Archives for November 2019

Editor’s Note: This article is published on insideARM with permission from the author, who is the CEO and Founder of Be Accessible.

—

When we used to talk about accessibility, we only thought about physical buildings. But times have changed. Providing online services, such as account access and payment processing, is now a commonplace practice that bridges the gap between businesses and consumers. However, businesses that don’t adhere to the website accessibility guidelines mentioned in the American Disability Act of 1990 are at risk of legal charges of up to $150,000. 

Making your website accessible to all will not only protect your business against possible legal consequences, but it can also improve your online reputation.

Here are the six most important components of an ADA-compliant website:

[article_ad]

1. Inclusive Design 

Accessibility is about making your website available to everyone. To achieve this, you should pay attention to inclusive design. 

Inclusive design means designing for diversity. Remember that your site visitors are varied. Some may be suffering from permanent disabilities, including blindness, hearing impairment, or some chronic disease that restricts their mobility. Meanwhile, other people can be temporarily impaired. For example, a person who just went through a major surgical operation may not be able to move his hands properly until recovered. When designing a website, keep in mind the different kinds of people who will be accessing it so that it can be made accessible to those in unique situations.

2. Video and Audio Files

Video and audio files are common on websites. Through these media, you can easily convey your message and promote your brand. Unfortunately, not everyone can access them with ease. People with visual impairment, for example, will not be able to view videos, photos, or other graphical components of your site. Meanwhile, deaf people might feel discouraged to use your site if you have a lot of audio content. 

The solution is to provide your audience with an alternative method to access these files if they cannot hear the audio or see videos. You can make the experience better for these people by adding alternate tags to your images, subtitles on your videos, and transcripts for your audio files. 

3. Content

The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 list several recommendations to make your site content user-friendly.

The first is to provide text alternatives to non-text content. This way, users can change the content into a format that suits their needs, such as speech, braille, symbols, and even simple language. 

Second, provide alternatives for time-based media. This means publishing pre-recorded media (video and audio files) and using captions.

The third is to enable users to view their content in different forms or layouts without losing information or structure. Many disabled people use mobile devices to access the web. Thus, you have to make sure that your site is mobile-friendly.

Lastly, you should make it easy for users to view or hear your content by separating the foreground from the background. This can be done by making highly contrasting color combinations and adding a ‘pause’ button or disabling auto-play functions on videos.

4. Font

There are hundreds of font styles available today. In terms of accessibility, there are several guidelines to keep in mind when choosing fonts for your website. One is to choose a common font and limit the number of font styles for your website. Among the widely used fonts for accessibility are sans-serifs like Arial, Calibri, and Century Gothic, serif fonts like Times New Roman and Georgia, and slab serifs like Rockwell and Avro. 

As to the size, use at least 20px for your content. Enable resizing by defining font sizes by relative value. 

Another accessibility must-have is ensuring that your text can be zoomed in to 200% without assistive technology or loss of website functionality. 

5. Accessibility Guide

Once you’ve made the major components of your site accessible, create a separate page outlining how people with disabilities can use or navigate your site with ease. Your accessibility guide should include links or tools that can help them access the information they need. Include some techniques such as text-to-speech option, voice recognition, browser settings, and many more.

6. Layout

An accessible layout is important for accessible websites. Your site should be designed in such a way that people with disabilities can easily and confidently locate and identify the information they need on their own. This includes adding navigation menus, links, clear headings for content, orientation cues, and sections. You should also add labels and short instructions on fields.

Additionally, provide more than one method of website navigation such as a site search or a site map.

Conclusion

Creating an ADA-compliant website isn’t too difficult. If you pay attention to the six elements mentioned in this article, your website will be well on its way to being accessible to everyone, especially to people with disabilities.

Not much has been heard about the status of efforts to resolve differences between the US-Senate–passed TRACED Act, S. 151, and the House-of-Representatives-approved Stopping Bad Robocalls Act, H.R. 3375. Both bills were approved by wide margins, but as the Congressional year has wound down will there be – with all else transpiring on Capitol Hill – a robocall bill to send to the President this year?

Trade press reports this week are, in effect, that there may be light at the end of the tunnel, and soon. House Communications Subcommittee Chairman Mike Doyle (D–PA) was quoted as saying, “I think we have agreement” on a compromise bill and “there’s no reason why we shouldn’t see it” by the end of this month.

[article_ad]

On the Senate side, it was reported that Senator John Thune (R-SD), Chairman of the Senate Communications Subcommittee, spoke of progress in negotiations nearing a conclusion to develop a compromise. He was quoted as believing that it might be possible to pass a bill by Thanksgiving, although cautioning that things tend to take longer than they should.

TCPAWorld will report and analyze the final result of Congressional negotiations and what the legislation will mean for all TCPA stakeholders.

Stay tuned.

—

Editor’s note: This article is provided through a partnership between insideARM and Squire Patton Boggs LLP, which provides a steady stream of timely, insightful and entertaining takes on TCPAWorld.com of the ever-evolving, never-a-dull-moment Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Squire Patton Boggs LLP—and all insideARM articles—are protected by copyright. All rights are reserved. 

NEWMARKET, Ontario — Bill Gosling Outsourcing, a global Business Processing Outsourcing (BPO) provider, launches nearshore operations in Costa Rica, creating 300+ jobs.  

“We are excited to extend our operations to Costa Rica, providing a quality nearshore option to our North American Clients. We chose Costa Rica for their highly educated bilingual workforce, IT infrastructure, and proximity to North America,” said Dave Rae, CEO of Bill Gosling Outsourcing. 

[article_ad]

Costa Rica’s renowned reputation for economic stability has allowed the country to transform itself into a key market for many top companies to set up operations. Kenny Johnston, President of Bill Gosling Outsourcing added, “As we continue to evolve our tech-based solutions, we want to ensure that we can deliver a consistent quality of work in all locations with our live-agent and technology services. For many reasons, we felt Costa Rica was the perfect location to start our expansion into the LATAM market.” 

With a literacy rate of 97.98%, Costa Rica ranks #1 in LATAM in skills of graduates, current and future workforce. Many of the ‘Forbes Top 100 Companies’ have recently opened up R&D labs and other operations in the country to take advantage of the multi-talented bilingual workforce available. Additionally, Costa Rica now runs 99.99% on renewable energy and boasts 3 fiber-optic submarine cables that give stability and security to their telecommunications infrastructure. 

This site in Costa Rica will provide approximately 300 new jobs in customer care, ARM, and other support roles. The office is located in the El Cafetal Corporate Centre, approximately 15 minutes away from the San Jose International airport. The building boasts Leed Silver certification. 

About Bill Gosling Outsourcing 

Founded in Canada in 1955, and originally operating as a traditional accounts receivable management firm, Bill Gosling Outsourcing (BGO) has evolved into a multinational communications outsourcing company expanding into the UK (1968), the US (2001), and the Philippines (2013). BGO operates from eight global facilities, employs 2,100+  employees and offers five core services; positioning itself as a strategic partner for developing and implementing an all-encompassing customer contact solution strategy. Service categories include Customer Service/Support, Accounts Receivable Management, Customer Sales and Acquisitions, and Call Center Technology/Business Process Outsourcing.

I recently wrote about email and text guidelines the American Medical Association (AMA) set forth to help healthcare providers ensure their electronic communications comply with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). Thanks to this roadmap, and current available technologies, providers and their business associates have what they need to email and text patients legally and responsibly when Protected Health Information (PHI) is at stake. 

Today, I’m going to discuss HIPAA compliance more in depth—specifically, as defined and determined by the HIPAA Privacy Rule, the HIPAA Security Rule, and the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act. Each of these contributes to the pool of regulatory requirements controlling the exchange of PHI via electronic communications. 

Understanding how these regulations (collectively referred to herein as “HIPAA requirements”) impact text and email communications is your first step toward launching a HIPAA-compliant text and email communication program. 

First Things First: A Brief HIPAA Breakdown

Before we launch into our five-step dive, here’s a quick primer on how HIPAA requirements have evolved and expanded since 2000. 

HHS Privacy Rule

Health and Human Services (HHS) published a final Privacy Rule in December 2000, which was later modified in August 2002. This rule set national standards for the protection of individually identifiable PHI by three types of covered entities: health plans, health care clearinghouses, and health care providers who conduct standard healthcare transactions electronically. Compliance with the Privacy Rule was required as of April 14, 2003 (April 14, 2004, for small health plans). 

HHS Security Rule

HHS published a final Security Rule in February 2003. This rule sets national standards for protecting the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of electronic PHI. Compliance with the Security Rule was required as of April 20, 2005 (April 20, 2006 for small health plans). 

HHS Enforcement Rule

The Enforcement Rule provides standards for the enforcement of all the Administrative Simplification Rules. 

HHS Breach Notification Rule

Under certain circumstances, the Health and Human Services (HHS) Breach Notification Rule requires covered entities and business associates to report all PHI breaches to HHS and the impacted individuals. HHS enacted a final Omnibus rule that implements a number of provisions of the HITECH Act to strengthen the privacy and security protections for PHI established under HIPAA, thus finalizing the Breach Notification Rule. 

Now, Let’s Dive Into the HIPAA Requirements

These are five of the most important aspects of HIPAA as it pertains to email and text. If you’re considering using electronic communications to engage patients for any reason, these bottom-line takeaways should be top of mind. 

Step #1: Relationships Matter

The HIPAA requirements for text and email communications differ depending on the relationship between the texting or emailing parties. 

While all electronic communications sent from a covered entity or business associate to a patient must be secure, communications from the patient to the covered entity or business associate need not be secure. This is because the HIPAA requirements do not require covered entities and business associates to be legally responsible for the encryption of PHI sent by the patient to the covered entity or business associate. 

Nevertheless, the covered entity or business associate still bears some responsibility regarding email and text communications received from a patient (see Step #2). 

Step #2: Consumer Warnings Matter

As I mentioned in my previous blog post, providers and business associates who offer patients an opportunity to communicate electronically using a text or email service must warn consumers about the insecurity of the communication platform. 

According to the AMA’s guidelines related to HIPAA requirements for communications between provider/business associate and patient, when communicating with patients electronically, the provider/business associate must also inform patients of: 

• The inherent limitations of electronic communication, including possible breach of privacy or confidentiality issues; and
• The difficulty in verifying the identity of the parties when texting or emailing and the potential impact of delayed responses. 

The provider/business associate should also provide patients with an opportunity to accept or decline electronic communication before privileged information is transmitted, and they should document the patient’s decision to accept or decline the opportunity. 

Lastly, the provider/business associate should take steps to help the patient understand that any texts or emails he or she might send the provider/business associate are not secure and may be subject to intrusion, hacking, and identity theft. 

Step #3: Patient Expectations Matter

The HIPAA requirements are not prescriptive with regard to text and email communications. Rather, they expect covered entities and business associates to meet the expectations within reason. 

For example, if a patient demands the medical collection agency email a copy of his or her statement to a Gmail address and the collection agency has absolutely no process in place to email patients, HIPAA would not require the medical collection agency to accommodate the patient by implementing an email communication system. 

On the other hand, if a patient indicates he or she does not want the medical collection agency to leave voicemail messages on his or her cell phone and to send texts instead (assuming the agency has a text message program in place), HIPAA would require the medical collection agency to cease leaving voicemail messages and restrict communications with that patient to text. 

Step #4: Playground Rules Don’t Matter

Covered entities and their business associates often ask whether they can interpret a patient’s unsolicited email or text as consent to electronic communications. 

The assumption behind the question is best reflected in the familiar line, “Well, they started it.” While this may work as a playground rule, it fails under the HIPAA requirements. 

Parties who wish to communicate with patients electronically must obtain the patient’s consent to continue using the particular form of electronic communication, even when a patient initiates the text or the email. 

Step #5: Encryption Matters

Email and text communications are inherently insecure; they’re not secured by default, and they’re easy to hack. 

An individual’s email account can easily be accessed by a third party if a weak or easy-to-guess password is used for the email account. A provider’s email system is also vulnerable to attack if the organization does not use two-factor authentication and other simple controls such as passwords and screen time-outs. 

Because all consumer-grade email platforms and texting programs are known to be insecure means of communication, their use for professional purposes may be considered in itself a breach of the HIPAA requirements. 

The HIPAA Security Rule §164.312(e) requires covered entities and their business associates to consider the encryption of communications as an Addressable Implementation Specification. This is a defined term under the HIPAA Security Rule. Providers and their business associates must comply with this rule when contemplating the use of electronic communications.  

HIPAA Is Complex, but Email and Text Needn’t Be

Technologies that can secure text and email communications as required by HIPAA are readily available today. In fact, providers have a range of options that are designed for this very purpose and perform their job well. 

Once you understand what HIPAA requires and have the right tools in place, electronic communications will become less of an ongoing concern and more of an asset—a major advantage, in fact—for your operations and your business. Frankly, you’ll wonder how you ever got along without them.

—

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

For some time now, healthcare providers have been dealing with declining reimbursements from third-party payers and a higher portion of patient responsibility as a part of their total accounts receivable. As the reimbursement challenges grow and operating margins shrink, healthcare’s bottom lines have felt the squeeze. Though this alone is enough to cause sleepless nights for revenue cycle professionals, there is now a new front that those in the non-profit healthcare world are having to face. Lately, non-profit healthcare providers have come under increased scrutiny by public media and consumer advocates for their billing and collection practices.

The beginnings of this movement trace back to a series of ProPublica articles titled “Unforgiven: The Transformation of Consumer Debt.” In their series, ProPublica reported on several non-profit and public healthcare providers across the country, citing their treatment of lower-income patients and their reliance on lawsuits to compel the payment of medical debt. It was enough, at the time, that the investigation prompted further scrutiny by Senator Charles Grassley, causing one hospital system in Missouri to overhaul its financial assistance policy and forgive the debts of thousands of former patients.

More recently, ProPublica and other consumer advocacy outlets have cited the following hospitals for their billing and collection practices: Methodist Le Bonheur Healthcare in Memphis, Tennessee; St. Francis Health System in Oklahoma; Carlsbad Medical Center in Carlsbad, New Mexico and; Virginia’s non-profit Mary Washington Hospital.

The one that has drawn the most attention lately is a report from Kaiser Health News and The Washington Post on how Virginia’s state-run University of Virginia Health System (UVA) sued patients more than 36,000 times over six years, seeking a total of more than $106 million in unpaid bills. In response, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) sent a letter demanding answers to questions about UVA’s billing practices, financial assistance policies, and even its prices. The Finance Committee oversees federal tax laws, and Kaiser Health News reported that Grassley wrote that it is “my job to make sure that entities exempt from tax are fulfilling their tax-exempt purposes.”

In his seven-page letter, Grassley asks 19 detailed questions on various topics, including the system’s charity care (free or discounted care provided to low-income patients), debt collection policies, and its rationale for the litigation threshold of $1,000, enacted in 2017. Grassley asks specific questions about UVA’s list of standard prices for procedures and equipment, commonly known as the “chargemaster,” as posted on its website. Here is a copy of his letter to UVA.

Grassley has a longstanding interest in nonprofits in general and nonprofit hospitals in particular. In February of this year, Grassley wrote a letter to IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig to request data on nonprofit hospitals’ compliance or lack thereof with congressionally established standards for community benefits under 501(r). Even though the letter questions only UVA Health System, it sends a signal that the Senate will be paying attention to an issue that affects all state-run and nonprofit health systems.

The reality for those of us in the ARM industry who serve non-profit healthcare providers is that the attention to billing and collection practices—our own as well as those of our clients—is not going away on the part of consumer advocates. To protect the integrity and future of our industry, we will need to better educate and work with our clients on what is reasonable and effective in today’s consumer-oriented climate.

Healthcare providers remain skittish when it comes to email or text communications, and their reluctance is understandable. 

Historically, both email and text messages were considered inherently unsecure modes of communication. In addition, many healthcare providers and business associates believe the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rule’s restrictions on the use, transfer, and storage of demographic data and Protected Health Information (PHI) make email and text messaging far too risky. 

In response to the concerns of the healthcare community as well as the financial services industry—which has similar needs to protect the confidentiality of personally identifiable information—the cellular phone and internet industries have built safe, secure electronic communication platforms that secure information both in transit and at rest. 

If email and text are used properly and with the controls required by the American Medical Association (AMA) to send electronic messages containing PHI, healthcare providers can now embrace these forms of patient communications. 

AMA Requirements for Email and Text

As the AMA makes clear, HIPAA does not specifically prohibit sending PHI by text or email. However, it does require the electronic communication platform to include: 

• Safeguards to ensure the confidentiality of PHI at rest and in transit;
• Controls for who can access PHI;
• Permissions for what authorized personnel can do with PHI when they access it; and
• Processes to prevent the interception of plain text messages. 

Healthcare providers and business associates should exercise due diligence when selecting a text or email communication platform provider. At a minimum, they should require the provider to ensure its text or email platform can support the AMA’s four requirements of an electronic communication platform. 

The AMA has further clarified its position on sending PHI by text or email in Section 2.3.1 of the AMA’s Code of Ethics. As this section makes clear, concerns remain about privacy and confidentiality when communicating and transmitting PHI electronically. Physicians must uphold the same ethical standards when communicating with patients electronically as they do during other clinical encounters. They must also ensure the method of communication—whether virtual, telephonic, or in person—is appropriate to the patient’s clinical need and to the information being conveyed. 

While HHS and the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) do not prohibit healthcare providers and practitioners from communicating with their patients by text messages or email, healthcare providers and practitioners cannot disavow their responsibilities under the law, HIPAA, the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rule, or the AMA Code of Ethics by hiring a business associate to manage their electronic communications.  

Business associate agreements must include specific provisions regarding the use of text messaging and email and delineate any privacy or security requirements of the covered entity.  

AMA Guidelines for Email and Text

Here are the AMA’s specific guidelines regarding electronic patient communications. These standard practices help to ensure day-to-day compliance and ethical, responsible patient care. 

Physicians who choose to communicate electronically with patients should: 

(a) Uphold professional standards of confidentiality and protection of privacy, security, and integrity of patient information. 

(b) Notify the patient of the inherent limitations of electronic communication, including possible breach of privacy or confidentiality, difficulty in validating the identity of the parties, and possible delays in response. 

Such disclaimers do not absolve physicians of responsibility to protect the patient’s interests. Patients should have the opportunity to accept or decline electronic communication before privileged information is transmitted. The patient’s decision to accept or decline email communication containing privileged information should be documented in the medical record. 

(c) Advise the patient of the limitations of these channels when a patient initiates electronic communication. 

(d) Obtain the patient’s consent to continue electronic communication when a patient initiates electronic communication. 

(e) Present medical information in a manner that meets professional standards. Diagnostic or therapeutic services must conform to accepted clinical standards. 

(f) Be aware of relevant laws that determine when a patient-physician relationship has been established.  

For Providers and Their Patients, a Big Leap Forward

Healthcare professionals should welcome the AMA’s efforts to advance communications between patients and their providers. Text and email can be used to improve the patient experience, inform patients of their rights, remind them of important appointments, deliver treatment plans, follow up with recommendations, and even establish a lifeline between patients and physicians. 

Today’s patients appreciate and deserve the opportunity to communicate with providers using a variety of methods. The AMA’s recognition of this fact, and the framework it has provided for healthcare-related electronic communications, is a major win for all involved.

—

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

WILMINGTON, Del. — Katabat, a leading global supplier of debt management software solutions, has launched EasyCollect, a powerful, yet easy to deploy, mobile payment portal for lenders and debt collection agencies. EasyCollect is the industry’s simplest, fastest digital payments solution, allowing lenders and agencies to reach borrowers via integrated email and SMS messaging and creating a hassle-free payment experience that helps increase collections. 

“Our clients were looking for an easy-to-use, secure portal for online digital collections from initial outreach messaging through payment capture,” said Katabat CEO Ray Peloso. “We developed EasyCollect as a stand-alone, digital-first product to help our clients increase collections and recoveries while providing a streamlined customer experience.” 

A digital-first communications approach, like that enabled by EasyCollect, can improve response rates by up to 30% according to a recent McKinsey report. The product allows clients with a payment merchant account to easily set up and begin receiving payments by: 

• Uploading a file of accounts and logo(s);
• Specifying basic details like minimum payment amount, links or content for state and other disclosures;
• Selecting  compliant email templates to use for customer engagement;
• Sending campaign messages and allowing customers to make or schedule payments immediately via a mobile device. 

EasyCollect is PCI-compliant and does not require IT support for deployment. It delivers enterprise-scale functionality with a price point attractive for small to medium-sized debt collection agencies. Introductory pricing ranges from $249 to $499 per month. 

Katabat’s full suite of debt management solutions helps lenders, financial institutions and debt collectors streamline communications and optimize engagement throughout the entire customer lifecycle. By applying machine learning to the debt management and collections process, Katabat’s solutions help improve collections and recovery through a better customer experience, all while reducing costs and compliance risk.  

For more information on EasyCollect or to set up a demo, contact us at info@katabat.com.

About Katabat

With more than a decade of experience delivering debt collection solutions to global banks and debt collection agencies, Katabat combines collections and machine learning expertise to help clients engage with customers and increase collections. Katabat partners with lenders and collectors across multiple industries to stay at the cutting edge of debt management, machine learning, automation, regulatory compliance, and data security. To learn more about our full range of debt management products, contact Katabat at info@katabat.com.

This article is part of an ongoing Think Differently series, launched in October 2019. Written by members of the iA Innovation Council, the series showcases thought leadership in analytics, communications, payments, and compliance technology for the accounts receivable management industry.

—

One of the most common misconceptions about Artificial Intelligence (AI) is that it’s all a black box that runs itself — all you need to do is plug it in, let the machine do its learning, and allow the algorithms to take over. 

Wrong. Just like any new partnership or team member, AI requires an onboarding process to establish familiarity with operations, time to figure out how to do its job well, and regular check-ins with its manager. 

In a recent Forbes article, Joe DeCosmo lays out steps for how fintechs can implement AI into middle and back-office operations first, before they go “all in” and extend it to front office (consumer-facing) ops.

Embrace redundancy and remediation

For instance, “embrace redundancy and remediation.” Every automated process should be tested against a manual process to make sure it’s doing what it’s supposed to do (only quicker and better than the manual model.) AI is no different, and I encourage people to start with one facet of their business, worked with both a machine learning and a manual process concurrently. Not only does this enable you to see immediate results of your AI implementation, it also allows a firm to understand what decisions are being made and the kind of algorithms that are being built.

Monitor everything

“Monitor everything” is another recommendation, which is, of course, a requirement for staying compliant in more ways than one. For instance, an algorithm is developed based on a set of factors that seem to work, but if that algorithm goes unmonitored for an extended period of time, it could also develop a pattern of unwanted or suboptimal practices that may be tougher to explain to regulators than the technology itself. (Although the CFPB has championed AI for cutting down on discriminatory practices, the possibility is still an example of what could happen when a firm adopts a laissez-faire approach to an investment in AI.)

Ensure explain-ability

Ensuring explain-ability must be paramount when exploring machine learning strategies. Having the ability to access and generate reports on your algorithms is a necessity, and you must make sure those reports are transparent and explainable to different stakeholders within an organization, and therefore its regulators. 

While AI is probably the most exciting new tool for fintechs and can easily live up to its hype, it’s not a set-it-and-forget-it kitchen appliance (even a crockpot ultimately needs a human at the helm). If your firm is considering implementing AI into any part of its operations, you’ll find that half-measures rarely produce big results. Even if you’re onboarding AI incrementally, a dedicated CTO, analyst or data scientist within your organization should be charged with managing it: keeping an eye on its activity, communicating tweaks and changes, and maintaining the right controls.

— 

Gregory Allen is the Founder and CEO of Pairity, an AI platform that offers Machine Learning as a Service to the accounts receivable industry.

—

About the iA Innovation Council

The iA Innovation Council is a collaborative working group of product, tech, strategy, and operations thought leaders at the forefront of analytics, communications, payments, and compliance technology. Group members meet in person several times each year to engage in substantive dialogue and whiteboard sessions with the creative thinkers behind the latest innovations for the industry, the regulators who audit and establish guardrails for new technology, and educators, entrepreneurs and innovators from outside the industry who inspire different thinking. 

Learn more at www.iainnovationcouncil.com

2019 members include:

For years Sergei Lemberg’s name was synonymous with huge volume TCPA filing. He was the filing leader month after month from 2014-2017.

Well after a break for a little over a year, last month WebRecon again recognized Sergei Lemberg as the top TCPA filer in the country. Eager to crow about his return to the top Sergei joins the Unprecedented podcast team this week to talk about how it all started and where he’s headed with his huge volume machine.

More importantly, he represents the Plaintiff in the big Druguid case that is possibly on its way up to the Supreme Court to determine whether the TCPA complies with the First Amendment.

You will not want to miss this big interview in which TCPAWorld’s noted “Picklemaker” tells the Unprecedented podcast team that he is going “all the way” with Druguid –he even tells us how to pronounce it and it is not even close to houw you think.  He also discusses his strategy for bringing these cases, how he got into the TCPA game, and what he thinks might be coming next. You won’t want to miss it.

Before we get to the interview we break down all the biggest news of the week including:

• That big certification denial in  Sandoe v. Boston Sci. Corp., Civil Action No. 18-11826-NMG, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183886 (D. Mass. Oct. 23, 2019);
• The impact of the TCPA on the cannabis industry after that big Eaze arbitration win; and
• The permutations of Mr. Trump being sued for TCPA violations related to his re-election campaign.

You can’t miss this one folks! The podcast is available here.

—

Editor’s note: This article is provided through a partnership between insideARM and Squire Patton Boggs LLP, which provides a steady stream of timely, insightful and entertaining takes on TCPAWorld.com of the ever-evolving, never-a-dull-moment Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Squire Patton Boggs LLP — and all insideARM articles – are protected by copyright. All rights are reserved.  

The Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office (AG) will announce a $4 million settlement with Portfolio Recovery Associates (PRA) today, according to the Boston Globe. The AG’s investigation into PRA began after it received hundreds of complaints from consumers about the company.

The AG’s office alleges that PRA violated consumer protection laws in its efforts to collect debts. Specifically, the AG alleges that PRA collected debts for which it did not have proper documentation to show that the debt was actually owed, the amount of debt owed, and ignored the statute of limitations for pursuing debt. Additionally, PRA allegedly collected exempt Social Security income from consumers. 

As part of the settlement, according to the Boston Globe article, PRA agreed to:

• Not call consumers more than twice in a seven-day period;
• Stop credit reporting debts that it does not have proper documentation for;
• Stop collecting exempt income from consumers; and
• Ensure it has documentation to show that debts are valid prior to collection efforts.

insideARM reached out to PRA, which provided the following comment:

PRA has fully and voluntarily cooperated with the Attorney General and her office throughout this matter. While we deny that PRA’s practices violate Massachusetts or federal law, we have agreed to these terms in order to resolve this matter, avoiding both further cost and delay associated with legal action. Most importantly, we are pleased that we have reached agreement with the Attorney General regarding enhanced communication and disclosures with our customers.

insideARM also attempted to reach out to the Massachusetts AG’s office for comment but was unable to do so, likely due to the office being closed for Veterans Day. 

The text of the settlement agreement has not been made public at the time of this article’s publication.

[article_ad]