Archives for January 2019

The Sixth Circuit released a decision in Scott v. Trott Law, P.C., No. 18-1051 (6th Cir. Jan. 11, 2019) where the court clarified what it means for a debt collector to “cease collection activity” after receiving a dispute from a consumer. According to the court, it is not enough that the debt collector itself stop whatever it is doing to collect a debt. Ceasing collection activity also requires the debt collector to put a stop to any activities performed by third parties that the debt collector set in motion prior to receiving the dispute.

Editor’s Note: The insideARM Perspective below discusses how this case relates to Obduskey v. Wells Fargo, which is currently under review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Factual and Procedural Background

Petitioner-plaintiff Scott had a mortgage with Bank of America, which placed the account with Trott Law, P.C. (Trott) to proceed with foreclosure proceedings against the property due to Scott’s non-payment.

[article_ad]

On September 20, Trott sent a letter to Scott that included the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) notice of validation rights as required by section 1692g. On October 5, after sending the letter, Trott arranged a sheriff’s sale of the property for November 8, published notice of the foreclosure in the a local newspaper, and mailed a copy of the Notice of Mortgage Foreclosure Sale to Scott.

After all of this was put into motion, Trott received a dispute letter from Scott on October 11. Trott itself ceased collection activity and began working with Bank of America to verify the debt. However, it did not reach out to the sheriff to stop the foreclosure sale.

Plaintiff petitioned the court for an injunction — or stop — to the foreclosure sale, which was successful. Scott then filed a FDCPA lawsuit against Trott alleging that, among other things, Trott did not cease collection activity after receiving the notice of dispute.

District and Appellate Court Decisions

The district court sided with Trott and granted summary judgment, finding that because the firm stopped all of its activity on the debt, it ceased collection activity. Scott appealed this decision.

The Sixth Circuit took issue with and reversed the district court’s opinion. The district court’s interpretation, according to the Sixth Circuit, “would render the [consumer’s dispute] a nullity.” While it may be true that Trott stopped whatever it was doing to collect the debt, “Trott fails to mention that there was nothing else for it to do.” Essentially, due to the processes Trott previously set in motion, the foreclosure sale could go forward without Trott having to lift a finger.

The Sixth Circuit then went on to conduct a statutory interpretation of 1692g. Black’s Law Dictionary defines “cease” as “to stop,” “to come to an end,” and “to suspend or foreit.” Since 1692g applies this verb to the debt collector, the court reasoned that:

[T]he statute imposes on the debt collector to stop the “collection of the debt.” This is more obviously true when the debt collector has been the one to initiate the “collection of the debt.”

The court then went into whether non-foreclosure proceedings constitute the collection of a debt, an issue which is currently being reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Currently, the Sixth Circuit considers foreclosure and non-foreclosure proceedings as collection of debt and, based on this framework (without mentioning Obduskey), the court found that Trott should have put a stop to the foreclosure sale until it sent verification of debt to Scott.

insideARM Perspective

Two things come to mind when reading this decision.

First, this entire decision may become moot pending the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Obduskey v. Wells Fargo. Obuskey will decide whether non-judicial foreclosure proceedings constitute the debt collection as defined by the FDCPA and, therefore, whether they are governed its provisions. During oral arguments, the Supreme Court bench seemed divided on the issue in unexpected ways so it’s difficult to tell which side the decision will come down on.

Second, while this decision focuses on foreclosures, it may have broader impacts on debt collection as a whole. What exactly qualifies as debt collection activity? (Obduskey will hopefully clarify at least some of this.) Does this mean that a dispute triggers the responsibility to instruct any third party vendor that may touch the account to stop? What about when the dispute is received after a collection suit is filed — does the debt collector need to stop the lawsuit? The Eastern District of Virginia says no to the latter in Post v. Hodges Law Office, PLLC, so this might cause yet another jurisdictional split in FDCPA cases, which is the last thing the industry needs.

SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. — LiveVox Inc., a leading provider of cloud contact center solutions, announced that LiveVox General Manager of Digital Solutions, Boris Grinshpun, and Subway Project Manager, Susanne Sasso, will host an interactive discussion group on the topic of omnichannel engagement at the upcoming CCW Winter Conference. The session will discuss keys to creating a clear path for contact centers to evolve from voice-only contact strategies to ROI-driven digital engagement.

On the event, Boris Grinshpun, General Manager of Digital Solutions, LiveVox states, “For over 20+ years, the contact center industry has been attempting to achieve ‘omnichannel engagement’. The idea of a singular experience has been an easy one to understand, but an incredibly difficult one to obtain. As technology, such as chatbots and AI, move even faster, it may appear that establishing the personalization that customers are demanding may be more difficult than ever. But that is not the case. Recent developments in cloud have made the path to omnichannel much easier.  I am excited to join Susanne to share more on this and other best practices on how to bring back the human element of engagement.”

To learn more about LiveVox, please visit our website.

About the event:

• EVENT: CCW Winter 2019 Conference
• INTERACTIVE DISCUSSON GROUP: Omnichannel: Delivering World-Class Channels through Connected Channels
• DATE: January 17th, 2019
• LOCATION: Nashville, TN

For a preview of topic discussions, download this Tip Sheet on Digital Transformation by clicking here.

 About LiveVox, Inc.

LiveVox is a leading provider of enterprise cloud contact center solutions, managing more than 12+ billion interactions a year across a multichannel environment. With over 15 years of pure cloud expertise, we empower contact center leaders to drive effective engagement strategies on the consumer’s channel of choice. Our leading-edge risk mitigation and security capabilities help clients quickly adapt to a changing business environment. With new features released quarterly, LiveVox remains at the forefront of cloud contact center innovation. Supported by over 450 employees and rapidly growing, we are headquartered in San Francisco with offices in Atlanta, Bangalore, and Colombia. To learn more, visit LiveVox.com or email us at Info@LiveVox.com.

CHANDER, Ariz. — LucentPay, the leader in fee-enabled processing and a full-service payment vendor, has announced the appointment of Michael McDonnell as Senior Vice President of Sales & Marketing. In his new role, Michael will be responsible for all direct and channel sales efforts, with a focus on expanding adoption of LucentPay’s signature product, the No-Cost-to-Biller™ solution. The No-Cost-to-Biller™ processing solution offers unique advantages to service providers, eliminating significant costs through integrated services for all payment channels including phone (TEL), WEB, IVR and text payments.

Mr. McDonnell brings over 20 years of accounts receivable experience to his new role. Previously, he served more than ten years with RevSpring in various roles, most recently as Vice President of Sales & Marketing.

“Michael brings a wealth of experience and knowledge to our executive leadership team and we are looking forward to him driving our marketing and sales efforts to new heights,” said Rob Kennedy, Co-Founder and CEO of LucentPay. “McDonnell’s background and experience will be a valuable asset to the leadership team as our company seeks to accelerate its growth in 2019. He has a deep knowledge of our market, products, customers and channel partners, and the ability to transform that knowledge into actionable results. We’re thrilled to welcome Michael to the team.”

“It is very exciting to be continuing my career in the ARM Industry and working with the team at LucentPay and help them continue their success as one of the Industry’s leading FinTech payment processing firms,” said Michael McDonnell.  “I feel very fortunate to work with the great team of professionals at LucentPay. We are well positioned to help our business partners embrace the benefits of LucentPay’s solutions and services to gain efficiencies and improve their business processes.”

[article_ad]

About LucentPay

LucentPay is a full-service payment processor revolutionizing merchant services by providing best-in-breed payment solutions. The leaders in integrated fee-enabled processing and creators of the No-Cost-to-Biller™ solution which focuses on eliminating processing costs in a compliant manner. We’re excited to simplify payments through our full suite of solutions, PCI Level 1 technology, next day funding, integrations, education and community services. LucentPay also offers competitive pricing for standard payment processing through a number of banking relationships and comprehensive payment acceptance (Visa, MC, Discover, AMEX, HSA/ Flex Cards, Etc.).

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. — PaymentVision®, a leading provider of electronic payment gateway technology and solutions, recently added an improved online debt negotiation and resolution platform to its suite of services. The new Resolve my Bill(SM) tool exposes a web site to facilitate debtors negotiating financial obligations to receivables firms such as collection agencies and law firms, on mutually agreeable terms, based on treatment parameters specified by the agency.

Resolve My Bill(SM) works by opening and moderating an automated dialogue between debtors and creditors over a secure web session.  Debtors can explore agency-offered payment options and negotiate payment terms and timing details that have been pre-approved by the agency.   

According to PaymentVision®, initial tests of the Resolve My Bill(SM) platform generated an average 20% increase in resolution rates over 68%.

“Today’s millennial debtors are more averse to talking on the phone, and our newly launched system lets an agency scale without adding headcount.” said, Robert Pollin, CEO of PaymentVision®.  The debtor-facing Resolve My Bill web site is customized for each agency and is open 24 hours. And since collectors don’t interact with debtors, compliance concerns are greatly reduced as the risk of collectors not following the approved script no longer applies.  

“It’s a win-win solution,” continued Pollin.  “Resolve My Bill(SM) makes the collection process more convenient and less stressful for debtors, and also more successful for agencies.”

Resolve my Bill(SM) is a TCPA and FDCPA compliant solution. For more information and pricing, contact PaymentVision.

About PaymentVision®

PaymentVision is a biller-direct, PCI-compliant, electronic payment gateway provider. PaymentVision offers clients the unified ability to accept ACH, check, and credit or debit card payments via phone or web-based mediums. PaymentVision solutions handle billions of dollars for thousands of financial institutions large and small nationwide, including credit unions, banks, consumer finance, and collection agencies.

PHOENIX, Ariz. — BillingTree®, the payment problem solvers™, announced today the appointment of Christine “Chris” Lee as Chief Executive Officer.  Former CEO Edgars Sturans will remain as a BillingTree Board member. Ms. Lee’s hiring comes at an opportune time for the rapidly growing payment solution provider, supplying a wealth of payment industry and banking experience as the company expands deeper within new verticals. Her expertise will compliment the company’s success in ARM, Auto Finance, Banking, Credit Unions and Healthcare.

Ms. Lee is a highly accomplished industry veteran having successfully led teams at Moneris, Vantiv, NPC, Bank of America and is currently the President Elect for the Electronic Transactions Association (ETA). She’s also served as the Women’s Network in Electronic Transactions (WNET) President, and 11-year Board Member participant.

BillingTree, headquartered in Phoenix, AZ with offices in Toledo, OH is a leading supplier of financial technology and payment solutions, processing over $4 Billion annually for clients from multiple industries.  The company was most recently recognized as one of the Top Revenue Cycle Management Solutions for 2018.

“I am pleased Christine accepted the CEO position here at BillingTree. Her outstanding resume and experience are the perfect fit to build on our 15-year sustained track record of success, innovation and client service excellence,” said Edgars Sturans, BillingTree Board Member and outgoing CEO.

“I’m thrilled to join BillingTree, a proven payments company with innovative technology solutions including Payrazr® and CareView™ which position us for rapid growth within our current and future target verticals,” said Chris Lee, BillingTree’s incoming CEO. “The payments industry is rapidly changing, and my career history will serve us well as we continue to scale BillingTree’s revenue growth and software solutions to clients.”

About BillingTree

BillingTree® is the leading provider of integrated payments solutions to the Healthcare, ARM, Property Management, B2B, and Financial Services industry verticals. Through its technology-enabled suite of products and services, BillingTree enables organizations to increase efficiency and decrease the costs of payment processing while adhering to compliance regulations. Leveraging more than a decade of market experience, BillingTree is dedicated to growing payments with technology through an integrated omni-channel offering, suite of proprietary products and value-added services, and a company-wide focus on delivering extraordinary customer service.

On Friday, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued a joint press release with several other regulators urging financial institutions to work with borrowers affected by the government shutdown.

The press release notes that the shutdown should be temporary. However, borrowers impacted “may face a temporary hardship in making payments on debts such as mortgages, student loans, car loans, business loans, or credit cards.” Working with such borrowers is “generally in the long-term best interest of the financial institution, the borrower, and the economy” and “should not be subject to examiner criticism.”

insideARM Perspective

The shutdown, which began on December 22, 2018, is still underway, making it the longest in United States history. It has already impacted the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which are now only open for limited operations. Three weeks in, it appears that the shutdown may have finally reached a point of impact on financial institutions.

According to the Washington Post, Congress approved back pay to furloughed federal employees, numbering around 800,000.

Friday, the day the regulators released the above press release, was also the first missed paycheck by the furloughed employees. These furloughed employees, who might normally be able to meet their financial obligations, may not be able to do so until the shutdown is over — whenever that may be — and they receive their back pay. This means that the incoming numbers for financial institutions may also be somewhat impacted until the shutdown is over. The numbers will eventually right-size themselves, but companies — especially those servicing areas with a higher density of federal employees — should prepare for the short-term impact. 

Editor’s Note: This article initially appeared on TrueAccord’s blog and is republished here with permission from the author.

On January 8, 2018 the California Department of Justice held a public forum to receive comments on the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”). While this law was passed in June of 2018 there is still significant work to be done to refine and implement the new legislation before it goes into full effect on January 1, 2020. I attended this packed forum and came away with some key insights from those who spoke on how businesses, consumer advocates, information security professionals, and attorneys who specialize in data privacy view the law in its present form.

I heard three common themes that were echoed by consumer advocates, businesses, and trade groups that I’ll address in more detail below.

The definitions of personal information under this law are extremely broad and ambiguous.

1798.140(o)(1) defines personal information as “information that identifies, relates to, describes, is capable of being associated with, or could reasonably be linked, directly or indirectly, with a particular consumer or household.” It goes on to list common identifying information like name, address and SSN, but also includes “unique personal identifier, Internet Protocol address, email address, account name, other similar identifiers.” The law also references inferences that may be drawn from this information to create a consumer profile. By defining personal information to as little as an IP address or inferences drawn about a consumer this law will cover many millions of records and require businesses to create complicated new tracking systems to categorize this data. This will be costly for businesses, and due to the ambiguity of this definition it may be impossible to comply or provide consumers with the data they’re requesting.

The threshold above which a business must comply is very low.

The threshold to trigger compliance could be any of three events. 1) Gross annual revenues in excess of $25,000,000, 2) Buying or receiving, or sharing (emphasis added) for commercial purposes, or 3) deriving 50% or more of annual revenues from selling consumers’ personal information. It was the second point that businesses and trade groups were most concerned with. In combination with the definition of personal information this threshold could be considered as little as 50,000 unique website visits per year. This is only 137 unique site visits per day, which could easily occur for many businesses that happen to collect IP addresses, and “share” the information with any other individual or third-party service provider. The unintended consequences of this low threshold and the ambiguity in definition of personal information will pull thousands of businesses into being required to comply with this law.

Another point raised is that it is unclear when the requirements of the law apply once a business crosses one of these thresholds. Is it immediately upon passing one threshold? Is it retroactive for the activities in the calendar year prior to passing the threshold?

The law will require businesses to link data sets together that will create personally identifiable information that otherwise wouldn’t exist and serves no business purpose. This creates more risk in the event of a data breach.

If a consumer provides a “valid request” to a business, which is ambiguous and undefined, a company must gather all consumer info that may fall under the ambiguous definition in the law and provide it to the consumer. To provide this consumer data a business will be required to combine information from various unrelated sources, that on their own would not easily be used to identify a consumer, into a single record that easily identify a consumer and serves no business purpose. Consumer advocates, trade groups, and businesses expressed significant concern about this requirement. How is a business supposed to securely transmit this information to a consumer? How does a business track these requests and prove they’ve satisfied the requirements? How should a business secure this newly created record that will surely be a hot target for hackers?

It’s clear that there is a long way to go before this law can meet its intended purpose of protecting consumers and requiring businesses to treat consumer data appropriately to be in compliance. Our industry faces unique challenges to comply with this law due to the heavily regulated nature of our business. The complications this law will add to our compliance platform cannot be understated. I encourage you to take the time now to read the law, consult with your attorneys, and provide thoughtful comments to the regulators during this open comment period. We have an opportunity to raise our concerns about this law and have a real impact on the final language for this regulation with which we’ll have to comply.

On Monday, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP. As a brief recap, the case questions whether a law firm engaging in non-judicial foreclosure is considered a debt collector under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau filed an amicus brief in this case back in November, siding with McCarthy & Holthus (McCarthy) on the issue.

The crux of the oral arguments seemed to rest on whether the FDCPA intended the exclusion of those enforcing a security interest to mean only those who do not engage with consumers. The justices asked counsel for both parties to discuss the difference between a law firm engaging in non-judicial foreclosure versus a repossessor. McCarthy’s counsel argued that there is no distinction, both are enforcing a security interest, whereas Obduskey’s attorney argued that sending a pre-foreclosure notice constitutes debt collection. Some of the justices seemed to side with Obduskey’s attorney. differentiating that repossessor only engages with the collateral “in the dark of night,” whereas a foreclosure attorney engages with the consumer by, for example, sending a pre-foreclosure notice.

In a rather unexpected turn, two of the right-leaning, pro-business justices — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh — both seemed to side with Obduskey’s counsel on this question.  Since such a notice encourages payment, Chief Justice Roberts referred to it as “indirect collection.” Justice Kavanaugh, the newest addition to the Supreme Court’s bench, likewise indicated that the purpose of a foreclosure notice is to tell someone that they need to pay or they will lose their home.

The oral arguments also turned to statutory interpretation of the FDCPA text itself. The FDCPA’s definition of debt collector explicitly includes those enforcing a security interest in the definition when it applies to one section of the statute, which indicates they are exluded from the remainder of the definition.

This issue also brought a split among the justices. Justice Samuel Alito sided with McCarthy, finding that the inclusion and exclusion in the text of the statute itself indicates that Congress intended there to be a divide. Justice Elena Kagan seemed to lean toward the interpretation that the law firm can be either a debt collector or an entity enforcing a security interest, but not both. Justice Sonya Sotomayor believed an entity can be both and that the real issue here wasn’t the definition but rather the engagement in unfair practices.

It seems the justices are split on the issue, which makes it difficult to predict how they will rule so we have to wait until the decision is published to find out the answer.

The ever-elusive question of what exactly is meaningful attorney involvement is once again not answered. In Boerner v. LVNV Funding et al., No. 17-cv-1786 (E.D. Wis. 2019), the court addresses the issue but ends up punting it to a jury. This case also addressed the right to cure under Wiconsin’s consumer protection laws, but the summary below pertains solely to the meaningful attorney involvement issue.

Factual and Procedural Background

In this case, plaintiff fell behind on his credit card payments. The original creditor allowed plaintiff to make minimum payments while working to bring the account current. At some point while plaintiff was making minimum payments, the account was purchased by a debt buyer, which placed the account, along with the consumer’s debt file, with a collections law firm.

The collections firm sent a letter to plaintiff’s bankruptcy attorney containing the notice of validation rights as required by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Neither the attorney nor plaintiff responded to this letter. The collections firm then went to file a lawsuit against plaintiff.

Prior to filing the lawsuit, the complaint was reviewed by one of the attorneys at the collections firm. When the law firm receives files from creditors, it inputs them into a computer system that provides easy access to the information.  The firm’s records contained two time stamps for this complaint, one at 4:04 that was placed after the attorney reviewed the complaint, and one at 4:05 when the complaint was sent to staff to prepare for filing. The collection attorney working on plaintiff’s case was listed as counsel of record for hundreds of cases throughout Wisconsin.

The Decision

On the issue of meaningful attorney involvement, the court denied summary judgment. The court found that the determination for whether the attorney involvement was meaningful is a question for trial, not summary judgment.

Editor’s Note: When deciding on a motion for summary judgment, the court looks to whether there is no issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

In reviewing the matter, the court looked primarily to a Seventh Circuit case called Nielsen v. Dickerson that addressed similar questions. In Nielson, the Seventh Circuit took issue with the following:

[F]irst, the law firm only received information from accounts selected by the creditor—the law firm did not decide who to pursue, but simply conducted additional, ministerial screening. Second, the law firm did not receive the debtor’s file, only the information needed to determine delinquency and draft the letter. Third, the review of the letters, even if conducted by an attorney, “did not call for the exercise of professional judgment. The most substantive aspect of this review involved checking an internal database to determine whether a debtor had declared bankruptcy and running a [screening] computer check.” Fourth, the dunning letter was on a pre-written form letter that contained “no individualized assessment of the individual debtor’s circumstances or her liability,” and was issued in an “assembly-line fashion” that “betray[ed] the purely nominal nature” of the law firm’s participation. The court found that the attorney’s testimony that he spent two minutes reviewing one page containing forty accounts confirmed the “ministerial nature” of the review. Fifth, the firm was not authorized to resolve issues with the debtor, and routed almost all communication back to the creditor. Finally, the attorney never litigated on behalf of the creditor. The firm’s efforts “amounted to no more than a veneer of compliance with the FDCPA.

(Internal citations omitted.)

The court found that certain factors favor defendants in this matter. For example, the law firm received the consumer’s entire client file from the debt buyer and the firm actively litigates matters on behalf of the specific debt buyer.

However, the court could not conclusively determine some of the other factors. The court could not determine who made the professional judgment on which cases to litigate. There was an issue about the consumer not receiving notice of his right to cure the account as the court determined was required. There was also evidence presented that usually a firm shareholder reviewed the file, but in this particular case a legal assistant did so (Editor’s Note: The legal assistant’s review was done three days prior to the review by the attorney who reviewed the complaint.)

Based on these open questions, the court reasoned that the question of meaningful attorney involvement in this matter is best for determination at trial.

insideARM Perspective

The issue of meaningful attorney involvement is far from clear and this decision does little to help shed light on the picture. How much time and in what depth is a collections attorney supposed to review a file to pass muster? Many court decisions tell us what fails to meet the standard, but don’t often tell us what does. This forces the industry to slowly piece the picture together while at the same time fielding templated lawsuits from plaintiffs’ counsel.

When reviewing attorney’s fees, the courts are usually instructed to look at the complexity of the matter involved. They should do the same for meaningful attorney involvement cases. While collections lawsuits against consumers are serious, especially considering the impact such a suit may have to a consumer, litigation of such suits is not complex. The elements required to state a claim are simple and static. The files sent by creditors include all of the information needed to determine whether a suit is appropriate. These files are uniform and do not take a long time to review to ensure that the file is ripe for a suit.

There is a balance here somewhere. There is a way to protect consumers while also providing enough clarity so that collection law firms are not shooting in the dark hoping they are complying. However, without clear guidance, that balance will take longer to achieve and may ultimately harm consumers (e.g., decreased access to credit).

Editor’s Note: This article previously appeared on the Ontario Systems Blog and is republished here with permission.

No one has a crystal ball, but some people have more experience reading tea leaves than others. As we ring in the new year, let’s see how close I come with my 2019 ARM industry predictions.

1. Consumer debt will continue to rise during the first quarter as the U.S. slips into a recession. Many believe the Federal Reserve will be forced to halt any rate hikes and could even lower interest rates to stop the recession. ARM professionals should brace themselves for increased charge offs and in turn increased inventory of debt less than 36 months old.

[article_ad]

2. The flood of new debt will support current collection agency business valuations and possibly drive sale prices even higher.

3. Equity investors representing completely new markets will find a new interest in the accounts receivable management industry. Telcom, cable and EBOs may all find collection agencies to be a perfect complement to their current business.

4. Agency valuations will hold at all time high levels through Q2. The collections industry is, by definition, a responsive industry. It reacts to changes in the credit cycle and is typically the last segment of the credit cycle to suffer the impact of a recession.

5. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), enjoying the fall back to its original name, will publish the new proposed rules for debt collection. This will trigger a compliance scramble much like we experienced when the CFPB launched its Larger Market Participant collection agency, debt buyer and collection law firm examination program in 2012.

6. Robocalling restrictions imposed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the marketplace’s corresponding response with new, robust consumer call access controls will make text messaging programs the #1 contact system of choice for debt collection purposes.

7. Payment portals will explode, as will the lawsuits claiming noncompliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), and Electronic Funds Transfer Act (EFTA). Small fonts, pictures without captions, unauthorized disclosures of a debt, improper disclosures of fees, and payments will all drive portal litigation.

8. Data privacy statutes will become the collection industry’s new Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). Just as HIPAA turned agencies and their clients’ upside down and inside out about privacy and security responsibilities in 2003, so too will new state and Federal laws regarding data privacy impact how consumer data is collected, stored, shared and sold. This means the reckless, cross pollination of consumer data, including demographic data among and between accounts and creditors, will come to a screeching halt.

9. Maxine Waters (D-CA), Chair of the House Financial Service Committee, will not rock the boat. Armed with subpoena power, Waters is more likely to launch investigations into banking, lending and payday loan practices rather than drive a legislative agenda that has no hope of passage. She is no stranger to the Committee however, and this may just be the calm before the storm.

There is no formula to help us predict events. There is no fairy dust to help us see into the future. But educated guesses about how economic, political and societal pressures will impact the credit and collections industry are possible. Use these nine predictions to stimulate thoughts and discussion about your 2019 business strategy, collections strategy and market position. Happy New Year!