Archives for January 2020

New Jersey’s legislature has referred a new bill to its Consumer Affairs Committee that would impact how medical debt is handled prior to being referred to a collection agency. If passed, the bill would require healthcare professionals and facilities to provide income-based repayment options for patients before sending debts to collection agencies. Four primary sponsors and two co-sponsors introduced the bill on January 14, 2020. 

Specifically, the bill requires that:

• Healthcare professionals and facilities wait at least 90 days after first providing the patient with a bill before referring the debt for collection or legal action.
• Prior to the referral of the debt, the healthcare professional or facility must offer the patient an income-based repayment option where the payments do not exceed 15% of the patient’s discretionary income.
• The debt not be referred to a collection agency if the patient is in compliance with the payment plan—defined as making 11 scheduled payments in a 12-month period.
• Healthcare professionals or facilities discharge the debt—including any accrued interest—if the patient dies or becomes fully and permanently disabled, or defer the debt—without charging interest during the deferment period—during the period of disability if a patient becomes temporarily totally disabled. 

[article_ad]

insideARM Perspective

If this bill is passed, healthcare providers may find themselves needing to overhaul their payment processes. It seems unlikely that providers—especially smaller medical offices—have the capability to administer such a program. This capability or resource gap is the reason why providers refer debts to agencies, which are much better equipped to administer nuanced payment plans. The bill would be better suited if the income-based repayment plan could be administered through a collection agency.

The bill as written leaves certain crucial details vague. What, exactly, is “discretionary income”? Are providers left to determine that themselves? Wouldn’t it be better to provide a precise calculation of what is considered discretionary in order to prevent confusion and to create uniformity? What about the disability—who or what exactly certifies when the patient is considered disabled.

Leslie Bender, Chief Strategy Officer and General Counsel at BCA Financial Services, provides further insight:

There has been a growing concern about “surprise billing” and understanding the root causes of “surprise billing” is complicated, at best. Not only is it challenging for the insureds to stay up-to-date on what their plan covers, it is also challenging for healthcare professionals and institutional healthcare providers to understand all of the plan types and which services are covered.  While this can lead to billing mistakes and reimbursement errors, because it is the physician who has a more constant face to face relationship with the patient, a fair amount of the frustration is directed at the healthcare provider who may simply be navigating the same uncertain waters of what is/is not covered and how to address it. New Jersey’s new law, if enacted, creates an even more complex layer of issues. 

Moreover, the law would propose to defer or eliminate medical debts associated with providing care and treatment to a patient in the case of permanent disability, death, and temporary disability. The debt elimination is categoric and does not take into account medical bills or expenses that are covered by health insurance – or that arose from accidents or injuries in which a third party is liable? It seems illogical to eliminate or defer medical bills if and when a third party or health insurance is readily available to cover them. Another concern—could legislation like this inadvertently disincent healthcare providers from providing treatment to terminally ill or disabled patients?

NILES, Ill. — Last year was full of growth for UNIFIN, INC, and one of the things we incorporated into our business is giving back to our community. Last year was no different, and we spent time helping out a few different local charities and ended our year helping Little Elves of Love.

Little Elves of Love aims to provide comfort to children diagnosed with cancer and other unfortunate diseases and situations. Partnered up with the Shriners Hospitals for Children- Chicago, Little Elves of Love donates toys of any kind to patients residing in the hospital during the holiday season and homeless shelters.

UNIFIN, INC. has been a supporter of Little Elves of Love for years and will continue to support and host a toy drive in hopes of collecting plenty of generous presents to give to these children just in time for Christmas morning.

Overall, it was a great year, both for business and for helping the community. Being able to give back to those in need, especially in the local Chicagoland area, makes it all worthwhile. Going into 2020, we plan to keep up the pattern, and are already working on our next charity for the month of February!

Akron, OH — DebtNext Software today announced a new service offering: the DebtNext Collection Agency Accreditation (DNCAA). The DNCAA includes an on-site review, a detailed interview process with key management associates and a method to demonstrate an agency’s comprehensive policies, procedures and best practices. The DNCAA Findings Report creates a new way for ARM Vendor’s to share its story as an industry leader.

“The benefits were immediately obvious to me and I volunteered to be their first client” said Bill Howard, Senior Vice President of FirstPoint Collection Resources, Inc. He continued that “this objective third party assessment has already been shared with clients and prospects and garnered positive feedback and results.” 

Features and benefits of the DNCAA include:

• Summary and Exceptional Value Add (EVA) of each topic
• Overview & Insight into the Organization’s People, Systems and Processes
• Findings Report and validation letter that can be used for marketing and RFP support

The DNCAA is available today. For more information on the DNCAA please visit www.debtnext.com/enhanced-services or contact sales@debtnext.com.

About FirstPoint

FirstPoint is a leading provider of revenue cycle services that include Call Center, Early-out, Extended Business Office and Third-Party Debt Collections. Our roots date back to 1949 and we pride ourselves in doing business the right way by providing a superior level of service to our clients and their customers. FirstPoint is licensed and bonded nationally and is PPMS certified through the American Collectors Association International.

[article_ad]

About DebtNext Software

DebtNext Software has been delivering robust solutions for their clients’ recovery management needs since its founding in 2003. They utilize advanced technology combined with a breadth of industry knowledge to build function-rich solutions to drive recovery optimization and the management of third-party collection vendors. Their industry-leading Platform is currently used by some of the nation’s largest utility, telecommunications, financial services and accounts receivable management firms to fully illuminate their recovery management processes.

SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. — LiveVox, the leading provider of customer service and digital engagement tools, today announced the acquisition of SpeechIQ. 

SpeechIQ is an AI-driven speech analytics and quality assurance platform that will enable LiveVox to substantially strengthen its WFO application suite. Founded in 2015 and headquartered in Columbus, Ohio, SpeechIQ is an easy-to-use, cost-effective solution that helps drive agent productivity, operational efficiency, and improved customer engagement in contact centers. 

[article_ad]

Powered by a proprietary speech recognition engine that very quickly and accurately transcribes calls, SpeechIQ offers numerous features, including the ability to redact calls, search by keyword lists, retrieve and listen to calls, create manual and automated scorecards, and evaluate call sentiment – all supported by a complete reporting suite and full API. 

“SpeechIQ is a terrific addition to our digital and data-centric approach to communications,” stated LiveVox CEO Louis Summe.  “Their capabilities continue to fulfill our pledge to make digital transformation easier for our clients.” 

Joining the two platforms will equip organizations with the ability to measure, monitor and improve customer conversations across all channels while identifying the potential for operational efficiencies through analytics.  It will also further bolster LiveVox’s posture on Compliant Communication, as the transaction couples the industry-leading risk mitigation platform with an integrated speech analytics solution. 

“We’re thrilled to be part of the LiveVox family,” said SpeechIQ CEO Nick Bandy. “Our capabilities will enable all LiveVox customers to easily unlock the vast amount of insights within their call recordings.” 

This is the second acquisition LiveVox has announced in a month. In December 2019 LiveVox shared its plans to onboard Teckst, bringing mobile messaging to its communication suite. 

About LiveVox

LiveVox is the only one-stop-shop for true omnichannel engagement that unifies modern channels, CRM, and WFO functionality into a single cloud customer engagement platform. Facilitating over 14B interactions annually, LiveVox makes omnichannel easy by unifying all conversations and interactions in one place. Founded in 2000, LiveVox is headquartered in San Francisco with offices in Atlanta, Denver, St. Louis, Colombia, and Bangalore. To learn more, visit www.livevox.com. 

About SpeechIQ

Founded in 2015, SpeechIQ is an advanced speech analytics and quality management platform.  Headquartered in Columbus, Ohio, the platform delivers an easy-to-use, cost-effective solution that drives agent productivity, operations efficiency, and improved customer engagement. To learn more, visit www.speechiq.com.

NEW YORK, N.Y. — RIP Medical Debt is pleased to announce that Allison Sesso is joining the national nonprofit as its new Executive Director. Allison leaves the Human Services Council of New York after six years as its Executive Director. 

RIP is a 501(c)(3) that uses donated funds to purchase portfolios of bundled medical debt on the secondary debt market for pennies on the dollar. It buys accounts for those most in need and least able to pay and then forgives them – reporting the debts as paid-in-full. In December of 2019, RIP announced that since 2014 it has officially relieved one billion dollars of medical debt for struggling Americans. To date RIP has helped over a million families by putting their medical debts to rest. 

“We are all very excited to have Allison take over as Executive Director of RIP Medical Debt,” shares Ted Sann, interim Executive Director and RIP board member. “Her great management skills will truly enhance our mission to help millions of Americans struggling with medical debt.” 

“I am excited to join the RIP Medical Debt team and bring my talent and expertise to the table,” says Allison. “I look forward to advancing this groundbreaking mission addressing economic instability stemming from a broken health care system.”  

Allison’s responsibilities at RIP will include operations, strategic development and communications. 

During her tenure with HSC, an association of 170 nonprofits which deliver 90% of NYC’s human services, Allison Sesso led successful efforts to streamline the relationship between the government and nonprofits. In 2017 Allison championed the “Sustain Our Sanctuary” campaign, which successfully drove over $300 million worth of investments into human services contracts – addressing a critical nonprofit fiscal crisis. 

Allison has also cultivated an expertise on matters of health care. She served on the New York State Department of Health’s Social Determinants (SDH) and Community Based Organizations (CBO) subcommittee, which worked to integrate community nonprofits into Medicaid’s managed care. She also headed a commission of experts which created a highly anticipated report on the social determinants of health and value-based payment structures titled, Integrating Health and Human Services: A Blueprint for Partnership and Action. For more info: https://humanservicescouncil.org/employee/allison-sesso/

RIP Medical Debt

RIP Medical Debt is a nonprofit that buys and forgives medical debt across America. It works with individual donors, philanthropists and organizations to purchase medical debt for pennies on the dollar to provide financial relief for those most burdened by medical bills. Founded in 2014 by two former collections industry executives, Craig Antico & Jerry Ashton, RIP rose to national prominence on an episode of HBO’s “Last Week Tonight” with John Oliver in which RIP facilitated the abolishment of $15M in medical debt. To learn more visit: www.ripmedicaldebt.org

Tuesday was a big day in the Seventh Circuit with three significant court decisions: two from the Court of Appeals and one from the Northern District of Illinois. They span the gamut of being good to bad for the industry—something that the iA Case Law Tracker makes super simple to keep up with. As with most things in life, it’s best to just rip off the bandaid, so let’s start with the bad news and end on a positive note.

Context Required for Creditor ID

Steffek v. Client Servs., No. 19-1491 (7th Cir. Jan. 21, 2020) deals with the issue of identifying the creditor to whom the debt is owed. The debt collector sent a collection letter that listed “RE: CHASE BANK USA, N.A.” in the header but provided no further context on the creditor information. The consumer sued, arguing that it’s unclear from the letter whether Chase is the current creditor or if the account was sold. After discovery showed that Chase was indeed the current creditor, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the debt collector.

[article_ad]

Not so fast, says the Seventh Circuit. According to the court, the determination of who the actual creditor is should not be the be-all-end-all of analysis on the creditor identification issue. The question is whether the letter clearly identifies the current creditor in such a way that is understandable to the unsophisticated consumer. 

The Seventh Circuit determined that the letter in question here does not pass this test. The court agreed that the letter doesn’t explicitly need to use labels such as “creditor” or “owner of the debt,” but simply stating the creditor’s name without any context does not pass muster. 

Ultimately, the court reversed the district court’s decision and remanded the matter with instruction to enter summary judgment in favor of the consumer.

A Split Decision: Envelopes and Settlement Offers

While Steffek is a hard decision to read, we now come to a half-and-half decision dealing with envelopes and settlement offers. The facts of Preston v. Midland Credit Mgmt., No. 18-3119 (7th. Cir. Jan. 21, 2020), start off with a plot similar to the movie Inception—there was an envelope within an envelope. The debt collector sent a settlement offer letter to the consumer. The letter was enclosed in an envelope that had “TIME SENSITIVE DOCUMENT” typed on it. This envelope was encased in a larger envelope that contained a glassine window for the address information and no other markings. 

The consumer sued, alleging that the markings on the envelope violate § 1692f(8) of the FDCPA which prohibits language or symbols on the envelope. The district court dismissed the envelope claim, finding that the markings fall under the benign language exception since “TIME SENSITIVE DOCUMENT” does not in any way imply that the contents within are related to the collection of a debt. 

The Seventh Circuit was not convinced and took a more literal reading of § 1692f(8). While the debt collector argued that Congress’ intent behind § 1692f(8) was to protect the privacy of consumers, the Seventh Circuit said that the statute and its application are clear so there is no need to delve into congressional intent. A clear reading of the statute, according to the court, does not lead to absurd results—it still allows for markings placed on envelopes by, for example, the postal service in order to facilitate the delivery of mail. However, the “TIME SENSITIVE DOCUMENT” text goes beyond what is permitted in § 1692f(8). Due to this, the court reversed the dismissal. 

Editor’s Note: Oddly enough, the Seventh Circuit did not discuss the impact of this marked envelope being encased in a larger envelope. It seems that to the court an envelope is an envelope no matter how it’s sliced. 

Another claim brought by the consumer in Preston relates to the settlement offer contained within the letter. The letter contained three options to settle the debt with due dates. The consumer’s argument was that this, along with the “TIME SENSITIVE DOCUMENT” marking on the envelope, created a false sense of urgency and was false, deceptive, and misleading. 

Both the district court and the Seventh Circuit disagreed with the consumer. The letter’s saving grace, according to the courts, was that it included a safe harbor disclosure of “we are not obligated to renew this offer.” 

On the Verge of Sanctioning Plaintiff’s Counsel for Manufactured Claims

It’s no secret to debt collectors that some consumer attorneys bait FDCPA in order to manufacture claims against debt collectors, and thus force debt collectors into settlements. Back in September, the Northern District of Illinois called out plaintiffs’ counsel—a lawyer from Community Lawyers Group, Ltd.—for his scheme of faxing credit report disputes to obscure numbers in an effort to manufacture claims against a debt collector. In the September opinion, the court called out the following:

• “In the instant case plaintiffs (more specifically their attorneys) were the principal author of the harm of which they complain.”
• “Although the FDCPA is well intentioned, the mandatory recovery of attorney’s fees to a successful plaintiff has turned FDCPA cases into a profitable vein of litigation upon which entire firms focus their practices, provided, of course, the firms can keep finding plaintiffs. Indeed, as the Seventh Circuit has noted, the driving force behind these cases are the attorneys (particularly class action attorneys) and their quest for attorney’s fees.”
• “In the instant case, it appears to this court that plaintiffs’ attorneys’ actions were designed to avoid defendant’s procedures reasonably adapted to avoid errors, for the purpose of manufacturing a lawsuit. . . And, this is not the first time these lawyers have attempted this sort of stunt.”

After all of this, the debt collector filed a motion for attorney fees against plaintiff’s counsel. In the Irvin v. Nationwide Credit & Collection, Inc., No. 18-cv-2945 (N.D. Ill. Jan 21, 2020) decision, it’s obvious the court has had it with the plaintiff’s attorneys. Unfortunately, the court denied the motion for fees because the debt collector brought the motion only under the FDCPA’s fee-shifting statute. The court found that its authority to order fees from plaintiff’s counsel is uncertain under the FDCPA. 

However, the court stated in not so many words that had this motion been brought under a Rule 11 motion for sanctions, the outcome might have been very different. The decision ends with the following:

Plaintiff’s counsel, Celetha Chatman and Michael Wood, have been admonished and warned repeatedly by this and other courts in this and other districts concerning their misconduct in fabricating FDCPA cases for the purpose of collecting attorney’s fees. Should that conduct occur in the future, this court will not hesitate to impose severe sanctions on these lawyers. 

What does this mean for debt collectors? If you have any claims from these attorneys—especially if these claims are before Judge Gettleman—it’s time to get aggressive with defense strategies and move for sanctions where appropriate.

—

There are more court decisions published each day than news publications can handle… want an easy way to keep up? The iA Case Law Tracker can help you keep up and conduct incisive and quick legal research in less time than it takes to pour your morning cup of coffee.

Editor’s Note: This article was originally published on the Maurice Wutscher blog and is republished here with permission.

—

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s finding that a consumer lacked standing to pursue a lawsuit alleging that collection notices sent by a law firm violated the FDCPA because no attorney with the firm conducted a meaningful review of his debts.

The court’s opinion in Buchholz v. Meyer Njus Tanick, P.A. can be found here.

The consumer received two collection letters that were printed on the law firm’s letterhead and signed by one of the firm’s attorneys. The consumer alleged that those letters were sent to him without any meaningful attorney review. In an effort to support this conclusion, the consumer asserted that the law firm sends so many letters that no attorney could possibly review all of them. He also alleged that the signatures on the two letters were identical and appeared to be “stock signatures.”

[article_ad]

‘Meaningful Involvement’ Claim Requires Standing

15 U.S.C. § 1692e(3) prohibits debt collectors from falsely representing or implying “that any individual is an attorney or that any communication is from an attorney.” The statute itself makes no mention of “meaningful involvement” or “meaningful review.” Instead, courts created the meaningful-involvement doctrine to evaluate claims asserted under § 1692e(3) with respect to communications that bear an attorney’s name or signature, but that are (in the words of one court) “not ‘from’ the attorney in any meaningful sense of the word.” Avila v. Rubin, 84 F.3d 222, 229 (7^th Cir. 1996).

The district court dismissed the consumer’s case, finding that the consumer lacked standing and that he failed to state a claim under the FDCPA. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit limited its review to the issue of standing and affirmed the district court’s dismissal.

A Bare Allegation of Anxiety is Insufficient to Allege an Injury in Fact

To pursue a case in federal court, a plaintiff must demonstrate that he has standing, and an essential element of standing is a showing that the plaintiff suffered an “injury in fact” as the result of the defendant’s alleged conduct. In this case, the consumer alleged that he suffered an injury in fact because the firm’s letters made him feel anxious and caused him to fear that the firm would sue him if he did not pay.

The Sixth Circuit held that although a plaintiff might sometimes recover damages for emotional distress in an FDCPA action, a bare allegation of anxiety is insufficient to allege an injury in fact. The Court also found that the consumer’s alleged anxiety was insufficient to confer standing because it was self-inflicted and thus not traceable to the law firm’s alleged conduct. That is, the Court determined that any anxiety suffered by the consumer was the result of his decision not to pay his undisputed debts, rather than the content of the law firm’s letters.

Consumer’s Procedural Violation Claim Also Insufficient

The consumer also argued that the alleged violation of § 1692e(3) was sufficient, on its own, to confer standing. The Sixth Circuit agreed that a plaintiff need not allege any additional harm when alleging that the defendant has violated a procedural right that was created by Congress to protect a “concrete interest.” However, while it is clear that Congress enacted the FDCPA to protect consumers from abusive debt-collection practices, the consumer could not show that the law firm’s letters caused him any harm that the FDCPA was intended to prevent.

The Court distinguished the procedural violation alleged by the consumer from procedural violations found to be sufficient to confer standing in other cases, such as violations that subjected the consumer to attempts to collect debts that the consumer did not owe and violations that placed consumers at risk of waiving rights protected by the FDCPA.

Standing is Subjective, Not Every Technical Violation is Redressable

Not every technical violation of the FDCPA is redressable in federal court, and some cases are subject to dismissal due to the plaintiff’s lack of standing. But the Supreme Court has noted that it is often difficult to determine when a plaintiff has sufficiently alleged an injury in fact resulting from the violation of a procedural right created by Congress. Standing, like beauty, is often in the eye of the beholder.

Last week, insideARM wrote an article about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) newly-created taskforce to review consumer financial laws and regulations. The taskforce—originally with four members—has now grown by one with the CFPB’s announcement that it has added William MacLeod, partner at Kelley Drye & Warren, LLP, to the team. 

Director Kathleen Kraninger assigned the taskforce—chaired by Todd Zywicki—with reviewing current federal consumer finance laws and regulations. The taskforce will report recommendations for improving and strengthening the same to Director Kathleen Kraninger. Other members of the taskforce include Dr. J. Howard Beales, III, Dr. Thomas Durkin, and L. Jean Noonan. 

The announcement of MacLeod’s appointment came with further details about the taskforce’s mission:

The Taskforce will produce new research and legal analysis of consumer financial laws in the United States, focusing specifically on harmonizing, modernizing, and updating federal consumer financial laws—and their implementing regulations—and identifying gaps in knowledge that should be addressed through research, ways to improve consumer understanding of markets and products, and potential conflicts or inconsistencies in existing regulations and guidance.

[article_ad]

Considering the many consumer protection laws and regulations that don’t always mesh well with each other, the taskforce’s mission is an important one. insideARM will closely follow any developments.

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. 

[article_ad]

The bi-partisan TRACED Act became law last year December 30, 2019, in a pre-Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) TCPA review world.  The TRACED Act makes various changes to the TCPA primarily to enhance enforcement, and mandate call authentication; for example, it increases fines, and extends the time for enforcers to pursue violators.  Now we are living in a world post-SCOTUS accepting review of the TCPA. 

The authors of “The Best For Last: The Timing of U.S. Supreme Court Decisions” 64 Duke L.J. 991, 993, concluded (based on a sample size of 7219 cases decided between 1946 and 2012) that SCOTUS usually issues its decision within three months of oral argument, and in 99% of cases they are decided in the same term they are accepted to hear the case.  Therefore, it is not unreasonable to expect that oral argument on the TCPA’s constitutionality could be held in a few months, with a decision issued by the end of June 2020, before the Court take its summer recess at the end of this term.

This means that 20% of the multi-faceted milestones noted below for the TRACED ACT will manifest before the fate of the very statute it seeks to enhance is determined.  As TCPAWorld has predicted, the TCPA as we know is a goner, at least in many respects; the question is which part(s) will survive.  The TRACED Act amendments to the TCPA may have a higher chance of remaining unscathed, but only time will tell for sure.

Below are the key deadlines imposed primarily on the FCC for implementing various components of the TRACED Act.

March 29, 2020

• The FCC “shall issue rules to establish a registration process for the registration of a single consortium that conducts private-led efforts to trace back the origin of suspected unlawful robocalls.”  This “Registered Consortium” is also responsible for upholding best practices regarding voice service providers’ participation in such efforts.

April 28, 2020

• The FCC must issue a “notice to the public seeking the registration” for the private consortium, and annually thereafter. 

• The FCC must initiate a proceeding to “protect called parties from one-ring scams.”  According to the FTC, “That’s when you get a phone call from a number you don’t know, and the call stops after just one ring. The scammer is hoping you’ll call back, because it’s really an international toll number and will appear as a charge on your phone bill — with most of the money going to the scammer.”  As part of the proceeding, the FCC must consider how it can (a) work with law enforcement agencies and foreign governments to address such scams, (b) in consultation with the FTC, better educate consumers, (c) incentivize voice service providers to stop them (d) work with entities that provide call-blocking services to address such scams, and (e) establish “obligations on international gateway providers that are the first point of entry for these calls into the” US.

June 27, 2020

• The FCC must commence a proceeding to “determine how Commission policies regarding access to number resources, could be modified…to help reduce access to numbers by potential perpetrators of the TCPA. If the FCC determines modifications could help in this regard, it is required to prescribe regulations to implement the modifications.

• The FCC must establish an advisory committee called the Hospital Robocall Protection Group.  And it must establish “best practices” as to how voice service providers can better combat unlawful robocalls made to hospitals, how they can better protect themselves from such calls and how the Federal and State governments can help combat such calls.

July 27, 2020

Via Public Notice, annually on July 27, the FCC must obtain information from the private registered consortium and voice service providers on the private-led efforts to trace suspected unlawful robocalls origins and recommendations in its enforcement efforts.  

September 25, 2020

• The FCC must prescribe and adopt implementing regulations for the TRACED Act.

• The Attorney General, in consultation with the FCC Chair, is required to establish “an interagency working group to study Government prosecution of TCPA violations.

• This group must submit to Congressional Committees a report on the findings of the study, including “any recommendations regarding the prevention and prosecution” of violations and what progress, if any, relevant Federal departments have made “implementing the recommendations.”

December 29, 2020

• The FCC must submit a report to Congress, annually, re its enforcement of the TCPA.

• A provider has until December 29, 2020, prior to the FCC being able to take action to show the provider has met certain steps with respect to adopting STIR/SHAKEN in its IP-networks and “reasonable measures” in its non-IP networks, including determining that the provider will be capable of fully implementing STIR/SHAKEN in IP-networks and fully implementing an effective call authentication frame work in non-IP networks by June 30, 2021

• The FCC must report to the House Energy and Commerce and Senate Commerce Committees (“the Committees”) on implementation of the call authentication frameworks and assess the “efficacy of” such frameworks in “addressing all aspects of call authentication.”

• The FCC must assess “any burdens or barriers” to implementation, including for certain voice providers, small providers of voice services, and issues relating to equipment availability. The FCC can delay compliance with the 18-month implementation deadline for a “reasonable period of time” for providers needing to address the “identified burdens and barriers” based on a “public finding of undue hardship.”

• The FCC must issue “best practices” that voice service providers may use in implementing effective call authentication frameworks to take steps to “ensure the calling party is accurately identified.”

• The FCC must promulgate rules establishing, among other things, “a safe harbor” for voice service providers “from liability for unintended or inadvertent blocking of calls or for unintended or inadvertent misidentification of the level of trust for individual calls based, in whole or in part, on information provided by the call authentication frameworks.”

• The FCC must initiate rules “help protect a subscriber from receiving unwanted calls or text messages from a caller using an unauthenticated number.” The FCC must consider a number of issues in the rulemaking, including the “best means of ensuring that a subscriber or provider has the ability to block calls from a caller using an unauthenticated North American Numbering Plan number” and the “impact on the privacy of a subscriber from unauthenticated calls.”

• The FCC must submit to Congress, and make publicly available on its website, a report on the status of its efforts pursuant to its December 12, 2018 Report and Order to implement a reassigned number database.

• The FCC must ensure the robocall blocking services provided on an opt-out or opt-in basis pursuant to its 6/18 Declaratory Ruling are provided with 1) effective redress options for consumers and callers and without additional line item charges for consumers and no additional charges to callers for resolving complaints related to erroneously blocked calls and 2) reasonable efforts to avoid blocking emergency public safety calls.

• The FCC shall publish on its website and submit to Congressional Committees a report that provides the number of instances that suggests a willful, knowing and repeated robocall violation with an intent to defraud, or cause harm and summary of types of robocall violations to which such evidence relates.

• The FCC must publish on its website and file with the Congressional Committees a report on the status of the one-ring scam proceeding.

• The FCC must annually make publicly available on its website and file with the Committees, a report on the status of private-led efforts to trace back the origin of suspected unlawful robocalls by the registered consortium and the participation of voice service providers in such efforts.

June 30, 2021

• The FCC shall require a voice service provider to implement STIR/SHAKEN in the IP-networks of the provider and require the provider to take reasonable measures to implement an effective call authentication framework in the provider’s non-IP networks.

• The FCC must prescribe regulations to establish a process that streamlines the ways in which a private entity may voluntarily share with the Commission information relating to: (a) a call or text message sent in violation of Section 227(b) and (b) a call or text message with spoofed caller ID information in violation of Section 227(c).

• The FCC must report to Congress on the results of a study as to whether to require a provider of covered Voice over IP (“VoIP”) service to provide and maintain current contact information with the FCC and retain records relating to each call transmitted over the service that are sufficient to trace such call back to the source of the call.

December 30 2022

• The FCC, after public notice and an opportunity for comment, must assess the efficacy of the call authentication frameworks, revise or replace them, if determined to be in the public interest, and submit a report to the Committees on the findings of the assessment and revision or replacement actions.  And must revisit this every three years thereafter.

The question remains whether or how any SCOTUS decision will impact an Act that passed both Houses of Congress by wide majorities with a handful of dissenting votes. TCPA World will be tracking the implementation process, and the Supreme Court’s consideration of the TCPA as we currently know it.

—

The iA’s Case Law Tracker can help you keep up and conduct incisive and quick legal research in less time than it takes to pour your morning cup of coffee.

WILMINGTON, Del. – Phillips & Cohen Associates, Ltd., the deceased account management leader servicing creditors in the US, Canada, UK, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Spain, Portugal and Germany announces the appointment of Linda Fonner as Global Chief Financial Officer. 

Ms. Fonner is a global finance leader and process improvement specialist, with significant experience overseeing multi-jurisdictional financial planning, strategy, risk & control initiatives for major corporations.   Linda brings with her numerous certifications and over two decades worth of experience with companies in the Fortune 500, FTSE 100 and Private Equity space in industries including pharma, banking and molten metals. Prior to her joining Phillips & Cohen Associates, Linda held a variety of global leadership roles with leading chemicals & plant provider, Atotech, and formerly with pharmaceuticals giant, Bristol-Myers Squibb. 

“I am very excited about joining Phillips & Cohen and to be a part of such a unique business”, said Ms. Fonner “I look forward to working with the dynamic Executive team to drive PCA’s continued global growth and financial management strategies.”  

Matthew Phillips, Co-Chairman/CEO of Phillips & Cohen commented, “We are thrilled to have an executive of Linda’s caliber join the organization to lead our finance & accounting teams in the next phase of our company’s domestic and international evolution.”

Adam S. Cohen, Co-Chairman/CEO added, “Linda’s extensive knowledge and international experience will be significant assets to Phillips & Cohen Associates.  We look forward to her input and guidance as we continue to expand in Europe, Asia and the Americas.” 

About Phillips & Cohen Associates, Ltd.
Phillips & Cohen Associates, Ltd. is a specialty receivable management company providing customized services to creditors in a variety of unique market segments.  Phillips & Cohen Associates, Ltd is domestically headquartered in Wilmington, DE, with additional offices in Colorado and Florida as well as international offices in the UK, Canada, Spain, Germany and Australia.  For more information about Phillips & Cohen Associates visit www.phillips-cohen.com. PCA provides Equal Employment Opportunity for all individuals regardless of race, color, religion, gender, age, national origin, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, veteran status, genetic information and any other basis protected by federal, state or local laws.