment of receivers to take over the debt collection businesses.

The Commission’s recent efforts to protect consumers from deceptive and abusive debt collection

practices culminated in Operation Collection Protection. This initiative, which the FTC began in

2015, was the first coordinated federal-state-local enforcement initiative targeting illegal debt

collection. The nationwide crackdown included over 165 actions by more than 70 federal, state,

and local law enforcement and regulatory authorities against collectors who used illegal tactics

such as harassing phone calls and false threats of litigation or arrest.

Participants in the

initiative continue to work closely together to share information and coordinate actions. The FTC’s

actions, involving (1) phantom debt collection, (2) collection via unlawful text messages and

emails, (3) other FDCPA and FTC Act violations, and (4) Fair Credit Reporting Act violations, are

discussed below.

See, e.g., Press Release, FTC and Federal, State and Local Law Enforcement Partners Announce Nationwide

Crackdown Against Abusive Debt Collectors (Nov. 4, 2015), available at https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-

releases/2015/11/ftc-federal-state-local-law-enforcement-partners-announce; Press Release, FTC and State Law

Enforcement Partners Announce More Actions and Results in Continuing Crackdown Against Abusive Debt Collectors

(Jan. 7, 2016), available at https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2016/01/ftc-state-law-enforcement-

partners-announce-more-actions-results; Press Release, FTC and Illinois Attorney General Halt Chicago-Area

Operation Charged with Collecting and Selling Phantom Payday Loan Debts (Mar. 30, 2016), available at

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2016/03/ftc-illinois-attorney-general-halt-chicago-area-operation-

charged; Press Release, FTC Actions: Debt Collectors Banned from Debt Collection Business (Sept. 7, 2016), available

at https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2016/09/ftc-actions-debt-collectors-banned-debt-collection-

business; Blog Post, A Debt Collection Round-up (Dec. 27, 2016), available at

https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/blog/debt-collection-round; Blog Post, Collection Protection reflection (Dec. 30, 2016),

available at https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/business-blog/2016/12/collection-protection-

reflection?utm_source=govdelivery.

6.3.1

Phantom Debt Collection

The Commission has continued its efforts to fight “phantom debt collection” this year. Phantom

debt collectors engage in unfair, deceptive, or abusive conduct by attempting to collect on debts

that either do not exist or are not owed to the phantom debt collector. The Commission initiated or

resolved three actions involving phantom debt collection in 2016: SQ Capital LLC, Stark Law

LLC, and Kelly S. Brace. SQ Capital and Stark Law are the first two cases brought by the FTC

against operations for allegedly selling fake debt portfolios. This past year, the Commission also

returned money to thousands of consumers who were targeted by the phantom debt schemes in

Centro Natural Corp. and Broadway Global Master Inc.

In December, the Commission charged SQ Capital with selling portfolios of fake payday loan debts

that debt collectors used to get people to pay on debts they did not owe.

According to the

complaint, the defendants’ fake portfolios listed social security numbers and bank account

numbers of real consumers, but falsely claimed that the purported borrowers had failed to repay

debts they never owed, to lenders who did not make these loans.

The complaint also alleges that

the defendants did not have the authority to sell debts of the lenders they named. At the FTC’s

request, a federal court entered a preliminary injunction halting this operation pending litigation.

In March, the FTC partnered with the Illinois Attorney General to shut down a Chicago-area

operation that allegedly threatened and intimidated consumers to collect phantom payday loan

debts they did not owe, or did not owe to the defendants.

The Stark Law defendants allegedly

FTC v. Joel Jerome Tucker, 2:16-cv-082816 (D. Kan. Dec. 16, 2016) (Complaint); see also Press Release, FTC Charges

Defendants with Selling Fake Payday Loan Debt Portfolios (Jan. 9, 2017), available at https://www.ftc.gov/news-

events/press-releases/2017/01/ftc-charges-defendants-selling-fake-payday-loan-debt-portfolios.

To add credibility to some of the fake loans in their portfolios, the defendants used the name of a purported lender

associated with another Commission law enforcement action, FTC v. AMG Services, 2:12-cv-00536 (D. Nev. Sept. 30,

2016) (Order). In September 2016, a federal court ordered the defendants in the AMG payday lending scheme to pay a

record $1.3 billion for deceiving and illegally charging consumers undisclosed and inflated fees. Id.; see also Press

Release, U.S. Court Finds in FTC’s Favor and Imposes Record $1.3 Billion Judgment Against Defendants Behind AMG

Payday Lending Scheme (Oct. 4, 2016), available at https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2016/10/us-

court-finds-ftcs-favor-imposes-record-13-billion-judgment.

FTC v. Stark Law, LLC, No. 1:16-cv-3463 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 21, 2016) (Complaint); see also Press Release, FTC and

Illinois Attorney General Halt Chicago-Area Operation Charged with Collecting and Selling Phantom Payday Loan

Debts (Mar. 30, 2016), available at https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2016/03/ftc-illinois-attorney-

general-halt-chicago-area-operation-charged.

called consumers and demanded immediate payment for supposedly delinquent loans, often

armed with consumers’ sensitive personal and financial information. Defendants also allegedly

threatened consumers with lawsuits or arrest, deceptively held themselves out as a law firm with

authority to sue and obtain substantial judgments against delinquent consumers, and disclosed

debts to relatives, friends and co-workers. As in SQ Capital, the complaint also charged defendants

with unlawfully selling portfolios of fake debt to other debt collectors in violation of the FTC Act.

The court entered an ex parte temporary restraining order (and later a preliminary injunction)

with an asset freeze, appointment of a receiver, and injunctive relief prohibiting the defendants

from selling fake debt portfolios or from making the misrepresentations at issue in this case.

Litigation continues in this matter.

In Brace, the FTC and New York Attorney General successfully resolved their litigation against

another phantom debt collection scheme. The complaint in this case, filed in October 2015, alleged

that the defendants attempted to collect on payday debts they knew were bogus.

According to

the complaint, the defendants bought payday loans supposedly owed to a company that repeatedly

told them to stop collection efforts because the debts were fabricated, and ignored consumers’

evidence that they had never authorized a payday loan. The defendants allegedly employed other

deceptive and abusive tactics to get consumers to pay, including false threats of lawsuits and

arrest. The Court granted – over the defendants’ objections – the plaintiffs’ request to enter a

temporary restraining order halting their operations, and, shortly thereafter, entered a stipulated

preliminary injunction. In the summer of 2016, the FTC and the New York AG secured a stipulated

final order banning the defendants from the debt collection business, prohibiting other deceptive

claims, and imposing a judgment of more than $18.4 million, which was partially suspended based

on inability to pay.

The plaintiffs also secured an order against a relief defendant imposing a

partially-suspended $418,000 judgment.

In addition to the law enforcement actions above, this past year the Commission also returned

funds to consumers who lost money to phantom debt collection operations previously stopped by

FTC and State of New York v. Brace, No. 1:15-cv-00875-RJA (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 5, 2015) (Complaint).

FTC and State of New York v. Brace, No. 1:15-cv-00875-RJA (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2015) (Stipulated Order), see also

Press Release, FTC Action: Debt Collector Banned from Collection Business (Aug, 24, 2016), available at

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2016/08/ftc-action-debt-collector-banned-collection-business.

the FTC. In November 2016, the agency mailed 3,446 checks totaling more than $830,000 to

consumers in the Centro Natural Corp. matter.

The Commission had secured stipulated orders

banning defendants from debt collection or telemarketing, after alleging that they targeted

thousands of Spanish-speaking consumers with unlawful tactics to collect on fake debts and to

coerce consumers into purchasing goods that they did not want.

In April, the Commission

mailed 1,701 checks totaling more than $596,000 to consumers who lost money to the fraudulent

scheme in Broadway Global Master Inc.

The agency had previously secured a stipulated order

banning this operation from the debt collection business because of allegations that it harassed

consumers into paying phantom debts.

6.3.2

The FTC’s Messaging for Money Sweep: Debt

Collection Via Unlawful Text Messages and Emails

The Commission has also continued its efforts to pursue schemes that use deceptive, threatening

or otherwise unlawful text messages or emails to target consumers. In 2015, the Commission

launched a law enforcement sweep, called “Messaging for Money,” to stop three operations

engaged in such practices. This past year, the FTC won summary judgment in one of those cases

(The Primary Group Inc.), and successfully resolved the charges against nine of the defendants in

the other two matters (Premier Debt Acquisitions LLC and Unified Global Group, LLC).

Press Release, FTC Returns Money to Victims of Debt Collection Scheme (Nov. 14, 2016), available at

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2016/11/ftc-returns-money-victims-debt-collection-scheme.

FTC v. Centro Natural Corp., No. 14-cv-23879 CMA (S.D. Fla. June 30, 2015) (Stipulated Order); see also Press

Release, FTC Action Puts an End to Fraudulent Debt Collection Scheme that Targeted Spanish-Speaking Consumers

(July 8, 2015), available at https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2015/07/ftc-action-puts-end-fraudulent-

debt-collection-scheme-targeted.

Press Release, FTC Returns Money to Consumers Harmed by Scam That Collected Millions in Phantom Payday Loan

Debts (Apr. 6, 2016), available at https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2016/04/ftc-returns-money-

consumers-harmed-scam-collected-millions.

FTC v. Broadway Global Master Inc., No. 2:12-cv-0855 JAM GGH (E.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2015) (Stipulated Order); see

also Press Release, FTC Action Stops Scammers Who Collected Millions in Phantom Payday Loan Debts (Sept. 16,

2015), available at https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2015/09/ftc-action-stops-scammers-who-

collected-millions-phantom-payday.

In June 2016, the court in The Primary Group matter granted the FTC’s summary judgment

request on all counts against an unlawful debt collection operation.

The court found that, as

alleged by the Commission, these defendants deceived consumers using text messages, emails, and

phone calls that falsely threatened consumers with arrest or lawsuits if they did not make debt

collection payments. The court also found that they unlawfully contacted consumers’ friends,

family members, and employers; withheld information consumers needed to confirm or dispute

debts; and did not identify themselves as debt collectors, as required by law.

The court

permanently banned two defendants from debt collection activities and imposed a judgment of

$980,000.

The Commission successfully resolved Premier Debt Acquisitions in January 2016 by securing a

stipulated order banning the defendants from debt collection activities and imposing a judgment

of $2,229,756, which was partially suspended.

The complaint alleged that defendants

impersonated law enforcement and government officials, falsely threatened consumers with a

lawsuit or arrest, and falsely threatened to charge some consumers with criminal fraud, garnish

their wages, or seize their property.

In text messages, the defendants allegedly claimed they

would sue consumers and threatened to seize consumers’ possessions unless they paid. In

voicemails, the defendants also allegedly falsely claimed that a “uniformed officer” was on the way

to consumers’ homes. In addition to banning the defendants from the debt collection industry, the

order prohibits them from making misrepresentations about other financial products or services.

FTC v. The Primary Group, No. 1:15-cv-1645 (N.D. Ga. May 19, 2016) (Order Granting Summary Judgment); see also

Press Release, FTC Action: Debt Collector Banned from Debt Collection Business (June 16, 2016), available at

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2016/06/ftc-action-debt-collector-banned-debt-collection-business.

FTC v. The Primary Group, No. 1:15-cv-1645 (N.D. Ga. May 11, 2015) (Complaint); see also Press Release, FTC Halts

Three Debt Collection Operations That Allegedly Threatened and Deceived Consumers via Illegal Text Messages (May

21, 2015), available at https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2015/05/ftc-halts-three-debt-collection-

operations-allegedly-threatened.

FTC v. Premier Debt Acquisitions LLC, No. 1:15-cv-00421-FPG (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2016) (Order); see also Press

Release, FTC and State Law Enforcement Partners Announce More Actions and Results in Continuing Crackdown

Against Abusive Debt Collectors (Jan. 7, 2016), available at https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-

releases/2016/01/ftc-state-law-enforcement-partners-announce-more-actions-results.

FTC v. Premier Debt Acquisitions LLC, No. 1:15-cv-00421-FPG (W.D.N.Y. May 11, 2015) (Complaint); see also Press

Release, FTC Halts Three Debt Collection Operations That Allegedly Threatened and Deceived Consumers via Illegal

Text Messages (May 21, 2015), available at https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2015/05/ftc-halts-three-

debt-collection-operations-allegedly-threatened.

In FTC v. Unified Global Group, the FTC secured an approximately $27 million judgment and

significant injunctive relief in a settlement with four defendants involved in an abusive debt

collection operation. The FTC’s complaint against Unified Global Group

alleged that the

defendants sent texts to trick consumers into calling them back. The texts included false

statements such as, “YOUR PAYMENT DECLINED WITH CARD ****-****-****-5463 . . . CALL

866.256.2117 IMMEDIATELY,” even though consumers had never arranged to make payments to

the defendants. The defendants also allegedly used deceptive emails and calls that threatened

arrest and civil lawsuits, and unlawfully contacted consumers’ friends, families, and co-workers

about the supposed debts. In August 2016, the court entered a stipulated order banning the

settling defendants from all debt collection activities and imposing a judgment of approximately

$27 million, which was partially suspended because of their inability to pay.

Litigation continues

against the sole remaining defendant.

6.3.3

Other Actions to Halt FDCPA and FTC Act Violations

In addition to the cases described above, the FTC successfully resolved five other actions in 2016 to

protect consumers from unlawful collection practices: (1) Federal Check Processing; (2)

Commercial Recovery Systems; (3) Warrant Enforcement Division; (4) AFS Legal Services; and

(5) BAM Financial. In the first two cases, the FTC secured summary judgment wins against the

defendants. The FTC also continued litigating Vantage Point Services, filing a motion for

summary judgment and securing additional preliminary relief against a defendant.

In FTC v. Federal Check Processing Inc., the court granted the Commission’s request for summary

judgment against a Buffalo, New York-based debt collection scheme.

The district court adopted

FTC v. Unified Global Group, LLC, 15-cv-422-W (W.D.N.Y. May 11, 2015) (Complaint); see also Press Release, FTC

Halts Three Debt Collection Operations That Allegedly Threatened and Deceived Consumers via Illegal Text Messages

(May 21, 2015), available at https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2015/05/ftc-halts-three-debt-

collection-operations-allegedly-threatened.

FTC v. Unified Global Group, LLC, 15-cv-422-W (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2016) (Order); see also Press Release, FTC

Actions: Debt Collectors Banned from Debt Collection Business (Sept. 7, 2016) available at https://www.ftc.gov/news-

events/press-releases/2016/09/ftc-actions-debt-collectors-banned-debt-collection-business.

FTC v. Federal Check Processing, Inc., No. 1:14-cv-00122 (W.D.N.Y Oct. 13, 2016) (Judgment and Permanent

Injunction); see also Press Release, FTC Wins Summary Judgment Against Buffalo, NY-based Abusive Debt Collectors;

the magistrate judge’s recommendation and report that found that defendants had violated the

FTC Act and the FDCPA by falsely claiming to be government officials, falsely threatening

consumers with litigation or arrest, and systematically disclosing consumers’ debts to their

friends, family, and co-workers to coerce payment.

The court had previously entered an ex parte

temporary restraining order, followed by a stipulated preliminary injunction, to halt this abusive

debt collection operation. The final order bans the defendants from the debt collection industry

and requires them to pay a nearly $11 million judgment.

In United States v. Commercial Recovery Systems, Inc., a case that the FTC referred to the

Department of Justice for prosecution, the court entered summary judgment against two

defendants in an unlawful debt collection operation. The court found that the debt collectors had

“repeatedly and routinely violated the FDCPA . . . in multiple ways, by making blatantly false

representations for the purpose of intimidating consumers into paying debts.”

Among other

things, the court found that their routine threats to sue consumers were “patently false,” and

further that they falsely impersonated attorneys and threatened to seize or garnish consumers’

property or wages. The court banned the two defendants from debt collection, and will determine

the civil penalty amount to impose on one of them, the president of the company.

Additionally,

the government secured a stipulated final order against the remaining individual defendant

subjecting him to the same ban and imposing a $496,000 civil penalty judgment (partially

suspended due to an inability to pay).

In January 2016, the Commission also successfully resolved its action in Warrant Enforcement

Division. The FTC’s complaint in this matter alleged that the defendants, while under contract to

Defendants Banned from Collection Business (Oct. 31, 2016), available at https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-

releases/2016/10/ftc-wins-summary-judgment-against-buffalo-ny-based-abusive-debt.

FTC v. Federal Check Processing, Inc., No. 1:14-cv-00122 (W.D.N.Y Mar. 25, 2014) (Complaint), see also Press

Release, At FTC’s Request, Court Halts Debt Collector’s Allegedly Deceptive and Abusive Practices, Freezes Assets

(Sept. 23, 2014), available at http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2014/03/ftcs-request-court-halts-debt-

collectors-allegedly-deceptive.

United States v. Commercial Recovery Sys., Inc., No. 4:15-cv-36 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 7, 2016) (Memorandum Opinion and

Order).

United States v. Commercial Recovery Sys., Inc., No. 4:15-cv-36 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 18, 2016) (Order); see also Press

Release, FTC Action: Debt Collector Banned from Collection Business (Sept. 22, 2016), available at

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2016/09/ftc-action-debt-collector-banned-collection-business.

United States v. Commercial Recovery Sys., Inc., No. 4:15-cv-36 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 21, 2016) (Order)

collect overdue utility bills, traffic tickets, court fines, and other debts for local governments in

Texas and Oklahoma, sent consumers letters and postcards containing false or unsubstantiated

threats of arrest that appeared to come from a municipal court.

The FTC charged that the false

and unsubstantiated threats made to collect municipal court debts violated the FTC Act, and those

made to collect utility debts violated both the FTC Act and the FDCPA. Under a stipulated order

for permanent injunction, the defendants are prohibited from misrepresenting any material fact in

collecting debts, including that failure to pay a debt will result in the consumer being arrested or

jailed, having their vehicle impounded, or being unable to renew their driver’s license.

The order

also imposed a $194,888 judgment that was suspended based on the defendants’ inability to pay.

Similarly, the Commission secured a final order in its suit against AFS Legal Services, resolving

charges that the defendants impersonated investigators and law enforcement, and threatened to

arrest, jail, and sue consumers if they did not pay debts.

According to the FTC’s complaint, filed

in October 2015, the defendants often had consumers’ personal information – such as social

security and bank account numbers – that caused consumers to believe that the calls and

associated threats were legitimate.

The collectors also allegedly made harassing calls and

contacted relatives, friends, and co-workers about consumers’ debts. The stipulated final order,

entered in August 2016, bans the defendants from debt collection activities and imposes a

judgment of more than $4.4 million, the amount consumers lost to this scheme.

FTC v. Municipal Recovery Servs. Corp., No. 15-CV-04064-N (N.D. Tex. Dec. 24, 2015) (Complaint).

FTC v. Municipal Recovery Servs. Corp., No. 15-CV-04064-N (N.D. Tex. Jan. 29, 2016) (Order); see also, Press

Release, FTC and State Law Enforcement Partners Announce More Actions and Results in Continuing Crackdown

Against Abusive Debt Collectors (Jan. 7, 2016), available at https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-

releases/2016/01/ftc-state-law-enforcement-partners-announce-more-actions-results.

FTC v. Nat’l Payment Processing LLC, No. 1:15-cv-3811-AT (N.D. Ga. Aug. 29, 2016) (Order); see also Press Release,

FTC Actions: Debt Collectors Banned from Debt Collection Business (Sept. 7, 2016), available at

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2016/09/ftc-actions-debt-collectors-banned-debt-collection-

business.

FTC v. Nat’l Payment Processing LLC, No. 1:15-cv-3811-AT (N.D. Ga. Oct. 30, 2015) (Complaint).

In July 2016, the FTC also successfully resolved its suit against BAM Financial, banning the

defendants from the debt collecting business and securing other important relief.

The FTC’s

complaint, filed in October 2015, alleged that the defendants bought consumer debts and collected

payment by deceptively threatening consumers with lawsuits, wage garnishment, and arrest, and

by impersonating attorneys or process servers.

According to the complaint, the defendants also

unlawfully disclosed debts to, or harassed, third parties; failed to identify themselves as debt

collectors; and failed to notify consumers of their right to receive verification of the purported

debts. At the FTC’s request, the court entered a temporary restraining order that prohibited the

defendants from violating the FDCPA and the FTC Act, froze the defendants’ assets, and appointed

a receiver. The stipulated final order bans them from debt collection activities and imposes a

$4,802,646 judgment, to be partially suspended upon the surrender of certain assets based on

defendants’ inability to pay.

The FTC continues to work with the New York Attorney General in a joint action against Vantage

Point, a Buffalo, New York-based debt collection scheme. According to the complaint filed in 2015,

defendants’ collectors posed as a law firm, process servers, or even government agents –

misrepresenting to consumers that they had committed a crime and would be arrested and

jailed.

The complaint further alleges that the defendants made similar claims about consumers

to their co-workers, friends, and family members. At the request of the FTC and the New York AG,

the court entered a preliminary injunction to halt the unlawful practices. In 2016, the plaintiffs

requested that the court enter summary judgment against the defendants, and that motion is

currently pending. The plaintiffs also sought and obtained a second ex parte temporary restraining

FTC v. BAM Fin’l, LLC, No. 8:15-cv-01672-JVS-DFM (C.D. Cal. July 11, 2016) (Order); see also Press Release, FTC

Action: Abusive Debt Collectors Banned from Collection Business (July 14, 2016), available at

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2016/07/ftc-action-abusive-debt-collectors-banned-collection-

business.

FTC v. BAM Fin’l, LLC, No. 8:15-cv-01672-JVS-DFM (C.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2015) (Complaint); see also Press Release,

FTC and Federal, State and Local Law Enforcement Partners Announce Nationwide Crackdown Against Abusive Debt

Collectors (Nov. 4, 2015), available at https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2015/11/ftc-federal-state-

local-law-enforcement-partners-announce.

FTC and State of New York v. Vantage Point Services, LLC, No. 1:15-cv-00006-WMS (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 5, 2015)

(Complaint); see also Press Release, FTC, New York Attorney General Crack Down on Abusive Debt Collectors (Feb. 26,

2015), available at https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2015/02/ftc-new-york-attorney-general-crack-

down-abusive-debt-collectors.

order and preliminary injunction against one of the individual defendants for operating another

debt collection scheme in violation of the first preliminary injunction.

6.3.4

Action to Halt Fair Credit Reporting Act Violations by a

Debt Collector

In May 2016, in the Credit Protection Association matter – referred to the Department of Justice

for prosecution – the court entered a stipulated final order against a debt collector for alleged

violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act’s (FCRA) Furnisher Rule.

Specifically, the complaint

alleged that the defendant debt collector lacked adequate policies and procedures to handle

consumer disputes regarding information the company provided to credit reporting agencies.

The complaint also alleged that the company did not have a policy requiring notice to consumers

of the outcomes of investigations about disputed information and that, in numerous instances,

consumers were not informed whether information they disputed had been corrected. The

stipulated final order requires the defendant to pay $72,000 in civil penalties and put in place

policies and procedures that comply with the requirements of the FCRA and the Furnisher Rule.

The company will also be required to follow the Rule’s requirements related to conducting dispute

investigations and informing consumers of their outcome.

15 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1681x (FCRA); Duties of Furnishers of Information to Consumer Reporting Agencies (Furnisher

Rule), 16 C.F.R. § 660, recodified as Duties of Furnishers of Information, 12 C.F.R. § 1022, subpart E.

U.S. v. Credit Protection Association, 3:16-cv-01255-D (N.D. Tex. May 9, 2016) (Complaint and Order); see also Press

Release, Debt Collector Settles FTC Charges It Violated Fair Credit Reporting Act (May 9, 2016), available at

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2016/05/debt-collector-settles-ftc-charges-it-violated-fair-credit.

7. Education and outreach

initiatives

The Bureau empowers consumers to make sound financial decisions for themselves and their

families through wide-ranging consumer education efforts. These efforts include outreach to

targeted consumer populations, including students, older Americans, servicemembers, veterans,

and low-income and economically-vulnerable consumers, as well as to the general population and

to financial educators. The CFPB’s financial education is focused on encouraging consumers to ask

questions, make plans, and take action in their financial lives to reach their own life goals.

Similarly, the FTC’s FDCPA program also involves extensive education and public outreach efforts.

The FTC’s consumer education initiative informs consumers of their rights under the FDCPA and

what the statute requires of debt collectors, while its business education initiative informs debt

collectors what they must do to comply with the law.

7.1 Bureau education and outreach

initiatives

The Bureau seeks to provide consumers with information about specific financial decisions,

including those relating to debt collection. One of the Bureau’s initiatives is Ask CFPB, an

interactive online tool that helps consumers find short, clear, unbiased, authoritative answers to a

wide variety of their financial questions.

Ask CFPB for debt collections was initiated in October 2012. As of January 2017, debt collection

was one of the two most-viewed categories in Ask CFPB. The Ask CFPB questions and answers on

Available at https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0149-debt-collection; https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-

center/credit-and-finance.

debt collection address a wide range of issues under the FDCPA, including the meaning of specific

terms, consumers’ rights, and debt collectors’ obligations. Ask CFPB provides practical tips to

consumers regarding steps they can take to exercise their rights under the FDCPA as well as to

manage their debts.

In July 2013, the Bureau added five sample letters to Ask CFPB that consumers may use when they

interact with debt collectors. These letters can help consumers get valuable information and

protect them from inappropriate or unwanted collection activities. The five letters address the

following situations: (1) consumers who need more information about a debt; (2) consumers who

want to dispute their debt; (3) consumers who want to restrict how and when a collector can

contact them; (4) consumers who want to stop all communication from debt collectors; and (5)

consumers who have hired an attorney with respect to the debt matter.

These letters are available

in English and Spanish.

Since tracking began in June 2014, the letters have been downloaded over 389,800 times as of the

end of 2016. Of the letters, “I need more information about this debt” and “I do not owe this debt”

are the most popular, accounting together for over two thirds of total downloads:

TABLE 4: DOWNLOADS OF CFPB’S COLLECTION-RELATED LETTERS

Letter

% total downloads

“I need more information about this debt”

42%

“I do not owe this debt”

34%

“I want to specify how the debt collector can contact me”

10.5%

“I want the debt collector to stop contacting me”

9.8%

“I want the debt collector to only contact me through my

lawyer”

3.7%

This material is at: http://www.consumerfinance.gov/consumer-tools/debt-collection/

Copies of these letters are available on the Bureau’s website at http://www.consumerfinance.gov/askcfpb/1695/ive-

been-contacted-debt-collector-and-need-help-responding-how-do-i-reply.html.

In addition to online resources for consumers, the Bureau has developed numerous print

publications and brochures on financial topics including debt collection, which consumers and

organizations can download or order in bulk free of charge. In 2015, the Bureau added the

brochure “Know Your Rights When a Debt Collector Calls,” in both English and Spanish, as well as

a version tailored specifically to servicemembers, informing them of their unique rights. The

Bureau distributed 120,705 of the English version and 41,558 of the Spanish version throughout

FY 2016.

Debt collection is a significant issue facing consumers, especially low-income and economically-

vulnerable consumers. The Bureau, through its Office of Financial Empowerment, developed a

financial empowerment training and toolkit – Your Money, Your Goals – for use by social services

workers and other front-line staff and volunteers working with economically vulnerable

consumers. The modularized toolkit covers a variety of financial topics, including debt

management and consumer financial protection. The module on dealing with debt provides an

overview of the FDCPA, resources, and tools to help consumers better manage their debts. As of

the end of 2016, more than13,500 staff and volunteers in social services, legal aid, worker, and

community organizations were trained on Your Money, Your Goals, reaching an estimated

600,000 consumers. The toolkit and training, in both English and Spanish, can be accessed at

www.consumerfinance.gov/your-money-your-goals. The Bureau is developing stand-alone “action

handbooks” on specific financial topics contained in the toolkit. These resources focus on

actionable content, and they are shorter and easier for staff in human service organizations to use

with the people they serve. The first in the series, “Behind on Bills,” contains tools and tips to help

consumers better align their income and expenses, steps to consider if they experience a shortfall,

and information on options for responding to debt collectors.

Empowering consumers to manage their student loan debts has been and will continue to be a

significant focus for the Bureau. The Bureau developed and continues to maintain web tools

designed to help students and families make more informed decisions about paying for college and

repaying their student loans. Our Repay Student Debt

tool can provide help for borrowers who

have

fallen

behind on their student loan payments. The tool has helped borrowers understand

their

options,

communicate effectively with their loan servicer or debt collector, and work to

Available at http://www.consumerfinance.gov/paying-for-college/repay-student-debt/.

bring their student

loans

out of default or delinquency. Improving borrower’s performance in

paying student loan debts helps them to rebuild their credit, go back to school, or buy a

home.

In 2016, the Bureau partnered with the Department of Education to launch a new initiative to

develop a student loan

Payback Playbook

– a set of streamlined, personalized disclosures that

provide a plain-language explanation of repayment options available to borrowers with federal

student loans.

100

The Bureau provided the Education Department with a revised set of

disclosures, informed by user testing and public feedback from more than 3,400 consumers,

servicers, advocates and other stakeholders.

101

The Education Department plans to make the

Payback Playbook

disclosures available as part of its ongoing work to enhance consumer

protections for student loan borrowers.

102

Increased knowledge of repayment options may help

some consumers pay on time and thus stay out of debt collection.

Debt collection is also a significant issue facing the servicemember population. In April 2016, the

Office for Servicemember Affairs released its semiannual complaint snapshot that provides an

overview of complaints submitted by servicemembers, veterans, and their family members

during 2015.

103

The report highlighted the most common problems these consumers are

reporting. Debt collection complaints continue to be the largest category of complaints from the

military community, and as of December 2016, they remain the largest complaint category,

comprising 45 percent of total complaints from military consumers.

For borrowers with private student loans, options to cure a student loan in default may

limited. In May 2013,

the Bureau published Student Loan Affordability, a report analyzing 28,000 comments from policy experts, market

participants, and consumers offering potential options for policymakers seeking to help borrowers manage their

student debt. Available at http://www.consumerfinance.gov/reports/student-loan-affordability/. Student Loan

Affordability featured a discussion of possible options for borrowers in distress, including increased access to loan

modifications for borrowers seeking to avoid default and a mechanism through which private student loan borrowers

in default can successfully repair their credit.

100

Available at http://www.consumerfinance.gov/payback-playbook/

101

http://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/blog/your-feedback-helped-us-update-our-payback-playbook-

prototype/

102

https://blog.ed.gov/2016/04/a-new-vision-for-serving-student-loan-borrowers/

103

Available at http://www.consumerfinance.gov/reports/complaints-received-from-servicemembers-veterans-and-

their-families-2011-2014/; http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201511_cfpb_snapshot-of-servicemember-

complaints.pdf.

In September 2016, the Office of Servicemember Affairs hosted a web forum on the various

resources and tips military personnel can use to help them better communicate with debt

collectors if they should find themselves having trouble managing their debts. The forum

describes how servicemembers can use the Bureau’s sample debt collection letters.

7.2

FTC education and public outreach

Education and public outreach also are important parts of the Commission’s debt collection

program. The FTC uses multiple formats and channels to inform consumers about their rights

under the FDCPA, as well as what the statute requires of debt collectors; and to inform debt

collectors about what they must do to comply with the law. The FTC also uses education and public

outreach to enhance legal services providers’ understanding of debt collection issues.

The Commission reaches tens of millions of consumers through English and Spanish print and

online materials, blog posts, and speeches and presentations. To maximize its outreach efforts,

FTC staff works with an informal network of about 16,000 community-based organizations and

national groups that order and distribute FTC information to their members, clients, and

constituents. In 2016, the FTC distributed 15.5 million print publications to libraries, police

departments, schools, non-profit organizations, banks, credit unions, other businesses, and

government agencies. In 2016, the FTC logged more than 43 million views of its business and

consumer education website pages. The FTC’s channel at YouTube.com/FTCvideos houses 144

videos, which were viewed more than 603,306 times in 2016. A new video —

Fraud Affects Every

Community: Debt Collection — tells the first-person story of a veteran who was contacted by a

debt collector. The consumer blogs in English

104

and Spanish

105

reached 159,825 (English) and

44,835 (Spanish) email subscribers, and regularly serve as source material for local and national

news stories.

As part its work to raise awareness about scams targeting the Latino community, the FTC has

developed a series of fotonovelas in Spanish. The graphic novels tell stories based on complaints

104

http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/blog.

105

http://www.consumidor.ftc.gov/blog.

Spanish speakers make to the FTC and offer practical tips to help detect and stop common scams.

People ordered more than 45,125 copies of the Cobradores De Deuda (Debt Collectors) fotonovela

in 2016.

The Commission also educates industry members by developing and distributing business

education materials, delivering speeches, blogging, participating in panel discussions at industry

conferences, and providing interviews to general media and trade publications. The FTC’s business

education resources can be found in its online Business Center.

106

The Business Center logged

more than 3.4 million page views in 2016, and there are more than 58,000 email subscribers to

the

Business Blog.

107

A complete list of the FTC’s consumer and business education materials

relating to debt collection and information on the extent of their distribution is set forth in

Appendix A to this letter.

FTC staff also regularly meets with legal service providers, consumer advocates, and people who

work in immigrant, Native American, Latino, Asian, and African American communities to discuss

consumer protection issues, including the FTC’s work in the debt collection arena. As discussed

further below, the Commission hosted several public workshops examining such issues this past

year. The FTC also hosted five Ethnic Media Roundtables around the country in 2016, bringing

together law enforcement, community organizations, consumer advocates and members of the

ethnic media to discuss how consumer protection issues — including debt collection — affect their

communities.

106

http://business.ftc.gov/.

107

http://business.ftc.gov/blog.

8. Rulemaking, research, and

policy initiatives

The Bureau and FTC are working together to better understand the debt collection marketplace

and to inform policymaking initiatives designed to best protect consumers. Dialogue and

collaboration between the Bureau and FTC are instrumental in enabling the Bureau to understand

some of the most important issues to consider as it makes progress in developing the first

comprehensive federal rules covering debt collection. In addition, the Bureau’s ongoing outreach,

review of comments in response to its November 2013 ANPR, and own research provide

opportunities for the Bureau to learn more about what is occurring in the market, to interact with

those industry and consumer groups who can provide feedback about this market, and to develop

its own understanding of consumer experiences with debt and debt collection.

8.1 Bureau rulemaking and research

8.1.1

Bureau research projects

The Bureau is engaged in several research projects to better understand the debt collection market

and its impact on consumers, which will help inform the development of rules. These research

projects include:

i. a consumer survey to obtain quantitative data about consumers’ experiences with debt and

debt collection;

ii. consumer testing to learn about the effectiveness of debt collection disclosures;

iii. a qualitative survey of debt collectors to understand the operational costs of collecting

debt and how these vary across debt collection firms; and

iv. a report on online debt sales markets.

The Bureau released findings from its Survey of Consumer Views on Debt in January 2017.

108

The

survey results substantially expand the understanding of debt collection in the United States by

providing the first comprehensive and nationally representative data on consumers’ experiences

and preferences related to debt collection. The survey asked consumers about their experiences, if

any, with debt collectors over the past year. Some key findings of the survey are discussed below in

a separate section of this chapter (8.1.4).

The Bureau is also conducting consumer testing to assess, among other things, the effectiveness of

certain disclosures to be provided by debt collectors, including: (1) information about the debt and

its owner; (2) that a communication is from a debt collector and that the information the debt

collector receives from consumers will be used to collect the debt; (3) a consumer’s legal rights in

responding to debt collectors, including a consumer’s ability to dispute a debt; and (4) information

about how a debt’s age affects a collector’s ability to sue the consumer. The FDCPA currently

requires that collectors provide some of this information to consumers during or within five days

of the initial communication as part of a “validation notice”. Consumer testing provides insight

into consumers’ understanding of debt collection disclosures. The Bureau can use this knowledge

to assess whether consumers’ understanding would be increased by improving the information the

disclosure conveys or the way this information is provided.

To better understand debt collector costs, the Bureau conducted a qualitative survey of debt

collection firms, and the Bureau released a report on this survey in July 2016.

109

The study

included a written questionnaire completed by 60 debt collection firms and phone interviews with

more than 30 debt collection firms and vendors to the collections industry. The study provides the

Bureau with a baseline understanding of the operational costs of debt collection firms, which the

Bureau can use to anticipate and gauge the likely effects of any potential regulations on the debt

collection industry.

108

http://www.consumerfinance.gov/data-research/research-reports/consumer-experiences-debt-collection-findings-

cfpbs-survey-consumer-views-debt/ The Bureau released some preliminary findings from this survey in July 2016.

See Appendix B of CFPB, “Small Business Review Panel for Debt Collector and Debt Buyer Rulemaking” (July 28,

2016), available at http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/20160727_cfpb_Outline_of_proposals.pdf.

109

http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/Third_Party_Debt_Collection_Operations_Study_embargoed.pdf.

The Bureau published a report

110

in January 2017 that described findings from a review of 298

portfolios of charged-off debt that were offered for sale on three online marketplaces between

January of 2015 and August of 2015. Together, these portfolios were advertised as containing the

information of more than 1.2 million consumer accounts. The Bureau reviewed debt listings,

including advertised asking price, number of accounts, face value, age, and number of prior

placements. The report described the characteristics of portfolios available for purchase on these

marketplaces and noted that online debt sales, if combined with questionable practices that have

been highlighted at some other websites by the FTC, may permit private personal information to

be acquired cheaply and easily by anyone online.

8.1.2

FDCPA Rulemaking

The CFPB issued an ANPR in November 2013 to explore the idea of developing debt collection

rules. On February 28, 2014, the comment period for the ANPR ended, and by that date, the

Bureau had received more than 23,000 comments.

During 2014, the Bureau began carefully evaluating the responses to the ANPR. On July 28, 2016,

the Bureau published an Outline of Proposals Under Consideration (the “Outline”) in preparation

for a Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) panel. The Outline

addressed proposals under consideration for those who are defined as “debt collectors” under the

FDCPA.

111

On August 25, 2016, the Bureau convened a panel pursuant to the SBREFA composed of the CFPB,

Small Business Administration (SBA), and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to obtain

input from small businesses in the debt collection industry on the possible effect of debt collection

rulemaking on their businesses. The Bureau is considering the feedback it received through the

SBREFA panel and from other stakeholders subsequent to publication of the Outline. Additionally,

the Bureau, among other things, is actively engaged in research, as described above in Section

8.1.1.

110

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. “Market Snapshot: Online Debt Sales.” January 2017.

https://www.consumerfinance.gov/data-research/research-reports/market-snapshot-online-debt-sales/

111

The outline can be found at https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/consumer-financial-protection-

bureau-considers-proposal-overhaul-debt-collection-market/

8.1.3

Market monitoring and outreach

The Bureau continues to monitor the debt collection industry and engages key debt collection

stakeholders to improve its understanding of the market and to develop informed policies that will

protect consumers without imposing unnecessary costs.

During 2016, CFPB staff spoke at both regional and national events on the topic of debt collection.

The CFPB also held meetings with many consumer groups, industry groups, vendors, and

government officials to better understand consumers’ experiences with debt collection, as well as

how the market and industry function.

In addition, the Bureau has held a number of meetings with market participants to inform the

Bureau as a part of the rulemaking process. The results of this outreach have provided Bureau staff

with detailed information related to the costs of operating a debt collection business and potential

impacts of the proposals under consideration.

8.1.4

Survey of Consumer Views on Debt

This section presents select findings of the Survey of Consumer Views on Debt (“survey”)

112

which

was conducted by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau between December 2014 and March

2015. The survey results substantially expand the understanding of debt collection in the United

States by providing the first comprehensive and nationally representative data on consumers’

experiences and preferences related to debt collection.

The sample for the Survey of Consumer Views on Debt was selected from credit records

maintained by one of the top three nationwide credit repositories, and the survey data were

adjusted for differences in response rates for different types of consumers. As a result, estimates

from the survey are representative of U.S. consumers with a credit report. The survey asked

consumers about their experiences, if any, with debt collectors over the past year. For consumers

112

Available at http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201701_cfpb_Debt-Collection-Survey-Report.pdf

who had such an experience, the survey captured detail on the debt for which they were most

recently contacted.

113

The prevalence of collections-related contact disputes and lawsuits by consumers varies by

consumer characteristics. About one-in-three consumers with a credit record (32 percent)

indicated that they had been contacted by at least one creditor or collector trying to collect one or

more debts during the year prior to the survey. Most consumers who were contacted about a debt

in collection (72 percent) reported that they had been contacted about two or more debts.

Consumers with relatively low incomes were more likely to report having experienced debt

collection efforts in the prior year. About half of consumers (52 percent) with (self-reported)

annual household income less than $20,000 reported that they had been contacted about repaying

a debt in collection; this share falls to just 16 percent for those with income of $70,000 or more

(Table 5).

TABLE 5: DISTRIBUTION OF THE NUMBER OF DEBTS CONSUMERS WERE CONTACTED ABOUT, BY ANNUAL

HOUSEHOLD INCOME (PERCENT)

Annual household income

None

One debt

Two or more

Less than $20,000

$20,000-$39,999

$40,000-$69,999

$70,000 or more

In contrast to the differences in the share of consumers contacted about a debt in collection, the

shares of consumers who reported having been contacted about multiple debts are generally

similar by income. Among consumers who said they had been contacted about a debt in collection,

the fraction of consumers contacted about multiple debts ranged between 67 percent and 80

percent across the four groups. Consumers between the ages of 35 and 49 were most likely to say

they were contacted about a debt in collection (Table 6). By comparison, it was less common for

consumers age 62 or older to report having been contacted about a debt collection; although even

within this age segment 19 percent reported having been contacted about a debt in collection. The

113

Specifically, the survey asked about consumers’ experiences with debt collection in the period since January 2014,

roughly one year before the survey was conducted

pattern by age may reflect, in part, the fact that debt holdings similarly peak among households

with a head in their mid-30s to mid-40s.

114

TABLE 6: DISTRIBUTION OF THE NUMBER OF DEBTS CONSUMERS WERE CONTACTED ABOUT BY AGE

(PERCENT)

Age

None

One debt

Two or more

Less than 35

35–49

50–61

62 or older

Table 7 reports findings by consumers’ self-reported race and ethnicity. Consumers are categorized

as either white or non-white for race and, separately, are categorized as Hispanic or non-Hispanic

for ethnicity.

115

More than 40 percent of non-white consumers reported having been contacted about a debt in

collection, compared with 29 percent of white consumers. Hispanic consumers were more likely

than non-Hispanic consumers to report having been contacted about a collection (39 percent and

31 percent, respectively). These and other differences across groups may stem from factors that are

correlated with demographic characteristics, and disentangling these potential factors is beyond

the scope of this report.

116

114

According to the 2013 Survey of Consumer Finances, the share of families with any debt is greatest for families with a

head between the ages of 35 and 44, and these families have the second-highest median amount of debt (conditional

on having any). See http://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/scf/files/scf2013_tables_internal_real.xls.

115

The non-white category includes individuals who self-identified alone or in combination as: Black or African

American; American Indian or Alaska Native; Asian; or Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander. The white category

comprises those who self-identified as white alone.

116

For example, the estimated difference for whites compared with non-whites narrows by roughly one-quarter when

comparing consumers with similar incomes in a regression framework.

TABLE 7: DISTRIBUTION OF THE NUMBER OF DEBTS CONSUMERS WERE CONTACTED ABOUT BY RACE AND

ETHNICITY (PERCENT)

Consumer characteristic

None

One debt

Two or more

Race

White

Non-white

Ethnicity

Hispanic

Non-Hispanic

Past-due medical bills, credit cards, past-due telecommunications bills, and student loans were

among the most frequently cited debts consumers were contacted about. The prevalence of

contacts about credit cards, student loans, and past-due telecommunications bills in collection

differed across demographic and credit-score groups. In contrast, the shares of consumers who

were contacted about past-due medical bills were more comparable across income levels, credit

scores, and ages.

According to the survey, consumers were also contacted about debts they believed were in error.

More than half of consumers (53 percent) who were contacted about a debt in collection in the

past year indicated that the debt was not theirs, was owed by a family member, or was for the

wrong amount. Roughly one-quarter (27 percent) of consumers who were contacted about a debt

in collection reported having disputed a debt with their creditor or collector in the past year.

8.2 FTC’s research and policy development

activities

In the past year, the FTC has continued to monitor and evaluate the debt collection industry and

its practices – both through public workshops and the FTC’s input to the CFPB on debt collection

rulemaking and guidance initiatives.

In 2016, the FTC organized four Common Ground conferences at which law enforcement,

consumer advocates, and community members discussed consumer protection issues, including

debt collection, and encouraged consumers to report problems to the FTC. In December 2016, the

Commission also held a workshop, “The Changing Consumer Demographics,” which brought

together law enforcement, consumer groups and researcher participants to discuss how to combat

unlawful practices – including illegal debt collection activities – that impact specific consumer

populations as the country’s demographics change.

Additionally, the FTC also continues to work closely with the CFPB to coordinate efforts to protect

consumers from unfair, deceptive, and abusive debt collection practices.

117

As part of this

coordination, FTC and CFPB staff regularly meet to discuss ongoing and upcoming law

enforcement, rulemaking, and other activities; share debt collection complaints; cooperate on

consumer education efforts in the debt collection arena; and consult on debt collection rulemaking

and guidance initiatives.

117

The Dodd-Frank Act directs the FTC and the CFPB to coordinate their law enforcement activities and promote

consistent regulatory treatment of consumer financial products and services, including debt collection. See Dodd-

Frank Act, Pub. L. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 § 1024(c)(3) (July 21, 2010). In January 2012, the FTC and CFPB entered

into a memorandum of understanding (“MOU”) that supplements the requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act and creates

a strong and comprehensive framework for coordination and cooperation. Memorandum of Understanding Between

the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Federal Trade Commission, January 2012, available at

http://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/press-releases/federal-trade-commission-consumer-financial-

protection-bureau-pledge-work-together-protect-consumers/120123ftc-cfpb-mou.pdf. The agencies reauthorized the

MOU in May 2015 for a three-year term. See https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2015/03/ftc-cfpb-

reauthorize-memorandum-understanding.

APPENDIX: LETTER FROM THE FTC

Office of the Secretary

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580

February 13, 2017

The Honorable Richard Cordray

Director

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

1801 L Street, NW

Washington, DC 20036

Dear Director Cordray:

Thank you for your letter of January 5, 2017. As the letter mentions, the Consumer

Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is responsible for providing annual reports to Congress

concerning the federal government’s efforts to implement the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

(FDCPA).

118

This letter and its appendix describe the efforts the Federal Trade Commission

(Commission or FTC) has taken during the past year in the debt collection arena. In the FTC’s debt

collection work, the CFPB has been a valuable partner. We hope that the information in this letter

will assist the CFPB in preparing this year’s report.

In 2016, the Commission continued its aggressive law enforcement activities against

abusive, unfair, and deceptive debt collection practices. Among other things, the FTC:

118

The Dodd-Frank Act directed the CFPB to report to Congress on the federal government’s implementation and

administration of the FDCPA. Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act), Pub. L.

11-203, § 1089, 124 Stat. 1376, 2092-93 (2010) (amending the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-

1692p). Before the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act, Section 815(a) of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692m, required the

FTC to report directly to Congress on these topics. The Commission submitted such annual reports from 1977 to 2011.

• filed or resolved 12 cases against 61 defendants, and obtained nearly $70 million in

judgments;

119

• banned 44 companies and individuals that engaged in serious and repeated

violations of law from ever working in debt collection again

120

; and

• secured successful summary judgment decisions in three litigated matters, resulting

in orders banning defendants from the debt collection industry.

121

The FTC’s debt collection program is a three-pronged effort: (1) vigorous law

enforcement; (2) education and public outreach; and (3) research and policy initiatives. Over the

past year, the FTC has employed all three prongs in its effort to curb unlawful debt collection

practices and protect consumers.

I. LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES

The Commission is primarily a law enforcement agency, and law enforcement

investigations and litigation are at the heart of the FTC’s recent debt collection work. Both the

FDCPA and the FTC Act

122

authorize the Commission to investigate and take law enforcement

action against debt collectors that violate those statutes.

123

If an FTC investigation reveals that a

debt collector violated the law, the Commission may file a federal court action seeking injunctive

and equitable monetary relief under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 53(b), or refer the

matter to the Department of Justice for civil penalties and injunctive relief under Section 5(m) of

the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(m). Where a collector’s violations are so egregious that a court order

is necessary to halt the conduct immediately, or where consumer redress and disgorgement are

more appropriate forms of monetary relief than civil penalties, the FTC generally files the action

119

These figures include cases filed and resolved in 2016, as well as cases filed in previous years but resolved in 2016.

120

As a complement to all of the debt collection law enforcement cases that the FTC has brought over the years, in 2015

the FTC began publishing a list of every individual and company that the agency has sued that has been banned from

the debt collection industry. This list, located at

https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/banned-debt-

collectors

, is a valuable resource to help law-abiding collection industry professionals avoid doing business with these

defendants, as well as to help state debt collection licensing officials and law enforcers better protect consumers.

Currently, the list includes over 135 banned individuals and companies.

121

This past year’s work built upon and expanded the FTC’s ongoing crackdown on unlawful debt collection practices.

Since January 1, 2010, the FTC has sued over 250 companies and individuals who engaged in unlawful collection

practices, banning 139 from the industry, and securing over $419 million in judgments.

122

FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692-1692p; FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 41-58.

123

The FDCPA authorizes the Commission to investigate and take law enforcement action against debt collectors that

engage in unfair, deceptive, abusive, or other practices that violate the statute. FDCPA § 814, 15 U.S.C. § 1692l. Under

the FTC Act, the FTC may investigate and take law enforcement action against entities that, in connection with

collecting on debts, engage in unfair or deceptive acts and practices. FTC Act § 5, 15 U.S.C. § 45.

itself under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act. In other circumstances, the FTC may refer the case to

the Department of Justice.

In addition to filing and referring law enforcement actions, the FTC files amicus briefs and

undertakes other law enforcement-related activities.

I. Legal Actions

From January 1 through December 31, 2016, the FTC brought or resolved 12 debt

collection cases. In several of its Section 13(b) cases, the Commission obtained preliminary relief

that included ex parte temporary restraining orders with asset freezes, immediate access to business

premises, and appointment of receivers to take over the debt collection businesses.

The Commission’s recent efforts to protect consumers from deceptive and abusive debt

collection practices culminated in Operation Collection Protection. This initiative, which the FTC

began in 2015, was the first coordinated federal-state-local enforcement initiative targeting illegal

debt collection. The nationwide crackdown included over 165 actions by more than 70 federal,

state, and local law enforcement and regulatory authorities against collectors who used illegal

tactics such as harassing phone calls and false threats of litigation or arrest.

124

Participants in the

initiative continue to work closely together to share information and coordinate actions. The FTC’s

actions, involving (1) phantom debt collection, (2) collection via unlawful text messages and

emails, (3) other FDCPA and FTC Act violations, and (4) Fair Credit Reporting Act violations, are

discussed below.

1. Phantom Debt Collection

The Commission has continued its efforts to fight “phantom debt collection” this year.

Phantom debt collectors engage in unfair, deceptive, or abusive conduct by attempting to collect on

debts that either do not exist or are not owed to the phantom debt collector. The Commission

124

See, e.g., Press Release, FTC and Federal, State and Local Law Enforcement Partners Announce Nationwide

Crackdown Against Abusive Debt Collectors (Nov. 4, 2015), available at

https://www.ftc.gov/news-

events/press-releases/2015/11/ftc-federal-state-local-law-enforcement-partners-announce

; Press

Release, FTC and State Law Enforcement Partners Announce More Actions and Results in Continuing Crackdown

Against Abusive Debt Collectors (Jan. 7, 2016), available at

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-

releases/2016/01/ftc-state-law-enforcement-partners-announce-more-actions-results

; Press

Release, FTC and Illinois Attorney General Halt Chicago-Area Operation Charged with Collecting and Selling Phantom

Payday Loan Debts (Mar. 30, 2016), available at

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-

releases/2016/03/ftc-illinois-attorney-general-halt-chicago-area-operation-charged

; Press Release,

FTC Actions: Debt Collectors Banned from Debt Collection Business (Sept. 7, 2016), available at

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2016/09/ftc-actions-debt-collectors-banned-

debt-collection-business

; Blog Post, A Debt Collection Round-up (Dec. 27, 2016), available at

https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/blog/debt-collection-round; Blog Post, Collection Protection reflection

(Dec. 30, 2016), available at

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/business-

blog/2016/12/collection-protection-reflection?utm_source=govdelivery

initiated or resolved three actions involving phantom debt collection in 2016: SQ Capital LLC,

Stark Law LLC, and Kelly S. Brace. SQ Capital and Stark Law are the first two cases brought by

the FTC against operations for allegedly selling fake debt portfolios. This past year, the

Commission also returned money to thousands of consumers who were targeted by the phantom

debt schemes in Centro Natural Corp. and Broadway Global Master Inc.

In December, the Commission charged SQ Capital with selling portfolios of fake payday

loan debts that debt collectors used to get people to pay on debts they did not owe.

125

According to

the complaint, the defendants’ fake portfolios listed social security numbers and bank account

numbers of real consumers, but falsely claimed that the purported borrowers had failed to repay

debts they never owed, to lenders who did not make these loans.

126

The complaint also alleges

that the defendants did not have the authority to sell debts of the lenders they named. At the FTC’s

request, a federal court entered a preliminary injunction halting this operation pending litigation.

In March, the FTC partnered with the Illinois Attorney General to shut down a Chicago-

area operation that allegedly threatened and intimidated consumers to collect phantom payday loan

debts they did not owe, or did not owe to the defendants.

127

The Stark Law defendants allegedly

called consumers and demanded immediate payment for supposedly delinquent loans, often armed

with consumers’ sensitive personal and financial information. Defendants also allegedly threatened

consumers with lawsuits or arrest, deceptively held themselves out as a law firm with authority to

sue and obtain substantial judgments against delinquent consumers, and disclosed debts to

relatives, friends and co-workers. As in SQ Capital, the complaint also charged defendants with

unlawfully selling portfolios of fake debt to other debt collectors in violation of the FTC Act. The

court entered an ex parte temporary restraining order (and later a preliminary injunction) with an

asset freeze, appointment of a receiver, and injunctive relief prohibiting the defendants from selling

fake debt portfolios or from making the misrepresentations at issue in this case. Litigation

continues in this matter.

125

FTC v. Joel Jerome Tucker, 2:16-cv-082816 (D. Kan. Dec. 16, 2016) (Complaint); see also Press Release, FTC

Charges Defendants with Selling Fake Payday Loan Debt Portfolios (Jan. 9, 2017), available at

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2017/01/ftc-charges-defendants-selling-fake-

payday-loan-debt-portfolios

126

To add credibility to some of the fake loans in their portfolios, the defendants used the name of a purported lender

associated with another Commission law enforcement action, FTC v. AMG Services, 2:12-cv-00536 (D. Nev. Sept. 30,

2016) (Order). In September 2016, a federal court ordered the defendants in the AMG payday lending scheme to pay a

record $1.3 billion for deceiving and illegally charging consumers undisclosed and inflated fees. Id.; see also Press

Release, U.S. Court Finds in FTC’s Favor and Imposes Record $1.3 Billion Judgment Against Defendants Behind AMG

Payday Lending Scheme (Oct. 4, 2016), available at

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-

releases/2016/10/us-court-finds-ftcs-favor-imposes-record-13-billion-judgment

127

FTC v. Stark Law, LLC, No. 1:16-cv-3463 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 21, 2016) (Complaint); see also Press Release, FTC and

Illinois Attorney General Halt Chicago-Area Operation Charged with Collecting and Selling Phantom Payday Loan

Debts (Mar. 30, 2016), available at

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2016/03/ftc-

illinois-attorney-general-halt-chicago-area-operation-charged

In Brace, the FTC and New York Attorney General successfully resolved their litigation

against another phantom debt collection scheme. The complaint in this case, filed in October 2015,

alleged that the defendants attempted to collect on payday debts they knew were bogus.

128

According to the complaint, the defendants bought payday loans supposedly owed to a company

that repeatedly told them to stop collection efforts because the debts were fabricated, and ignored

consumers’ evidence that they had never authorized a payday loan. The defendants allegedly

employed other deceptive and abusive tactics to get consumers to pay, including false threats of

lawsuits and arrest. The Court granted – over the defendants’ objections – the plaintiffs’ request to

enter a temporary restraining order halting their operations, and, shortly thereafter, entered a

stipulated preliminary injunction. In the summer of 2016, the FTC and the New York AG secured a

stipulated final order banning the defendants from the debt collection business, prohibiting other

deceptive claims, and imposing a judgment of more than $18.4 million, which was partially

suspended based on inability to pay.

129

The plaintiffs also secured an order against a relief

defendant imposing a partially-suspended $418,000 judgment.

In addition to the law enforcement actions above, this past year the Commission also

returned funds to consumers who lost money to phantom debt collection operations previously

stopped by the FTC. In November 2016, the agency mailed 3,446 checks totaling more than

$830,000 to consumers in the Centro Natural Corp. matter.

130

The Commission had secured

stipulated orders banning defendants from debt collection or telemarketing, after alleging that they

targeted thousands of Spanish-speaking consumers with unlawful tactics to collect on fake debts

and to coerce consumers into purchasing goods that they did not want.

131

In April, the

Commission mailed 1,701 checks totaling more than $596,000 to consumers who lost money to the

fraudulent scheme in Broadway Global Master Inc.

132

The agency had previously secured a

128

FTC and State of New York v. Brace, No. 1:15-cv-00875-RJA (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 5, 2015) (Complaint).

129

FTC and State of New York v. Brace, No. 1:15-cv-00875-RJA (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2015) (Stipulated Order), see also

Press Release, FTC Action: Debt Collector Banned from Collection Business (Aug, 24, 2016), available at

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2016/08/ftc-action-debt-collector-banned-

collection-business

130

Press Release, FTC Returns Money to Victims of Debt Collection Scheme (Nov. 14, 2016), available at

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2016/11/ftc-returns-money-victims-debt-

collection-scheme

131

FTC v. Centro Natural Corp., No. 14-cv-23879 CMA (S.D. Fla. June 30, 2015) (Stipulated Order); see also Press

Release, FTC Action Puts an End to Fraudulent Debt Collection Scheme that Targeted Spanish-Speaking Consumers

(July 8, 2015), available at

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2015/07/ftc-action-

puts-end-fraudulent-debt-collection-scheme-targeted

132

Press Release, FTC Returns Money to Consumers Harmed by Scam That Collected Millions in Phantom Payday Loan

Debts (Apr. 6, 2016), available at

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2016/04/ftc-

returns-money-consumers-harmed-scam-collected-millions

stipulated order banning this operation from the debt collection business because of allegations that

it harassed consumers into paying phantom debts.

133

2. The FTC’s Messaging For Money Sweep: Debt Collection Via Unlawful

Text Messages And Emails

The Commission has also continued its efforts to pursue schemes that use deceptive,

threatening or otherwise unlawful text messages or emails to target consumers. In 2015, the

Commission launched a law enforcement sweep, called “Messaging for Money,” to stop three

operations engaged in such practices. This past year, the FTC won summary judgment in one of

those cases (The Primary Group Inc.), and successfully resolved the charges against nine of the

defendants in the other two matters (Premier Debt Acquisitions LLC and Unified Global Group,

LLC).

In June 2016, the court in The Primary Group matter granted the FTC’s summary judgment

request on all counts against an unlawful debt collection operation.

134

The court found that, as

alleged by the Commission, these defendants deceived consumers using text messages, emails, and

phone calls that falsely threatened consumers with arrest or lawsuits if they did not make debt

collection payments. The court also found that they unlawfully contacted consumers’ friends,

family members, and employers; withheld information consumers needed to confirm or dispute

debts; and did not identify themselves as debt collectors, as required by law.

135

The court

permanently banned two defendants from debt collection activities and imposed a judgment of

$980,000.

The Commission successfully resolved Premier Debt Acquisitions in January 2016 by

securing a stipulated order banning the defendants from debt collection activities and imposing a

judgment of $2,229,756, which was partially suspended.

136

The complaint alleged that defendants

133

FTC v. Broadway Global Master Inc., No. 2:12-cv-0855 JAM GGH (E.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2015) (Stipulated Order); see

also Press Release, FTC Action Stops Scammers Who Collected Millions in Phantom Payday Loan Debts (Sept. 16,

2015), available at

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2015/09/ftc-action-stops-

scammers-who-collected-millions-phantom-payday

134

FTC v. The Primary Group, No. 1:15-cv-1645 (N.D. Ga. May 19, 2016) (Order Granting Summary Judgment); see also

Press Release, FTC Action: Debt Collector Banned from Debt Collection Business (June 16, 2016), available at

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2016/06/ftc-action-debt-collector-banned-

debt-collection-business

135

FTC v. The Primary Group, No. 1:15-cv-1645 (N.D. Ga. May 11, 2015) (Complaint); see also Press Release, FTC Halts

Three Debt Collection Operations That Allegedly Threatened and Deceived Consumers via Illegal Text Messages (May

21, 2015), available at

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2015/05/ftc-halts-three-

debt-collection-operations-allegedly-threatened

136

FTC v. Premier Debt Acquisitions LLC, No. 1:15-cv-00421-FPG (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2016) (Order); see also Press

Release, FTC and State Law Enforcement Partners Announce More Actions and Results in Continuing Crackdown

impersonated law enforcement and government officials, falsely threatened consumers with a

lawsuit or arrest, and falsely threatened to charge some consumers with criminal fraud, garnish

their wages, or seize their property.

137

In text messages, the defendants allegedly claimed they

would sue consumers and threatened to seize consumers’ possessions unless they paid. In

voicemails, the defendants also allegedly falsely claimed that a “uniformed officer” was on the way

to consumers’ homes. In addition to banning the defendants from the debt collection industry, the

order prohibits them from making misrepresentations about other financial products or services.

In FTC v. Unified Global Group, the FTC secured an approximately $27 million judgment

and significant injunctive relief in a settlement with four defendants involved in an abusive debt

collection operation. The FTC’s complaint against Unified Global Group

138

alleged that the

defendants sent texts to trick consumers into calling them back. The texts included false statements

such as, “YOUR PAYMENT DECLINED WITH CARD ****-****-****-5463 . . . CALL

866.256.2117 IMMEDIATELY,” even though consumers had never arranged to make payments to

the defendants. The defendants also allegedly used deceptive emails and calls that threatened arrest

and civil lawsuits, and unlawfully contacted consumers’ friends, families, and co-workers about the

supposed debts. In August 2016, the court entered a stipulated order banning the settling

defendants from all debt collection activities and imposing a judgment of approximately $27

million, which was partially suspended because of their inability to pay.

139

Litigation continues

against the sole remaining defendant.

3. Other Actions To Halt FDCPA And FTC Act Violations

In addition to the cases described above, the FTC successfully resolved five other actions in

2016 to protect consumers from unlawful collection practices: (1) Federal Check Processing; (2)

Commercial Recovery Systems; (3) Warrant Enforcement Division; (4) AFS Legal Services; and (5)

BAM Financial. In the first two cases, the FTC secured summary judgment wins against the

defendants. The FTC also continued litigating Vantage Point Services, filing a motion for summary

judgment and securing additional preliminary relief against a defendant.

Against Abusive Debt Collectors (Jan. 7, 2016), available at https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-

releases/2016/01/ftc-state-law-enforcement-partners-announce-more-actions-results

137

FTC v. Premier Debt Acquisitions LLC, No. 1:15-cv-00421-FPG (W.D.N.Y. May 11, 2015) (Complaint); see also Press

Release, FTC Halts Three Debt Collection Operations That Allegedly Threatened and Deceived Consumers via Illegal

Text Messages (May 21, 2015), available at

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-

releases/2015/05/ftc-halts-three-debt-collection-operations-allegedly-threatened

138

FTC v. Unified Global Group, LLC, 15-cv-422-W (W.D.N.Y. May 11, 2015) (Complaint); see also Press Release, FTC

Halts Three Debt Collection Operations That Allegedly Threatened and Deceived Consumers via Illegal Text Messages

(May 21, 2015), available at

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2015/05/ftc-halts-

three-debt-collection-operations-allegedly-threatened

139

FTC v. Unified Global Group, LLC, 15-cv-422-W (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2016) (Order); see also Press Release, FTC

Actions: Debt Collectors Banned from Debt Collection Business (Sept. 7, 2016) available at

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2016/09/ftc-actions-debt-collectors-banned-

debt-collection-business

In FTC v. Federal Check Processing Inc., the court granted the Commission’s request for

summary judgment against a Buffalo, New York-based debt collection scheme.

140

The district

court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and report that found that defendants had

violated the FTC Act and the FDCPA by falsely claiming to be government officials, falsely

threatening consumers with litigation or arrest, and systematically disclosing consumers’ debts to

their friends, family, and co-workers to coerce payment.

141

The court had previously entered an ex

parte temporary restraining order, followed by a stipulated preliminary injunction, to halt this

abusive debt collection operation. The final order bans the defendants from the debt collection

industry and requires them to pay a nearly $11 million judgment.

In United States v. Commercial Recovery Systems, Inc., a case that the FTC referred to the

Department of Justice for prosecution, the court entered summary judgment against two defendants

in an unlawful debt collection operation. The court found that the debt collectors had “repeatedly

and routinely violated the FDCPA . . . in multiple ways, by making blatantly false representations

for the purpose of intimidating consumers into paying debts.”

142

Among other things, the court

found that their routine threats to sue consumers were “patently false,” and further that they falsely

impersonated attorneys and threatened to seize or garnish consumers’ property or wages. The court

banned the two defendants from debt collection, and will determine the civil penalty amount to

impose on one of them, the president of the company.

143

Additionally, the government secured a

stipulated final order against the remaining individual defendant subjecting him to the same ban

and imposing a $496,000 civil penalty judgment (partially suspended due to an inability to

pay).

144

In January 2016, the Commission also successfully resolved its action in Warrant

Enforcement Division. The FTC’s complaint in this matter alleged that the defendants, while under

140

FTC v. Federal Check Processing, Inc., No. 1:14-cv-00122 (W.D.N.Y Oct. 13, 2016) (Judgment and Permanent

Injunction); see also Press Release, FTC Wins Summary Judgment Against Buffalo, NY-based Abusive Debt Collectors;

Defendants Banned from Collection Business (Oct. 31, 2016), available at

https://www.ftc.gov/news-

events/press-releases/2016/10/ftc-wins-summary-judgment-against-buffalo-ny-based-abusive-

debt

141

FTC v. Federal Check Processing, Inc., No. 1:14-cv-00122 (W.D.N.Y Mar. 25, 2014) (Complaint), see also Press

Release, At FTC’s Request, Court Halts Debt Collector’s Allegedly Deceptive and Abusive Practices, Freezes Assets

(Sept. 23, 2014), available at

http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2014/03/ftcs-request-

court-halts-debt-collectors-allegedly-deceptive

142

United States v. Commercial Recovery Sys., Inc., No. 4:15-cv-36 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 7, 2016) (Memorandum Opinion

and Order).

143

United States v. Commercial Recovery Sys., Inc., No. 4:15-cv-36 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 18, 2016) (Order); see also Press

Release, FTC Action: Debt Collector Banned from Collection Business (Sept. 22, 2016), available at

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2016/09/ftc-action-debt-collector-banned-

collection-business

144

United States v. Commercial Recovery Sys., Inc., No. 4:15-cv-36 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 21, 2016) (Order)

contract to collect overdue utility bills, traffic tickets, court fines, and other debts for local

governments in Texas and Oklahoma, sent consumers letters and postcards containing false or

unsubstantiated threats of arrest that appeared to come from a municipal court.

145

The FTC

charged that the false and unsubstantiated threats made to collect municipal court debts violated the

FTC Act, and those made to collect utility debts violated both the FTC Act and the FDCPA. Under

a stipulated order for permanent injunction, the defendants are prohibited from misrepresenting any

material fact in collecting debts, including that failure to pay a debt will result in the consumer

being arrested or jailed, having their vehicle impounded, or being unable to renew their driver’s

license.

146

The order also imposed a $194,888 judgment that was suspended based on the

defendants’ inability to pay.

Similarly, the Commission secured a final order in its suit against AFS Legal Services,

resolving charges that the defendants impersonated investigators and law enforcement, and

threatened to arrest, jail, and sue consumers if they did not pay debts.

147

According to the FTC’s

complaint, filed in October 2015, the defendants often had consumers’ personal information – such

as social security and bank account numbers – that caused consumers to believe that the calls and

associated threats were legitimate.

148

The collectors also allegedly made harassing calls and

contacted relatives, friends, and co-workers about consumers’ debts. The stipulated final order,

entered in August 2016, bans the defendants from debt collection activities and imposes a judgment

of more than $4.4 million, the amount consumers lost to this scheme.

In July 2016, the FTC also successfully resolved its suit against BAM Financial, banning

the defendants from the debt collecting business and securing other important relief.

149

The FTC’s

complaint, filed in October 2015, alleged that the defendants bought consumer debts and collected

payment by deceptively threatening consumers with lawsuits, wage garnishment, and arrest, and by

145

FTC v. Municipal Recovery Servs. Corp., No. 15-CV-04064-N (N.D. Tex. Dec. 24, 2015) (Complaint).

146

FTC v. Municipal Recovery Servs. Corp., No. 15-CV-04064-N (N.D. Tex. Jan. 29, 2016) (Order); see also, Press

Release, FTC and State Law Enforcement Partners Announce More Actions and Results in Continuing Crackdown

Against Abusive Debt Collectors (Jan. 7, 2016), available at

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-

releases/2016/01/ftc-state-law-enforcement-partners-announce-more-actions-results

147

FTC v. Nat’l Payment Processing LLC, No. 1:15-cv-3811-AT (N.D. Ga. Aug. 29, 2016) (Order); see also Press Release,

FTC Actions: Debt Collectors Banned from Debt Collection Business (Sept. 7, 2016), available at

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2016/09/ftc-actions-debt-collectors-banned-

debt-collection-business

148

FTC v. Nat’l Payment Processing LLC, No. 1:15-cv-3811-AT (N.D. Ga. Oct. 30, 2015) (Complaint).

149

FTC v. BAM Fin’l, LLC, No. 8:15-cv-01672-JVS-DFM (C.D. Cal. July 11, 2016) (Order); see also Press Release, FTC

Action: Abusive Debt Collectors Banned from Collection Business (July 14, 2016), available at

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2016/07/ftc-action-abusive-debt-collectors-

banned-collection-business

impersonating attorneys or process servers.

150

According to the complaint, the defendants also

unlawfully disclosed debts to, or harassed, third parties; failed to identify themselves as debt

collectors; and failed to notify consumers of their right to receive verification of the purported

debts. At the FTC’s request, the court entered a temporary restraining order that prohibited the

defendants from violating the FDCPA and the FTC Act, froze the defendants’ assets, and appointed

a receiver. The stipulated final order bans them from debt collection activities and imposes a

$4,802,646 judgment, to be partially suspended upon the surrender of certain assets based on

defendants’ inability to pay.

150

FTC v. BAM Fin’l, LLC, No. 8:15-cv-01672-JVS-DFM (C.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2015) (Complaint); see also Press Release,

FTC and Federal, State and Local Law Enforcement Partners Announce Nationwide Crackdown Against Abusive Debt

Collectors (Nov. 4, 2015), available at

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2015/11/ftc-

federal-state-local-law-enforcement-partners-announce

The FTC continues to work with the New York Attorney General in a joint action against

Vantage Point, a Buffalo, New York-based debt collection scheme. According to the complaint

filed in 2015, defendants’ collectors posed as a law firm, process servers, or even government

agents – misrepresenting to consumers that they had committed a crime and would be arrested and

jailed.

151

The complaint further alleges that the defendants made similar claims about consumers

to their co-workers, friends, and family members. At the request of the FTC and the New York AG,

the court entered a preliminary injunction to halt the unlawful practices. In 2016, the plaintiffs

requested that the court enter summary judgment against the defendants, and that motion is

currently pending. The plaintiffs also sought and obtained a second ex parte temporary restraining

order and preliminary injunction against one of the individual defendants for operating another debt

collection scheme in violation of the first preliminary injunction.

4. Action To Halt Fair Credit Reporting Act Violations By A Debt

Collector

In May 2016, in the Credit Protection Association matter – referred to the Department of

Justice for prosecution – the court entered a stipulated final order against a debt collector for

alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act’s (FCRA) Furnisher Rule.

152

Specifically, the

complaint alleged that the defendant debt collector lacked adequate policies and procedures to

handle consumer disputes regarding information the company provided to credit reporting

agencies.

153

The complaint also alleged that the company did not have a policy requiring notice to

consumers of the outcomes of investigations about disputed information and that, in numerous

instances, consumers were not informed whether information they disputed had been corrected.

The stipulated final order requires the defendant to pay $72,000 in civil penalties and put in place

policies and procedures that comply with the requirements of the FCRA and the Furnisher Rule.

The company will also be required to follow the Rule’s requirements related to conducting dispute

investigations and informing consumers of their outcome.

II. Other Law Enforcement Activities: Amicus Curiae Briefs

The FTC also periodically submits briefs as amicus curiae in federal court cases around the

country on important debt collection issues. Even when the FTC is not a plaintiff or a defendant in

151

FTC and State of New York v. Vantage Point Services, LLC, No. 1:15-cv-00006-WMS (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 5, 2015)

(Complaint); see also Press Release, FTC, New York Attorney General Crack Down on Abusive Debt Collectors (Feb. 26,

2015), available at

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2015/02/ftc-new-york-

attorney-general-crack-down-abusive-debt-collectors

152

15 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1681x (FCRA); Duties of Furnishers of Information to Consumer Reporting Agencies (Furnisher

Rule), 16 C.F.R. § 660, recodified as Duties of Furnishers of Information, 12 C.F.R. § 1022, subpart E.

153

U.S. v. Credit Protection Association, 3:16-cv-01255-D (N.D. Tex. May 9, 2016) (Complaint and Order); see also

Press Release, Debt Collector Settles FTC Charges It Violated Fair Credit Reporting Act (May 9, 2016), available at

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2016/05/debt-collector-settles-ftc-charges-it-

violated-fair-credit

private FDCPA cases, courts often seek and rely on the Commission’s expertise in debt collection

issues. This is yet another way for the FTC to protect consumers from unlawful practices and

ensure consistency and logic in the development of federal debt collection law and policy.

Since Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Act, the FTC has often partnered with the CFPB on

these amicus briefs. This past year, the Ninth Circuit and the Seventh Circuit adopted favorable

interpretations of the FDCPA in two cases in which the FTC and CFPB had filed joint amicus

briefs: Hernandez v. Williams, Zinman & Parham and Franklin v. Parking Revenue Recovery

Servs. Inc. In both cases, the courts reaffirmed the Act’s broad applicability and significant

protections for consumers.

1. “Initial Communication”: Hernandez Amicus Brief

In 2014, the FTC joined the CFPB in filing an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit Hernandez

matter regarding the meaning of the phrase “initial communication” in the FDCPA.

154

Section

1692g of the FDCPA requires “a debt collector” to send the consumer a “validation notice”

containing certain information about the consumer’s alleged debts and the consumer’s rights

“[w]ithin five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the

collection of any debt.”

155

In December 2011, the defendant sent the plaintiff in the underlying

case a letter seeking to collect a debt that the plaintiff had allegedly incurred. That letter failed to

include all of the information required by 15 U.S.C. § 1692g.

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. In its motion, the defendant argued

that it had no obligation to comply with § 1692g because its letter was not the “initial

communication” that the plaintiff had received about the debt. Instead, it argued that the “initial

communication” had come from another collector that had previously sought to collect on the same

debt. The defendant contended that because that prior collector had sent the plaintiff a letter that

complied with the FDCPA, and because it was a “subsequent collector,” it was under no obligation

to send any further notice. Finding that the statute’s plain text only contemplated one initial

communication with a debtor on a given debt, the district court agreed and granted the defendant’s

motion. In doing so, the district court joined one side of a split among several district courts.

In our joint brief, the FTC and CFPB urged the Ninth Circuit to reject the district court’s

interpretation. As we noted, the use of the general articles in the phrases “the initial

communication” from “a debt collector” are most naturally read to refer to each subsequent debt

collector’s initial communication with a consumer.

156

We also noted in our brief that the district

154

Brief of Amici Curiae, Hernandez v. Williams, Zinman & Parham, P.C., No. 14-15672 (9th Cir. Aug. 20, 2014),

available at

http://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/amicus_briefs/hernandez-v.williams-

zinman-parham-p.c./140821briefhernandez1.pdf

155

See 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a) (duty to send the notice); 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b) (required contents of notice).

156

Our brief observed that interpreting the statute as applying only to the initial communication by the initial collector

leads to a logical inconsistency because, typically, that initial communication with a consumer regarding a debt comes

court’s interpretation contravened Congress’s legislative intent. Congress enacted § 1692g to

eliminate the problem of debt collectors attempting to collect the wrong amounts from the wrong

consumers. To that end, Congress requires debt collectors, upon initially contacting a consumer, to

provide the consumer with a validation notice containing key information about the debt and the

consumer’s rights, including the amount of the debt, the identity of the original creditor, and the

consumer’s rights to obtain verification of the debt or dispute it. Because debts frequently change

hands, these protections are just as important when a new debt collector acquires a debt as they are

when the first collector began collecting.

In July 2016, the Ninth Circuit reversed the decision of the district court, becoming the first

Court of Appeals to issue a published opinion on this portion of § 1692g. It held that, “[a]pplying

well-established tools of statutory interpretation and construing the language in § 1692g(a) in light

of the context and purpose of the FDCPA, … the phrase ‘the initial communication’ refers to the

first communication sent by any debt collector, including collectors that contact the debtor after

another collector already did.”

157

The court found that this interpretation is clear when read in the

context of the FDCPA as a whole.

158

The court also agreed that this interpretation is supported by

the FDCPA’s declared purpose to protect consumers from abusive collection practices – in this

case, by ensuring that consumers get updated information about debts and opportunities to verify

them when their debts change hands.

159

2. Unpaid Parking Charges As “Debts”: Franklin Amicus Brief

In 2015, responding to an invitation from the Seventh Circuit, the FTC and CFPB submitted a

joint amicus brief urging the court to reverse a district court ruling that unpaid parking fees are not

“debts,” as that term is defined in the FDCPA.

160

The case arose out of a class action complaint

alleging that a collection company hired by a private parking lot operator to collect unpaid parking

fees and nonpayment penalties sent dunning letters to consumers that violated the FDCPA. The

defendants moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted. The court found that the

charges were a “fine” and not the byproduct of a “transaction.” Thus, the court reasoned, the sum

the defendants were attempting to collect was not a “debt,” as that term is defined in the FDCPA,

so the prohibitions of the Act did not apply to the defendants’ dunning letters.

Our joint brief explained that the district court erred. The agencies noted that, in enacting the

FDCPA, Congress broadly defined “debt” to mean “any obligation . . . to pay money arising out of

from a creditor, an entity not subject to the FDCPA. If “initial communication” was read to mean this very first

communication, and only this communication, then the FDCPA would not apply at all.

157

Hernandez v. Williams, Zinman & Parham PC, 829 F.3d 1068, 1070 (9th Cir. July 20, 2016).

158

Id. at 1072.

159

Id. at 1078.

160

Brief of Amici Curiae, Franklin v. Parking Revenue Recovery Servs. Inc., No. 14-3774 (7th Cir. Dec. 11, 2015),

available at

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/amicus_briefs/franklin-et-al-v.parking-

revenue-recovery-services-inc./p082105_parking_revenue_amicus_brief_7th_cir_14-3774.pdf

a [consumer] transaction.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5). The brief argued that the critical term

“transaction,” which Congress left undefined, is a broad reference to many different types of

consensual business dealings. It further argued that parking in a lot that was open to the public for a

stated fee constituted a “transaction,” similar to many other commercial dealings in which

consumers engage daily. Because the fees that the debt collector sought “ar[ose] out of” that

transaction, the charges were “debts” and the collection of those debts was governed by the

FDCPA.

In August 2016, the Seventh Circuit issued a decision reversing the district court, holding

that the unpaid parking fees and nonpayment penalties at issue in this matter constitute “debts”

within the meaning of the FDCPA.

161

Thanking the FTC and CFPB for their assistance, the

Seventh Circuit adopted the agencies’ analysis that these fees and penalties are, in fact, obligations

arising out of consumer “transactions” under the FDCPA.

II. EDUCATION AND PUBLIC OUTREACH

Education and public outreach also are important parts of the Commission’s debt collection

program. The FTC uses multiple formats and channels to inform consumers about their rights

under the FDCPA, as well as what the statute requires of debt collectors; and to inform debt

collectors about what they must do to comply with the law. The FTC also uses education and

public outreach to enhance legal services providers’ understanding of debt collection issues.

The Commission reaches tens of millions of consumers through English and Spanish print

and online materials, blog posts, and speeches and presentations. To maximize its outreach efforts,

FTC staff works with an informal network of about 16,000 community-based organizations and

national groups that order and distribute FTC information to their members, clients, and

constituents. In 2016, the FTC distributed 15.5 million print publications to libraries, police

departments, schools, non-profit organizations, banks, credit unions, other businesses, and

government agencies. In 2016, the FTC logged more than 43 million views of its business and

consumer education website pages. The FTC’s channel at YouTube.com/FTCvideos houses 144

videos, which were viewed more than 603,306 times in 2016. A new video — Fraud Affects Every

Community: Debt Collection — tells the first-person story of a veteran who was contacted by a

debt collector. The consumer blogs in English

162

and Spanish

163

reached 159,825 (English) and

44,835 (Spanish) email subscribers, and regularly serve as source material for local and national

news stories.

As part its work to raise awareness about scams targeting the Latino community, the FTC

has developed a series of fotonovelas in Spanish. The graphic novels tell stories based on

161

Franklin v. Parking Revenue Recovery Servs. Inc., 832 F.3d 741 (7

Cir. Aug. 10, 2016).

162

http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/blog.

163

http://www.consumidor.ftc.gov/blog.

complaints Spanish speakers make to the FTC and offer practical tips to help detect and stop

common scams. People ordered more than 45,125 copies of the Cobradores De Deuda (Debt

Collectors) fotonovela in 2016.

The Commission also educates industry members by developing and distributing business

education materials, delivering speeches, blogging, participating in panel discussions at industry

conferences, and providing interviews to general media and trade publications. The FTC’s business

education resources can be found in its online Business Center.

164

The Business Center logged

more than 3.4 million page views in 2016, and there are more than 58,000 email subscribers to the

Business Blog.

165

A complete list of the FTC’s consumer and business education materials relating

to debt collection and information on the extent of their distribution is set forth in Appendix A to

this letter.

FTC staff also regularly meets with legal service providers, consumer advocates, and

people who work in immigrant, Native American, Latino, Asian, and African American

communities to discuss consumer protection issues, including the FTC’s work in the debt

collection arena. As discussed further below, the Commission hosted several public workshops

examining such issues this past year. The FTC also hosted five Ethnic Media Roundtables around

the country in 2016, bringing together law enforcement, community organizations, consumer

advocates and members of the ethnic media to discuss how consumer protection issues —

including debt collection — affect their communities.

III. RESEARCH AND POLICY DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES

The third prong of the Commission’s debt collection program is research and policy

initiatives. In the past year, the FTC has continued to monitor and evaluate the debt collection

industry and its practices – both through public workshops and the FTC’s input to the CFPB on

debt collection rulemaking and guidance initiatives.

In 2016, the FTC organized four Common Ground conferences at which law enforcement,

consumer advocates, and community members discussed consumer protection issues, including

debt collection, and encouraged consumers to report problems to the FTC. In December 2016, the

Commission also held a workshop, “The Changing Consumer Demographics,” which brought

together law enforcement, consumer groups and researcher participants to discuss how to combat

unlawful practices – including illegal debt collection activities – that impact specific consumer

populations as the country’s demographics change.

164

http://business.ftc.gov/.

165

http://business.ftc.gov/blog.

Additionally, the FTC also continues to work closely with the CFPB to coordinate efforts to

protect consumers from unfair, deceptive, and abusive debt collection practices.

166

As part of this

coordination, FTC and CFPB staff regularly meet to discuss ongoing and upcoming law

enforcement, rulemaking, and other activities; share debt collection complaints; cooperate on

consumer education efforts in the debt collection arena; and consult on debt collection rulemaking

and guidance initiatives.

166

The Dodd-Frank Act directs the FTC and the CFPB to coordinate their law enforcement activities and promote

consistent regulatory treatment of consumer financial products and services, including debt collection. See Dodd-

Frank Act, Pub. L. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 § 1024(c)(3) (July 21, 2010). In January 2012, the FTC and CFPB entered

into a memorandum of understanding (“MOU”) that supplements the requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act and creates

a strong and comprehensive framework for coordination and cooperation. Memorandum of Understanding Between

the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Federal Trade Commission, January 2012, available at

http://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/press-releases/federal-trade-commission-

consumer-financial-protection-bureau-pledge-work-together-protect-consumers/120123ftc-

cfpb-mou.pdf

. The agencies reauthorized the MOU in May 2015 for a three-year term. See

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2015/03/ftc-cfpb-reauthorize-memorandum-

understanding

IV. CONCLUSION

The Commission hopes that the information contained in this letter will assist the CFPB in

its annual report to Congress about its administration of the FDCPA. The FTC looks forward to

continuing to cooperate and coordinate with the CFPB on consumer protection issues relating to

debt collection. If any other information would be useful or if you wish to request additional

assistance, please contact Malini Mithal, Acting Associate Director, Division of Financial

Practices, at (202) 326-2972.

By direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark

Secretary

Appendix A

Debt Collection Information 2016

Title

Page Views

167]

Print distribution

English

Spanish

English

Spanish

Consumer Information

Coping with Debt

116,850

14,949

86,825

14,275

Debt Collection

358,796

41,809

124,825

Debt Collection Arbitration

12,706

660

22,125

Debt Collectors (Spanish)

45,125

Debts and Deceased Relatives

65,746

29,546

Fake Debt Collectors

55,542

1,855

Garnishing Federal Benefits

25,986

1,745

Settling Credit Card Debt

102,404

4,679

Managing Debt: What to Do

4,717

1,017

72,950

11,850

Identity Theft Letter to a Debt

Collector

2,047 55

Time-Barred Debts

94,764

32,712

Video

Dealing with Debt Collectors

5,370

519

Helping Victims of Identity Theft

1,163

Fraud Affects Every Community: Debt

Collection

12,977

Title

Page Views

Print Distribution

English

Spanish

English

Spanish

Business Information

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 34,077 11,580

Video

Debt Collection

431

167

Page view numbers include pages viewed on FTC websites, but not pages viewed when non-FTC sites download and

re-post FTC content.

Consumer Blog Posts

Fraud affects every community: debt collection

A year in debt collection

How to stop calls from debt collectors

The FTC’s Debt Collection Hall of Shame has some new inductees

Bogus debts, bogus collections

A debt collection round-up

Closing time for fake debt collector

Avoid a debt relief scam

Video

Fraud Affects Every Community: Debt Collection

Business Blog Posts

Collection Protection reflection

BAM banned from debt collection

Debt collectors: You may “like” social media and texts, but are you complying with the law?

Disguise the limit: FTC sues debt collectors who claimed official affiliation

###