Archives for February 2021

“Innovation” as a concept can be unnecessarily intimidating. To many, it suggests an uncomfortable sense of ambiguity and white space. In fact, nearly all great examples of innovation follow specific fact patterns and behaviors like discipline, thoughtfulness, designed failure, analytic rigor, and patience. The “big bang” innovation is extremely rare. As one simple example, Thomas Edison was fired from his first two jobs (!) and withstood roughly 1,000 unsuccessful attempts at creating the light bulb before he actually figured it out.

I think of innovation in terms of a great leadership lesson from “Culture of Discipline” in the iconic book, Good to Great, by Jim Collins.

Disciplined people who engage in disciplined thought and who take disciplined action are the cornerstone of a culture that creates greatness. 

Other than my current role, the career experience that most profoundly shaped my views on innovation was when I led a business unit inside Capital One (COF) called the Invention Factory. COF is known as an analytically rigorous culture (true), but they should be equally known for a deep commitment to innovation through the Scientific Method that we all learned in high school. Translated… “test and learn”.  As a massive demonstration of this cultural commitment, COF literally carved out and built an entire end-to-end instance of its business (Acquisitions, Product Management, Servicing, IT) into one independent unit called the Invention Factory, and by design carved the team off physically from the rest of the company. The goal was to create a rapid cycle end-to-end testing center without bureaucratic drag. Roughly 200 staff existed solely to enable analytically rigorous, in-market live experiments of product concepts. The goals were clear: enable constant innovation, in cycles measured in WEEKS, to allow many tangible ideas to incubate. One of our goals was fast failure!

[article_ad]

We lived and breathed the end-to-end process of a) brainstorming concepts, b) designing implementation plans, c) execution of products to real cardmembers, d) monitoring and measurement (A/B cells, DoE), and e) exiting the customers out of failed concepts. And we were fortunate enough to nurture and build a culture of innovation.

My recollection is that the winning ideas were less than 20% of the total ideas tested, but you have probably seen a commercial over the years of a product idea advertised by COF that was originated in this rapid cycle testing center. COF invested in roughly eight failed ideas for every two winning concepts.

Two key lessons came out of this experience for me. 

First, your first idea of a winner is almost always wrong (see Edison, Thomas). Having the discipline and patience to test-and-learn, rinse-and-repeat is a deeply profound behavioral and process commitment. Most teams lose focus or patience and fail badly. 

Second, great innovation is usually a series of incremental lessons honed through relentless discipline in a rapid cycle environment where “speed to insight” or “speed to fail” is the most valuable objective. Disciplined people, disciplined thought, disciplined action; Identifying and discarding bad ideas on the road to winners is crucial. Shortening the timeline from initial idea to winner is a massively powerful concept that separates great innovators from the rest of the pack. 

This brings me to a closely related best practice on software innovation: Minimum Viable Product (MVP). 

As defined by software product guru Marty Cagan of Silicon Valley Product Group,

“minimum viable product is the smallest possible product that has three critical characteristics: people choose to use it or buy it; people can figure out how to use it; and we can deliver it when we need it with the resources available – also known as valuable, usable and feasible.” 

The rigorous application of MVP requires disciplines and behaviors cross-functionally. Fighting scope creep, or adhering to “minimums,” is about process; it’s not ambiguous notions of innovation.

At Katabat we struggle with this a lot as it is a ridiculously high standard. Having the discipline to focus solely on minimum features for viability is a constant challenge. The human brain tends to want to see the entire product. If/when we can operate at this level of discipline, the focus and the energy are awesome. 

—

Ray Peloso is CEO of Katabat, a technology company providing industry-leading debt collection software products, and an experienced financial services lending expert. 

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 (and lately, virtually) 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. 

2021 members include:

Since December 1, 2004, the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) has required financial institutions that extend credit and furnish information to a consumer reporting agency (“CRA”) to provide notice to the customer prior to, or no later than thirty days after, furnishing negative information about the customer. 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)(7)(A)(i). Because debt collectors do not extend credit to customers, they have not been subjected to this notice requirement. As a result, some debt collectors furnish collection information about a debt to CRAs without first providing notice to the consumer.  However, pursuant to the recent debt collection final rule issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”), debt collectors may now be required to first provide notice.

CFPB Implements Notice Requirement for Debt Collectors

On December 18, 2020, the CFPB issued a final rule amending Regulation F to provide additional requirements for debt collectors. Among those requirements, the CFPB identified actions that a debt collector must follow before furnishing information about a debt to a CRA.[1]

Specifically, the final rule requires that a debt collector do one of the following before furnishing information about a debt to a CRA:

1. Speak with the consumer in person about the debt;
2. Speak with the consumer by telephone about the debt;
3. Mail a letter about the debt to the consumer and wait a reasonable period of time to receive notice of undeliverability; or
4. Send an electronic message about the debt to the consumer and wait a reasonable period of time to receive notice of undeliverability.

The final rule describes a “reasonable period of time” as a period of fourteen calendar days after the letter or electronic message was sent. During the “reasonable period of time,” the debt collector must permit receipt of, and monitor for, notifications of undeliverability from communications providers.  If, after the fourteen days pass and the debt collector does not receive a notice of undeliverability, the debt collector may furnish information about the debt to a CRA. The final rule explains that if the debt collector subsequently receives a notice of undeliverability after furnishing the information, there will not be a violation.

The CFPB Joins Three Jurisdictions with the Notice Requirement

California

The California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (“CCCRAA”) requires a debt collector to provide written notice of credit reporting prior to, or within thirty days, of submitting negative credit information to the CRAs.  Cal Civ. Code § 1785.26(b).[2]   The law provides that notice is sufficient if it is in substantially the following form:

As required by law, you are hereby notified that a negative credit report reflecting on your credit record may be submitted to a credit reporting agency if you fail to fulfill the terms of your credit obligations.

Id. at (c)(2).  The law indicates that any changes to the statutory notice requirement must make the notice more specific, not less.  Id. at (c)(3).  In addition, the law explains that the giving of notice does not create any requirement to actually submit negative credit information to a CRA.  Id. at (c)(4). 

Colorado

The Colorado Fair Debt Collection Practices Act prohibits debt collectors from communicating credit information to a CRA earlier than thirty days after the initial notice has been mailed to the consumer unless the consumer’s last-known address is known to be invalid.  Colo. Stat. § 5-16-108(j). 

While this law does not require actual notice regarding credit reporting, it regulates the timing of any credit reporting to the CRAs. 

Utah

Utah law requires a debt collector to provide written notice of credit reporting prior to, or within thirty days, of submitting negative credit information to the CRAs.  Utah Stat. § 70C-7-107(2).[3]  The law provides that notice is sufficient if it is in substantially the following form:

As required by Utah law, you are hereby notified that a negative credit report reflecting on your credit record may be submitted to a credit reporting agency if you fail to fulfill the terms of your credit obligations.

Id. at (3)(c).  Like the CCCRAA, the law indicates that any changes to the statutory notice requirement must make the notice more specific, not less.  Id. at (3)(d). 

Is the Notice Requirement Too Burdensome for Debt Collectors?

The CFPB’s intention behind the notice requirement is to increase the likelihood that consumers learn about an alleged debt before a debt collector furnishes adverse information to a CRA. This would provide consumers with an opportunity to dispute the debt if they believe that the information is incorrect. On the other hand, the notice requirement is likely to impose additional challenges for debt collectors, such as increased costs and resources.

Recognizing that this notice requirement could unduly burden debt collectors, it will be interesting to see whether debt collectors cease furnishing information to CRAs in response.

——

[1] The final rule specifies that the notice requirements do not apply to the furnishing of information about a debt to a specialty check verification CRA.

[2] While the statute references a “creditor”, it defines “creditor” as “includ[ing] an agent or assignee of a creditor, including an agent engaged in administering or collecting the creditor’s accounts.”  Cal. Civ. Code § 1785.26(a)(1).

[3] Like the CCCRAA, the Utah statute references a “creditor”, but defines “creditor” as “includ[ing] an agent of a creditor engaged in administering or collecting the creditor’s accounts.”  Utah Stat. § 70C-7-107(1)(a).

After over a year of studying California’s Consumer Privacy Act and its impact, Virginia is poised to be the second state to pass its own version – to be known as the Consumer Data Protection Act (CDPA),[1] with an expected effective date of January 1, 2023.  A handful of other states have similar bills pending at this time.  Virginia’s law, like California’s, authorizes the Commonwealth of Virginia’s Attorney General to be its enforcer. Unlike California’s CCPA, Virginia’s law expressly prohibits lawsuits by private individuals.

The bill’s sponsor, State Senator David Marsden, explained, “Virginia’s goal was to stop the misuse of personal data and not … creat[e] opportunities for lots of lawsuits.”[2]  Virginia’s CDPA creates a “Consumer Privacy Fund” to create resources for, among other things, the Attorney General to enforce this law.

Virginians already have a confirmed legal right to sue for damages or losses caused by data breaches.[3] In September 2020, a federal district court in Virginia held that consumers whose confidential personal information was compromised in a data security breach could bring a claim against the breached financial institution under a variety of legal theories such as negligence or Virginia’s Data Breach Notification Law. 

Virginia’s CDPA would apply to any persons conducting business in Virginia that either (i) control or process personal data of at least 100,000 consumers, or (ii) derive over 50 percent of gross revenue from the sale of personal data and control or process personal data of at least 25,000 consumers. 

Like California’s CCPA, the Virginia CDPA vests consumers with rights to access, delete, correct, obtain copies of personal data, and opt-out of the processing of their personal data for the purposes of targeted advertising. Virginia’s law reflects concepts from a host of other privacy and data security laws – for example, it makes numerous references to terminology from the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (and its amendments and regulations – collectively, “HIPAA”) and includes slightly circuitous concepts of a “processor” who is processing personal data on behalf of a “controller” which is defined as an entity that “determines the purpose and means of processing personal data.”  The data or information the CDPA covers is scoped broadly to include biometric data and geolocation data. The activities that fall within the definition of “process” or “processing” are wide-ranging and include “analysis” and “modification of personal data” – or even “storage” of personal data.

Like California’s CCPA the Virginia law is designed to exempt health care data already protected under HIPAA or information collected for purposes of assessing consumers’ creditworthiness. Some experts feel Virginia’s law could put more pressure on Congress to pass a federal data privacy law[4] – however former FTC Commissioner and expected CFPB Director Rohit Chopra has written statements strongly advocating for both state and federal regulation of privacy and data security to protect Americans.

Two of the significant ways in which Virginia’s law differs from California’s include these:

• No annual gross revenue threshold for companies to whom this law would apply;
• No private right of action.

Although many states considered similar bills in 2020, none passed. It will be interesting to see if state legislatures in 2021 are more likely to enact these laws. Sticking points in the past have included issues such as what types of exemptions or exceptions to apply, how to harmonize these new data protection laws with state data protection or data breach laws already on the books, whether or not to allow private litigation, and how to keep pace with evolving technology and robust forms of personal data that are in need of protection. Other states to keep an eye on that are considering similar legislation this year include:

• New York’s “Right to Know Act” Senate Bill 1349
• Oklahoma’s House Bill 1130
• Vermont’s House Bill 75
• Washington’s Senate Bill 5062
• Nebraska’s “Personal Privacy Protection Act” Legislative Bill 370
• Connecticut’s Proposed Bill 156

——-

[1] See, Senate Bill 1392, passed Virginia’s Senate and expected to pass its House and be signed into law by Governor Ralph Northam as quickly as April.  https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?211+sum+SB1392  See also, https://www.rollcall.com/2021/02/16/virginia-set-to-become-second-state-to-pass-data-privacy-law/

[2] Ibid.

[3] See, In Re: Capital One Consumer Data Security Breach Litigation, United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division, September 18, 2020, 2020 WL 5629790

[4] See fn 1, ibid.

DULUTH, Ga. — Crown Asset Management, LLC is pleased to announce the recipients of the 2020 Firm and Agency of the Year Awards. Two exceptional companies are recognized each year for their significant commitment to compliance and dedication to receivables industry standards. Superlative RM is selected as 2020 Agency of the Year and Gordon, Aylworth and Tami, P.C. as 2020 Firm of the Year.

The 2020 Crown Asset Management (CAM) Award Winners were selected from our reputable network of outsourced collection agencies and law firms. These professional organizations demonstrated high levels of compliance in the receivables industry, consistently reflected ethical and honorable practices and delivered superior results. The awards honor outstanding achievements based on strong compliance metrics, procedural compliance, and overall performance. One collection agency and one law firm received CAM’s highly regarded annual recognition for their business practices and commitment to the integrity of our industry. 

Crown Asset Management’s 2020 Agency of the Year – Superlative RM

Crown Asset Management selects Superlative RM as the 2020 Agency of the Year. Honored for their dedication to compliance, the account receivables management company collaborates with consumers to resolve past due balances. Founded by a U.S. Marine Corps veteran, the nationally licensed collection agency works with consumers in all 50 states. The Superlative RM team is committed to continuous professional development and process improvement to optimize compliance and customer service. Through professionalism and understanding, Superlative RM is committed to providing ethical solutions that support consumers’ financial recovery. They leverage state-of-the-art technology to deliver a positive customer experience and drive bottom-line performance. Their main headquarters is in Elk Grove, CA with an additional office in Phoenix, AZ. 

Agency of the Year Honorable Mentions

CAM’s Agency of the Year second and third place award winners were selected based on their ability to offer compliant solutions and seamless experiences to meet the needs of consumers. As part of the winner’s circle, these agencies are recognized for their focus on compliance and dedication to reputable and ethical practices. 

2nd – D&A Services

3rd – Dynamic Recovery Solutions  

2020 Firm of the Year – Gordon, Aylworth and Tami, P.C.

Crown Asset Management selects Gordon, Aylworth and Tami, P.C. as the 2020 Firm of the Year.

Gordon, Aylworth & Tami, P.C. is a well-respected creditors’ rights and debt collection law firm practicing civil litigation in the Pacific Northwest. Licensed in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, the attorneys work closely with clients to ensure compliance with client guidelines, industry standards, federal and state laws, and other regulatory requirements. This firm is dedicated to working collaboratively with consumers to help solve their debt problems at every stage of litigation. The firm is committed to serving clients’ needs with a keen eye toward exceeding expectations and setting a new standard for compliance in the industry. 

Law Firm of the Year Honorable Mentions 

CAM Law Firm of the Year Honorable Mentions share an ongoing commitment to represent the issues encompassing every facet of the receivables industry. These firms enable compliant operations and uphold the highest level of integrity in our industry.

2nd – Tromberg Morris Pullin, PLLC   

3rd – Levy & Associates, LLC

“The agencies and firms we do business with are strongly committed to compliance. They demonstrate resilience and a certain level of innovation within the receivables industry,” says Rebekah Luebcke, Director of Operations. “Consumer debt collections is a highly regulated industry with evolving and changing laws. These leading organizations implement best practices while adhering to all rules and regulations. We were excited to have so many worthy nominees, but the award winners stood out from the rest by going above and beyond this past year. CAM is proud to honor our partners who focus on the highest levels of accountability and compliance. We are fortunate to have so many nominees that meet the stringent criteria; we want to congratulate Superlative RM and Gordon, Aylworth & Tami, P.C. for exceeding these expectations.”

About Crown Asset Management

Founded in 2004, Crown Asset Management, LLC, is a professional receivables management firm that outsources purchased accounts to a nationwide, proprietary network of collection agencies and law firms. Utilizing a cutting-edge predictive analytical model during pre-purchase portfolio due diligence, their team focuses on achieving appropriate financial returns for investors while ensuring the best possible experience for consumers. They are an RMAI Certified Receivables Business and are headquartered in Duluth, GA.

TREVOSE, Pa. — NCB Management Services, Inc. has hired Robert Russo as Vice President of Business Development. In this role, he will lead the company’s national sales and marketing activities. Mr. Russo will work closely with NCB’s President and CEO, Ralph Liberio, and NCB’s Chief Operating Officer, Greg Beer to further advance NCB’s reputation as an industry leader in receivables management.

As a familiar industry veteran, Mr. Russo assumes direct responsibility for business development relating to NCB’s sales and marketing efforts and will leverage his past successes by developing partnerships with credit industry clients that can leverage NCB’s full complement of services.

Before joining NCB, Mr. Russo was SVP and Chief Financial Officer at Strategic One Financial, a boutique real estate development and asset management company. Prior to that, Mr. Russo spent over 25 years working with creditors, agencies, and law firms within the receivables management industry.

“I am thrilled that Robert is joining our team,” said Beer. “He is an established industry executive that understands our business and brings tremendous experience and a proven track record.”

Russo stated, “I am excited to be joining NCB and look forward to working with leadership to support NCB’s growth by developing successful marketing and sales strategies that highlight NCB’s commitment as a provider of fully customizable call center solutions for the credit industry.”

About NCB Management Services, Inc.

NCB Management Services, Inc., established in 1994, is headquartered in the Philadelphia area with satellite offices in Jacksonville, FL, Lincoln, NE, and Sioux Falls, SD. NCB is a recognized Accounts Receivable Management (ARM) industry leader as well as a nationally respected debt buyer. The company is partially owned by its employees through an Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP). The NCB ESOP is a company-funded defined contribution retirement plan established in 2014 for the benefit of NCB employees.

For additional information, call (833) 225-5303, email info@ncbi.com or visit www.ncbi.com.

Robert can be reached directly at (860) 388-1980 or at rarusso@ncbi.com.

NORTH ANDOVER, Mass. — F.H. Cann and Associates (FHC), a woman-owned and family-run Massachusetts business for more than 20 years, is proud to mark its first full week of successfully assisting government officials and private partners respond to the COVID-19 public health emergency, and of the aggressive response by our employees in rallying to the cause.

FHC has been a national leader in providing clients with contact center services since 1999, but traditionally with financial recovery, loan servicing, and business process outsourcing. However, with the dire need for connecting citizens — particularly seniors — with vaccinations, FHC has pivoted and partnered with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to help link these vital public health needs with the people seeking them. 

Working with Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker’s Administration and its Department of Public Health, FHC retooled its operations rapidly to help respond to the global health emergency that has upended all of our ways of life, our economy, and our children’s education, retraining employees specifically for the pandemic and helping boost the state’s response.

FHC immediately offered its services and was awarded two emergency contracts to assist both the Department of Unemployment Assistance and the state’s efforts to provide call-center services for those seeking COVID-19 vaccines and was thrilled to be able to lend its expertise to assist the public.

“When we saw the opportunity to fit our family-owned firm’s capabilities to the needs of the public, including our family and friends and neighbors, we didn’t hesitate,” said Sheri A. Traficante-Cann, President and Chief Executive Officer of FHC. “We’re accustomed to pivoting quickly to meet the needs of clients and customers, but this is an emergency on a magnitude none of us has ever seen, and we knew it was all hands on deck.”

Traditionally and philosophically a firm that provides best-in-class customer care and adheres to exemplary quality control processes, FHC has worked with the Baker Administration and other private partners in recent days to connect residents with vaccination opportunities. Given the scope of the pandemic and the firm’s ready-made capabilities, FHC was eager to assist in the effort to provide vaccines to as many residents as possible.

“We’ve grown accustomed to easing the process for our friends and neighbors to access the financial services that can often be convoluted and frustrating,” said Frank H. Cann, Jr., Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of FHC. “But this emergency demands the kind of response that only a well-trained workforce can provide in a pinch. We’re grateful to be a part of that, and to our employees for putting their shoulders to the wheel, and to the Baker Administration and our other partners for allowing us to pitch in.”

Since partnering with the Commonwealth, FHC has worked with experts to retrain staff specifically for COVID-19 vaccination needs, providing up to 300 customer service representatives (CSRs) a day to ensure that Massachusetts residents can gain access to the vaccine.

Committed to a business model that is socially responsible and devoted to inclusion, diversity, and equality, FHC has been a public-minded organization since its inception in 1999. From conducting clothing and food drives in Massachusetts to helping with school supplies for Ohio students in need to sponsoring events that support veterans, first responders, Civil Rights, and the Pulmonary Hypertension Association and Exchange Club of Lawrence and the Andovers, FHC has consistently adhered to its mission of being good neighbors and active members of its community.

FHC has also equipped itself to assist government agencies with vital contact tracing services as we confront the pandemic together. FHC has engaged employees at every step and is enormously grateful for the response and for so many people who have gone above and beyond the call to respond to this crisis.

Presented with the Inc5000 award for two consecutive years as one of the fastest-growing private companies in the country as well as a Massachusetts Economic Impact Award in 2019, FHC prides itself on its culture of inclusion and opportunity and believes its recent efforts to combat the pandemic fits that mission. FHC looks forward to partnering with government agencies, private partners, and its valued employees to continue that effort as long as it takes.

A lot has happened in the call delivery world in the last year. Here is my attempt to weave together the developments and put them in context.

Robocalls quantified

According to a report published earlier this month by robocall analytics company Hiya, voice traffic was up 184% in 2020 compared to 2019. Unfortunately, so are the scams. The report states that each of us received an average of 144 spam calls last year—58% of which were fraudulent. A Censuswide survey of more than 2,000 consumers and 300 business professionals commissioned by Hiya revealed that 75% of Americans surveyed were targeted by scammers over the past 12 months, and more than 7% reported losing more than $500 as a result of a phone scam in 2020.

Meanwhile, 44% of Americans surveyed say they regularly miss important calls because they are unidentified. According to Hiya, 94% of unidentified calls went unanswered in 2020, as 85% of survey respondents indicated they are concerned unidentified calls might be fraudulent.

The survey found that, in financial, insurance, and healthcare industries, the majority of consumers prefer to be contacted via voice over other communication channels, including email, text, instant messaging, web chat, and video call. However, consumers also noted that businesses in these industries are those most often “spoofed” – a practice of hijacking a legitimate business’ phone number to exploit their customers – and it’s difficult for businesses to monitor and stop on their own, as they often don’t even know they’ve been spoofed. Nonetheless, spoofing can cause long-term damage to a firm’s reputation.

According to Hiya’s report, nearly half of all Americans surveyed (48%) want to see regulators address the issue of spam and fraud calls, nearly 42% of respondents want their wireless carrier to put an end to the problem, and 37% of consumers want the businesses who are being falsely impersonated by scammers to address the problem.

Carrier response – the Industry Traceback Group

Over the past few years, carriers have responded to intense pressure and developed multiple ways to address the issue.  One of these is USTelecom’s Industry Traceback Group (ITG), which is also the designated Robocall Traceback Consortium. When the ITG receives a complaint from a terminating voice service provider, consumer, regulator or law enforcement it opens a case. The case is tracked using the ITG Secure Traceback Portal, with each provider adding information to the case record, including the next upstream provider that relayed a robocall in the case. Traceback is repeated until the originating service provider is identified, the U.S. point of entry is identified, or a dead-end is reached.

According to the ITG’s first annual report, in 2019, 100+ companies participated in over 1,000 ITG traceback investigations, implicating more than 10 million illegal robocalls and resulting in more than 20 subpoenas and/or civil investigative demands from federal and state enforcement agencies.

As noted by telecommunications network software provider TransNexus, the ITG reported in a letter to the Federal Communications Commission on November 13, 2020 that about 100 providers have failed to cooperate with the ITG, including less than 30 that are based in the United States. The ITG encouraged the Commission to bring aggressive enforcement against robocallers and voice service providers that routinely refuse to participate in the traceback process.

Subsequently, in their Fourth Report and Order on Advanced Methods to Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls released December 30, 2020, the FCC required “all voice service providers to respond to traceback requests from the Commission, civil and criminal law enforcement and the Consortium.” 

STIR/SHAKEN and the TRACED Act

Additionally, in September of last year, the Commission released its latest initiative “to continue the FCC’s work to implement the TRACED Act and promote the deployment of caller ID authentication technology” (i.e., STIR/SHAKEN). This step would “adopt rules implementing many of the proposals [the agency] made in the First Caller ID Authentication Report and Order and Further Notice. Among other things, [the proposal would] adopt rules governing intermediate providers and caller ID authentication in non-IP networks, we implement the exceptions and extensions established by the TRACED Act, and we prohibit line-item charges for caller ID authentication.”

The STIR/SHAKEN protocol, once widely implemented, is expected to help eliminate the practice of spoofing by letting terminating carriers know that the call originator is authorized to use the phone number in question. Some believe STIR/SHAKEN will eliminate scam calls; it’s unclear that this will happen, as the protocol alone doesn’t involve vetting the reputation or practices of a caller.

Trusted entity verification

In November 2020 a group of technology companies and voice service providers announced a milestone in protecting consumers from fraudulent robocalls and building a more secure and trustworthy telephone ecosystem. Comcast, Everbridge, NetNumber, Numeracle, and Twilio completed what is believed to be the first-ever call to combine authenticated caller ID and Rich Call Data (RCD), powered by the STIR/SHAKEN framework and protocols.

To begin the end-to-end caller ID authentication, Everbridge and its enterprise clients first completed the Numeracle Verified Identity™ entity vetting and validation process. Verified Identity provides a compliance-based, know your customer (KYC) and customer due-diligence solution used to validate the business identity and calling competency in support of the TRACED Act’s goal of ensuring the calling party is accurately identified.

Utilizing Numeracle’s Entity Identity Management™ platform, the relationship between the Everbridge Verified Identity enterprise, its authorized phone numbers, and its active relationship with outbound VoIP Service Provider, Twilio, was validated and certified. Branded Rich Call Data was associated with the Numeracle-validated enterprise call profile and pushed to the NetNumber Guaranteed Caller™ platform for issuance of a SHAKEN delegate certificate, and for use in call signing via Twilio as the originating service provider (OSP).

Based on the receipt of the RCD-signed call, Twilio was then able to confidentially and reliably sign the call with a SHAKEN signature using A-Level Attestation, the highest level of verification. Comcast then demonstrated the receipt and verification of the RCD and STIR/SHAKEN signed call with the display of the Verified Identity of the Everbridge enterprise caller via Caller ID Name, brand logo, and call reason.

And now, texting

In what you might call an “adjacent” matter, we are now seeing carriers take action to control the flow of text messages to consumers.

In recent months, insideARM has become aware of a new trend — “text blocking.” It seems that at least one major carrier has declared debt collection texts off-limits, regardless of procedures or level of compliance. As we reported last week, T-Mobile’s latest Code of Conduct defines “disallowed content,” including debt collection text campaigns. 

Years ago the CTIA developed guidelines for managing shortcodes, including strict requirements for receiving and using the codes.

Now, there is a movement to exert similar control over 10DLC (10-digit long codes). The Campaign Registry is a reputation authority for business messaging which requires brands and Campaign Service Providers (CSPs) to be verified prior to being allowed to send messages.

…It seems that the quest to develop an ecosystem of trust is never-ending.

How will all of this play out in the ARM industry?

For an industry that is required to be transparent, but not too transparent…or should I say, not too transparent too soon (until you’ve confirmed the identity of the person on the line)…there is added complexity. New trends such as branded call identity and electronic disclosure delivery that improve the consumer experience may be challenging in the third-party collections space. Hopefully, tools like STIR/SHAKEN and trusted entity verification will provide a way for legitimate companies, which are often spoofed by scammers, to separate themselves.

GENESEO, N.Y. – Coast Professional, Inc. (Coast) was recently awarded a Training Top 100 Award from Training Magazine. The Training Top 100 Awards recognize organizations with the most successful learning and development programs in the world. The awards rank companies’ excellence in employer-sponsored training programs using both quantitative and qualitative scoring methods. This is Coast’s second award from Training Magazine; the company received a Training Top 125 award in 2020.  

The Training Top 100 awards recognize corporate training overall, including the number of training hours per employee program, human resources involvement, total training budget, and strategic learning goals. Over the last two years, Coast has worked diligently to establish a world-class training program. Though 2020 brought challenges, Coast Training Specialists and Directors remained innovative in their approach to training, employee retention, and overall company morale.  

“Our new hire and compliance training programs are a principal component of employee success and retention,” said Coast Chief Compliance Officer, Annmarie Buchanan. “Our dedicated training staff ensure that all employees understand the rules and regulations related to ethical industry practices. Their perseverance and exceptional effort, especially during such difficult circumstances, has allowed us to uphold our values and overall mission of delivering outstanding customer service.”   

About Coast Professional, Inc.

Coast Professional, Inc. is an accounts receivable management and call center-based company, dedicated to respectful and ethical communication with consumers. Coast provides professional call center services to hundreds of campus-based colleges, universities, and government clients. Coast is a seven-time honoree on the Inc. 5000 list for America’s Fastest-Growing Private Companies provided by Inc. Magazine and in 2020, was recognized for the fifth time as one of the “Best Places to Work In Collections” by insideARM.com and Best Companies Group. Since 1976, Coast has worked closely with clients to increase recoveries by assisting consumers in resolving their financial obligations. Coast’s success is exemplified by exceptional recoveries, superior service, and dedication to the highest levels of compliance. More information about Coast can be found at www.coastprofessional.com 

I have noticed a ton of traffic on TCPAWorld.com being driven by search terms related to the Facebook SCOTUS appeal recently, with a lot of you (and randos on google) asking “when will the Supreme Court decide Facebook?” or “when will the Supreme Court rule on the TCPA ATDS definition?”

So we previously mapped out potential timelines, but the bottom line is that no one knows for sure when SCOTUS will rule. There is a 99% chance it will rule before the term, which ends in early June 2021. And, more likely than not, the Supremes will rule earlier rather than later since the case as argued in December and—let’s face it—the TCPA’s ATDS definition isn’t the most critical thing the Court has going on.

The Supremes usually take longer to decide cases that are argued later in the term (no surprise there) and that are weightier from a policy perspective (they need to think stuff over.) The Facebook TCPA appeal was argued early in the term and is pretty straightforward—essentially SCOTUS just needs to decide which analytic framework they want to apply to the statute. Once they resolve how to approach their analysis, the conclusion is going to flow rapidly. So I am definitely banking on an “early” ruling here.

So what is “early”?

Well theoretically the Supremes could decide Facebook any day now. But that is unlikely. In the first place, the Supreme Court calendar currently lists zero decision days in either February or March so certainly, no ruling is imminent. Now SCOTUS can add a decision day to its calendar any time it wants so things can certainly change. Nonetheless, anyone banking on a February or March ruling is probably off base. But it could happen.

In April things get interesting. Historically the Supremes start handing down a good volume of decisions in April. Again, these tend to be cases argued early in the term that have straightforward issues. The Facebook appeal certainly seems to check those boxes. Anytime from around April 8, onward then is “in play” in terms of a ruling.

If we make it to May without a ruling then TCPAWorld should really be on high alert. The Supremes will hand down rulings at a rigorous clip all through May and my money is certainly on a decision before mid-May. If it slips into late May or June I would be very surprised.

Bringing it all together, while there is a chance (tiny) that the Supremes might decide Facebook in February, March or June the smart money is on the mid-April to mid-May timeframe. TCPAWorld.com will start paying very close attention to the Supreme Court’s opinion calendar starting April 1 and you can count on us to break the news of the big Facebook ruling—just like we did for AAPC last year.

SACRAMENTO, Calif.  – Members of Receivables Management Association International (RMAI) elected Officers and Directors to its Board for 2021. Due to the pandemic which created so much uncertainty and program cancellation, all 2020 officers will be serving in their same positions for 2021. Of the ten-member Board, nine are continuing service from the previous year. The 2021 Officers and Directors are:

• James Mastriani, Velocity Portfolio Group, President
• Adam Parks, Plaza Services LLC, President-Elect
• Anne Thomas, Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC, Treasurer
• Jon Mazzoli, Resurgent Capital Services, Secretary
• Marian Sangalang, The Bureaus, Inc., Past President
• Mike Colby, Second Round, LP, Director
• Laura Jensen, Absolute Resolutions, Corp./RAzOR Capital LLC, Director
• Kelly Knepper-Stephens, TrueAccord, Director representing collection agencies and law firms
• Brett Soldevila, Security Credit Services, LLC, Director
• Brian Williams, Crown Asset Management, LLC

Brian Williams of Crown Asset Management, LLC (CAM) is joining the RMAI Board of Directors for 2021. Brian is the founder and CEO of CAM, an Atlanta based specialty finance company founded in 2004, focused on the acquisition, management, and recovery of distressed retail assets. As an advocate for CAM and the accounts receivables management (ARM) industry, in 2020 he served as the Georgia Co-Chairman for the RMAI State Legislative Committee and worked directly with both 2020 Georgia Republican Senate campaigns.

In his candidate statement, Brian explained his motivation for running for election to the RMAI Board, “… I believe strongly that the ARM industry, and specifically the continued existence of a robust marketplace where originating creditors have an outlet to recover a portion of their losses through debt sales, remains a critical facet of our credit ecosystem. Without this functioning debt sale marketplace, consumers and small businesses would find themselves with fewer options of available credit at reasonable interest rates. I believe my experience building and running CAM through multiple economic cycles provides a unique perspective and ability to assist RMAI, and its membership, through the post-pandemic cycle…”

RMAI’s plans for 2021 include continuing its well-known role of being present and involved in advocating for the accounts receivables management industry and engaging members in strategic grassroots efforts.

“2021 promises to be another busy year advocating in a number of states and Washington D.C.,” said Jan Stieger, Executive Director of RMAI.  “Our members count on RMAI to represent the industry at both the state and federal levels and keep them informed of important regulatory and legislative activity. In addition to our advocacy work, we look forward to bringing back our Executive Summit and other face-to-face education and networking events we have planned.”

About Receivables Management Association International

Receivables Management Association International (RMAI) is the nonprofit trade association that represents more than 550 companies that purchase or support the purchase of performing and nonperforming receivables on the secondary market. The Receivables Management Certification Program and Code of Ethics set the global standard within the receivables industry due to rigorous uniform industry standards of best practice which focus on the protection of the consumer.  More information about RMAI is available at www.rmaintl.org.