Archives for November 2021

DCM Services Announces Membership with Telecommunications Risk Management Association (TRMA)

MINNEAPOLIS, Minn. — DCM Services, LLC
(“DCMS”), the industry leader in data and contact management solutions for the
estate and specialty receivables recovery market, has become the newest business
affiliate member of the Telecommunications Risk Management Association (“TRMA”).
This new partnership will be mutually beneficial, allowing both organizations
to share best practices, benchmarking data, and other relevant information to
elevate the industry.

DCMS brings a wealth of industry and
operational experience in the telecommunications industry and looks forward to
working closely with TRMA to share this expertise. Subsequently, TRMA is able
to provide the networking forums and tools necessary to disseminate relevant
information to its diverse member base.

Senior Vice President of Business
Development, Tiffany Jansen said, “DCMS is ecstatic to become members of the
TRMA community. We look forward to learning even more about best practices in
this industry and are eager to share our in-depth knowledge about the specialty
receivables space, something we feel is very unique that we can bring to the
TRMA table. The benchmarking activity, conferences and networking will be
invaluable to us as we move into 2022.”

TRMA is an industry forum for risk
management professionals from the Telecommunications, Pay TV, Utility, Waste
Management and other industries to collaborate, understand, and share best
practices related to acquisition risk management, customer lifecycle and
uncollectible debt issues among its members. TRMA has served as a professional
resource devoted to industry leaders from member companies. TRMA’s diverse
organization serves as a forum for communication and utility-based risk
management professionals while creating a community for members to share best
practices, access tools and benchmarking data relevant to the dynamic industry,
and balance risk.

Executive Director of TRMA, Jose
Segarra said, “We are very excited to have DCM Services as our Business
Affiliate member. As a Business Affiliate, DCM Services will collaborate with
TRMA throughout the year. As this relationship grows, I look forward to
learning from their expertise and welcoming them to our spring meeting in 2022.”

Learn more about DCM
Services
and TRMA online.

About TRMA

TRMA is a professional resource that is
sought by industry leaders. It is a growing, diverse, and global organization
that delivers quality information forums and strategies relevant to our
members’ changing and dynamic industries. The mission of TRMA is to promote
cooperation within the Telecommunications, Pay TV, Utility, Waste Management
and other industries to effectively balance risk while reducing fraud and
uncollectibles for the benefit of our industry and paying customers.

About DCM Services

Minneapolis-based DCM Services is the
industry leader in providing estate and specialty services, including
bankruptcy and probate claim filing solutions. DCMS’ diverse client base
includes 9 of the top 11 financial services institutions, more than half of the
nation’s largest and most prestigious healthcare systems, and organizations
spanning the telecom, retail, and auto industries. Its recovery solutions offer
a full range of services from proprietary web-based solutions to full
outsourcing, maintaining an unmatched spectrum of innovative solutions that
increase recoveries, protect brand value, and enhance survivor relationships –
with respect and sensitivity. For more information on all DCM Services’
offerings, please visit www.dcmservices.com.

DCM Services Announces Membership with Telecommunications Risk Management Association (TRMA)
http://www.insidearm.com/news/00047814-dcm-services-announces-membership-telecom/
http://www.insidearm.com/news/rss/
News

All the latest in collections news updates, analysis, and guidance

CBA Issues White Paper Advocating CFPB’s Use Of Rulemaking And Guidance In Lieu Of “Regulation By Enforcement”

The Consumer Bankers Association has released
a new white paper, “The Case For Regulation Through Rulemaking & Guidance,”
that advocates for the CFPB to use rulemaking and informal written guidance in
lieu of attempting to create new industry regulatory standards through
enforcement.  Attorneys from Ballard Spahr’s Consumer Financial Services
Group assisted CBA in preparing the white paper.

The white paper
forcefully makes the case for why rulemaking and informal written guidance are
more effective tools than enforcement for the Bureau to use to create new
standards and expectations for industry.  Key arguments made by CBA
include:


  • Consent orders do not clearly communicate the Bureau’s regulatory expectations to industry for reasons that include uncertainty as to whether a consent order’s provisions are specific to the facts of an enforcement target’s conduct and that they are heavily negotiated.  As a result, consent orders often create industry confusion because industry members are forced to guess which parts have general applicability and which are target-specific.
  • By attempting to change long-standing regulatory interpretations through litigating enforcement actions, the Bureau runs the risk that it will lose control of the message absorbed by industry or will fail to establish a standard.  As an example, the CFPB ultimately failed to modify HUD’s controlling interpretation of a RESPA issue through its enforcement action against PHH Corporation and the litigation caused unnecessary disruption to industry practice.
  • The Bureau’s attempt to establish a new regulatory standard for the automobile finance industry through enforcement actions challenging dealer participation practices created an uneven playing field among competitors and also ultimately failed to change industry practice.
  • Rulemaking and informal written guidance can address general industry practices and variations and make clear how the Bureau will apply the law to those practices.  As a result, they can lead to quicker and wider change than enforcement because industry participants have less room for uncertainty about the Bureau’s expectations.  Also, rulemaking allows the Bureau to begin shaping industry behavior very early in the rulemaking process through an advance notice of proposed rulemaking, a notice of proposed rulemaking, a SBREFA outline, and other tools such as requests for information.
  • Informal written guidance can be used to provide transparency to the entire market regarding best practices, even it does not carry the force of law.  Notice and comment rulemaking, however, should be the preferred course of action when new standards are being set, or industry-wide conduct is at issue, because it provides the greatest amount of information to the Bureau and the greatest opportunity for all stakeholders—including consumers—to provide input.
  • Many examples exist of clear and effective Bureau rulemaking and written informal guidance, namely the Qualified Mortgage Rule, the TILA/RESPA Integrated Disclosure Rule, the Remittance Rule, Supervisory Highlights, and the statement on providing financial products and services to LEP consumers.

CBA Issues White Paper Advocating CFPB’s Use Of Rulemaking And Guidance In Lieu Of “Regulation By Enforcement”
http://www.insidearm.com/news/00047810-cba-issues-white-paper-advocating-cfpbs-u/
http://www.insidearm.com/news/rss/
News

All the latest in collections news updates, analysis, and guidance

Radius Global Solutions to Deploy Neustar Phone Behavior Intelligence

RESTON, Va — Radius Global Solutions LLC, a
leading provider of digitally integrated customer engagement and Neustar Inc., a global information
services and technology company and leader in identity resolution, announced
today that Radius will be deploying Neustar Phone Behavior Intelligence across
its platform. Neustar’s data, consumer behavior insights, and customer contact
efficiency strategies will allow Radius to more effectively contact consumers,
which in turn will improve the consumer experience and enhance its compliance
with consumer protection regulations.

 

Consumers today
use multiple devices and constantly change their contact preferences. This
dynamic environment can create challenges as call centers strive to
successfully connect with consumers while minimizing the risk of violating the
TCPA or the CFPB’s Regulation F. Neustar Phone Behavior Intelligence affords
companies like Radius the opportunity to enhance existing consumer information
with additional verified phone numbers, including information on the phone
type, the best time of day, best day of the week and best phone number to use
when reaching out to each individual. 

“Our current
collections strategy utilizes internal data and attributes to optimize our
results while assuring that we create the best possible consumer experience,”
said Steve Leckerman, chief operating officer of Radius. “Incorporating
Neustar’s solution will allow us to communicate more effectively with consumers
by enabling us to launch fewer targeted phone calls to consumers while
maintaining financial results and the high level of regulatory compliance that
our clients demand. Improving our customer contact strategy is a critical piece
of our upcoming implementation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s new
Regulation F.”

“Knowing when
consumers are most likely to answer their phones, and which numbers are best to
call, not only increases right-party contact rates but also allows call centers
to boost their efficiency, achieving improved performance with fewer
resources,” said Robert McKay, senior vice president of Risk Solutions at
Neustar. “Neustar Phone Behavior Intelligence provides these insights by
drawing on the power of our identity resolution platform, OneID, which connects
the links between people, location and device data to provide a single,
authoritative view of each consumer.”

For
more information about Neustar and its full TRUSTID Contact Center Solutions
suite, visit https://www.home.neustar/trustid-contact-center-solutions.

 

About
Radius Global Solutions

Founded in 2013, Radius Global Solutions is a leading provider of
digitally integrated customer engagement.  Radius uses
next-generation technologies to create customized accounts receivable
management and call center solutions that efficiently meet clients’ unique
customer lifecycle needs. For more information on Radius and its digitally
integrated customer engagement platform, visit https://www.radiusgs.com

 

About
Neustar

Neustar is an information services and technology company and a leader in
identity resolution providing the data and technology that enable trusted
connections between companies and people at the moments that matter most.
Neustar offers industry-leading solutions in marketing, risk, communications
and security that responsibly connect data on people, devices and locations,
continuously corroborated through billions of transactions. Neustar serves more
than 8,000 clients worldwide, including 60 of the Fortune 100. Learn how your
company can benefit from the power of trusted connections here: home.neustar.

Radius Global Solutions to Deploy Neustar Phone Behavior Intelligence
http://www.insidearm.com/news/00047811-radius-global-solutions-deploy-neustar-ph/
http://www.insidearm.com/news/rss/
News

All the latest in collections news updates, analysis, and guidance

The New York Large Print Notice Is Fuzzy in Any Format

On Oct. 8, S.737A was signed into New York law, “requiring debt
collectors to inform debtors that written communications are available in large
print format.”  The legislation becomes effective Nov. 7, 2021.

The
problem with the law is the disconnect between what it says and what it tells
debt collectors to say.


What It Says


“Each and every principal creditor or debt collector shall, in
each initial communication, clearly and conspicuously disclose to the debtor
that each communication can be provided in an alternative, reasonably
accommodatable, format.”


“Communication”
is defined as “the conveying of information regarding a debt directly or
indirectly to any person through any medium.”


“Principal
creditor” is already defined as “any person, firm, corporation or organization
to whom a consumer claim is owed, due or asserted to be due or owed, or any
assignee for value of said person, firm, corporation or organization.”  NY
CLS Gen Bus § 600(3).


What It Tells Debt Collectors to Say


Unfortunately,
the law proceeds to state:


“Such disclosure shall substantively contain the following:


(a) A statement that the consumer may request the letter in an
alternative, reasonably accommodatable format selected by the principal
creditor or debt collector such as large print, braille, audio compact disc, or
other means; and


(b) A business phone number that the consumer may call to make
such a request.”


Out of Focus


The
legislation was, simply, poorly drafted and creates questions that are
difficult to answer, a few of which are:


1.   
What does “reasonably
accommodatable format selected by the principal creditor or debt collector”
actually mean?  Does it mean a debt collector can choose to exclusively
offer large print regardless of circumstances, or does it mean the alternative
format must be “reasonably accommodatable” based on the actual circumstances?
For example, if the consumer is completely blind, can the debt collector still
choose to provide large print or is the debt collector’s selection limited to
formats such as braille or CD?

2.   
Does this apply to all
written communications, including emails and text messages? The law states it
applies to each communication through any medium, but the sample language
refers to the consumer requesting “the letter” in an alternative format. 

3.   
What is the standard
for “large print,” which is undefined in this section? Can we rely on the
definition found elsewhere in New York law as “a font size of sixteen or
larger” for utility bills (N.Y. Pub. Serv. Law § 44), cable bills (N.Y. Pub.
Serv. Law § 224-b) and telephone bills (N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 399-zz)?

4.   
Does the alternative
format option extend to documents provided for substantiation of the debts
pursuant to 23 NYCRR § 1.4(c), some of which may be account-level documentation
provided by the creditor?

Previous Legislation


The
large print notice legislation was originally introduced in 2011 and
reintroduced in virtually the same form every session through the 2019-2020
session.  The 2019 Assembly bill, A.711, is a good example of the previous versions and includes
a memo explaining the legislation. 


The
legislation defined “large print” to mean “a font size of sixteen or larger”
and limited the disclosure to informing the consumer “that written
communications . . . may be received in a large print format.”  The memo
explained that the large print option did not apply to the initial
communication; only to “any further communications that the debtor may
receive.”  Neither that bill nor the previous versions included the
confounding sample language in the current law.


Reading Between the Lines


The
shift from the 2019 language appears to reflect an intentional broadening of
scope.  Unfortunately, determining the intent of the law, and simply how
to draft the notice correctly, is difficult to decipher because of the poor
drafting.  Without further clarification, the best that can be done is to
consult with legal counsel of your choice and find a practical, workable
balance between what the statute says and what it says debt collectors should
say.  

The New York Large Print Notice Is Fuzzy in Any Format
http://www.insidearm.com/news/00047807-new-york-large-print-notice-fuzzy-any-for/
http://www.insidearm.com/news/rss/
News

All the latest in collections news updates, analysis, and guidance

CFPB Releases Additional Reg F Guidance

On October 29, 2021, the CFPB added a new section to the Reg F Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) guidance documents.  The new FAQs address the model validation notice, validation information, and the special rule for certain residential mortgage debts. 

The CFPB also released a document entitled, “Debt Collection Rule: Disclosing the Model Validation Notice Itemization Table.” This guidance document reviews the required validation information and provides illustrations to show how a debt collector might comply with the requirement to disclose that information. 

This guidance follows the FAQs published by the CFPB on October 5, 2021, and the release of the Spanish translation model validation notice on October 18, 2021. 

—-

Behind on Reg F implementation? Join us on November 2, 2021 for “Reg (WT)F: An Extremely Practical Guide to Last Minute Reg F Prep” where we’ll be discussing the practical guidance you need to implement Reg F. This will not be a standard webinar where people talk at you; the majority of this webinar will be Q&A to help you implement Reg F in just a few weeks. 

CFPB Releases Additional Reg F Guidance
http://www.insidearm.com/news/00047804-cfpb-releases-additional-reg-f-guidance/
http://www.insidearm.com/news/rss/
News

All the latest in collections news updates, analysis, and guidance

State Collection Service Partners with Prodigal to Improve Agent Productivity

MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif. — State
Collection Service (State), a leading healthcare revenue cycle outsourcer, partnered
with Prodigal Technologies, Inc., to substantially increase operational efficiencies
with artificial intelligence and automation.

“Prodigal has an impressive
automation platform that offers a positive ROI instantly. We are excited to increase
our AI capabilities at State with Prodigal,” said Tim Haag, president of
State. Prodigal and State Logos

The collections industry is heavily regulated,
and the healthcare revenue cycle process is highly complex with multiple layers
of operations. Standard processes are very labor-intensive which results in costly
and ineffective operations.

One example of inefficiency is the
after-call wrap-up process. On average, representatives spend approximately 25%
of their day in wrap-up, which is the time spent summarizing one call and
getting ready for the next. Over a year, this translates to a staggering cost
of $10,000 per representative.

State recognized the need to
challenge these operational inefficiencies and implemented Prodigal’s ProNotes,
its first note automation AI system. State immediately saw a decline in the time
spent on after-call workflows as well as a corresponding increase in agents’ in-call
time by 10-15%. ProNotes helped State save significant hours of manual
note-taking as well as improved calls with the help of structured notes and
conversational insights. As a result of fewer manual and repetitive tasks, State
observed deeper engagement between representatives and patients.

[article_ad]

Sameer Maini, chief information
officer of State says, “We’re excited to onboard Prodigal as part of our
modern tech stack. Prodigal’s real-time AI has increased the in-call time for
our representatives. This enables our knowledgeable and empathetic
representatives to provide even better customer service to healthcare providers
and their patients.”

Without the use of proper technology,
it’s difficult to achieve optimal productivity, efficient and cost-effective revenue
cycle operations. Prodigal is bringing artificial intelligence and machine
learning capabilities to the industry with its new suite of intelligent tools.
Prodigal’s tools enable lenders, debt buyers, healthcare revenue cycle
outsourcers and ARM agencies to resolve accounts receivables quickly and
efficiently.

“State is a technology-forward agency
and we are excited to deliver a measurable boost to their operational
efficiency with our cutting-edge business intelligence platform,” said Shantanu
Gangal, chief executive officer of Prodigal Technologies Inc.

Prodigal is disrupting the loan
servicing and receivables management industry with its stack of technologies
that delivers up to 30% improvements in productivity and operational
efficiency. By leveraging Prodigal’s artificial intelligence and machine learning,
the receivables management industry uncovers actionable insights for maximizing
revenue, optimizing operations, and minimizing compliance risk. To learn more
visit:
www.prodigaltech.com

About State

State improves
the financial picture for healthcare providers by delivering increased
financial results while ensuring a positive patient experience. Rooted in a
tradition of ethics, integrity and innovation since 1949, State uses data
analytics to drive performance and speech analytics with ongoing training to
ensure patient satisfaction. A family-owned company now in its third generation
of leadership, State assists healthcare organizations with services spanning
the complete revenue cycle including Pre-Service Financial Clearance, Early Out
Self-Pay Resolution, Insurance Follow-Up and Bad Debt Collection. To learn more
visit: www.statecollectionservice.com.

State Collection Service Partners with Prodigal to Improve Agent Productivity
http://www.insidearm.com/news/00047805-state-collection-service-partners-prodiga/
http://www.insidearm.com/news/rss/
News

All the latest in collections news updates, analysis, and guidance

Remitter Completes Acquisition of US Receivables Leader Mercantile Adjustment Bureau

Tempe, Ariz. — Digital Bill payment
platform Remitter has finalized its purchase of Mercantile Adjustment Bureau
following a successful pre-IPO USD $12m cap raise led by Canaccord Genuity. The
raise was also backed by Allium Capital and Casey Capital.

Remitter is a white-label communications platform,
founded in Australia, which uses AI to optimize customer engagement and enhance
the recovery of accounts receivables. Currently many organisations face
challenges in collecting bill payments on time, with 46% of customers paying
late according to
Aite Group research.

By analysing behavioural heuristics to
automate each customer’s experience with branded messaging and payment options,
Remitter increases customer recoveries by as up to 280 percent, significantly
improving cash flow.

Mercantile Adjustment Bureau services many
of the USA’s leading brands and verticals, including Fortune 100 to Fortune 500
banks, financial institutions, retailers, universities, and auto industries, as
well as the healthcare sector. The acquisition of Mercantile is anticipated to
propel the company’s revenue from USD $2 million in 2021 to USD $18.4 million
in 2022, according to company forecasts.

“In coming together with
Remitter, Mercantile’s strong position within the highly competitive ARM
industry will be strengthened immensely. They share our philosophy of providing
omnichannel options for which the customer may engage, having a positive
experience and making the payments process seamless and efficient for all
parties, to the highest professional, ethical, and compliance standards,”
said Bruce Gray, Mercantile CEO.

The payment process is
critical for creditors to get right. “The combination of Remitter’s
capabilities and Mercantile’s platform will create a new gold standard,” according
to Mike Ginsberg, President and CEO of Kaulkin Ginsberg who advised Mercantile
in this transaction.

Remitter entered the US market in 2020,
underpinned by two years of development, collaboration with clients to ensure
the optimal feature set and compliance across USA states and territories. The
business has already amassed more than 20 “blue chip” customers,
including a significant take-up in digitally native customers.

Mercantile Adjustment Bureau is recognized
as a leader in receivables management services. It services many of USA’s most
recognized brands and verticals which includes: Fortune 100 to Fortune 500
banks, financial institutions, retailers, universities, and auto industries.

“Our acquisition of Mercantile Adjustment
Bureau is an outstanding opportunity to access a significant client base and
use our technology to increase end-user satisfaction through flexibility and
convenience, while increasing penetration and conversion for our clients,”
said Simon Scalzo, Executive Director, Remitter.
 

Remitter has aggressive plans
for growth in the Americas with continued expansion in the USA, Canada, and
South America organically and by acquisition.

The market size, measured by
revenue, of the Debt Collection Agencies industry in the US is $18.6bn in 2021,
increasing faster than the US economy overall[i]. It’s projected to grow
4.4% driven by low revenue volatility and aggregate household debt. The size of
the US ARM (accounts receivable management) market was roughly USD $23.8
billion in 2021, with first- and third-party collection agencies projected to generate
USD $16.5 billion in revenue on aggregate, while debt buyers will generate $6.1
billion and repossession services firms will generate $1.2 billion in revenue[ii].

About Mercantile

Founded in 1934, Mercantile Adjustment
Bureau is recognized as a leader in receivables management services. It
services many of USA’s most recognized brands and verticals which include
Fortune 100 to Fortune 500 banks, financial institutions, retailers,
universities, and healthcare providers.

About Remitter

Remitter is a white-label communications platform
which uses artificial intelligence to optimize customer engagement and enhance
the recovery of accounts receivables. By analyzing behavioral heuristics to
automate each customer’s experience with branded messaging and payment options,
Remitter increases customer recoveries by an estimated 280 percent.


[i] IbisWorld Debt
Collection Agencies in the US – Market Size 
2005–2027

[ii] Kaulkin Ginsberg Accounts Receivable Management: An Industry
Poised for Growth

Remitter Completes Acquisition of US Receivables Leader Mercantile Adjustment Bureau
http://www.insidearm.com/news/00047803-remitter-completes-acquisition-us-receiva/
http://www.insidearm.com/news/rss/
News

All the latest in collections news updates, analysis, and guidance

11th Circuit Issues Substitute Opinion in Hunstein; Will Dissent provide Key for Defense Against Copycats?

Yesterday, the 11th Circuit Court of appeals issued
a substitute opinion in Hunstein vs. Preferred Collection & Management Services, Inc , 994 F.3d 1341
(11th Cir. 2021), which now stands in place of the original opinion. Although the substitute
opinion does not change the holding of the case, it now includes a scathing
dissent, which may pave the road for the defense of copycat cases across the
country.

On April 21, 2021, when the original opinion holding that
(a) the consumer had standing to bring the action; and (b) transmitting data to
a mail vendor is an unauthorized third-party disclosure, all three of the
judges on the panel (Newsom, Jordan,
and Tjoflat)
were united in that decision. In yesterday’s substitute opinion, Judge Tjoflat issued
a dissent that makes it clear he no longer agrees with the majority’s holding;
the tension between the majority opinion and the dissent was palpable throughout
all 65 pages of the opinion.

What happened since April that Judge Tjoflat Changed his Mind?

 [article_ad]

Two significant events occurred after the original Hunstein opinion
was issued:

  • The debt collector, Preferred Collection and Management Services (Preferred), retained new counsel and moved for a rehearing En Banc. In support of that motion, interested parties filed over twenty Amicus Briefs, including one from the Consumer Relations Consortium. (Editors Note: the original decision came from a 3-judge panel. An En Banc Motion is a request to have all judges in the Circuit hear the issues, not just the original panel of three. Amicus Briefs are briefs filed by those who are not parties to the lawsuit but have an interest in the outcome.)
  •  On June 28, 2021, The Supreme Court of the United States decided TransUnion v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. ____ (2021), which held, “no concrete harm, no standing,” while providing guidance regarding what constitutes a concrete harm.

In his dissenting opinion, Judge Tjoflat explained that he
had been swayed because the original opinion “Sweeps much more broadly than TransUnion
would allow.”  Further, the dissent
cited several amicus briefs, including the brief filed by the Consumer Relations Consortium, concluding
that Mr. Hunstein suffered no additional harm beyond the statutory violation.  

Regarding the substitute opinion, Brit Suttell, an Attorney
with Barron & Newburger, P.C. and Legal Advisory Board
member who co-authored the Consumer Relations Consortium’s amicus brief, stated,

“The industry effort to sway the 11th Circuit gained traction with at least one
judge (the dissenter) who clearly familiarized himself with all the amicus
briefs (including CRC’s – see footnote 13 of the dissent).  It’s too bad
the rest of the panel was unpersuaded.  The industry needs to be prepared
to continue to fight these claims as it is clear they are not going away.”         

Along those same lines, Jessica Klander,
Shareholder with Bassford Remele, and Legal Advisory Board member
who co-authored the Consumer Relations Consortium’s amicus brief had this to
say regarding the opinion,

“At first glance, this new opinion
looks disappointing because two of the judges refused to budge on their initial
determination and even appear to double-down. 
But upon further consideration, this new opinion contains a positive
development with the addition of a dissenting opinion. Clearly, the petition
and amici briefs changed one judge’s mind. The dissenting opinion is well
reasoned and adopts many of the industry arguments, including those from the
CRC’s brief. Hopefully, the dissent will provide fuel to get this overturned in
the future. In the meantime, the dissent provides additional support for
industry members currently defending against these claims – particularly in
jurisdictions other than the 11th Circuit.”

Key Takeaways From the Dissent:

In his dissent, Judge Tjoflat provided several arguments to support his position that the majority’s opinion was incorrect, including: 

  • Transunion stands for the proposition that analyzing a case for an intangible harm sufficient for Article III standing is individualized for every plaintiff. Just because some Plaintiff’s injuries will have a common-law analogue does not mean other plaintiffs who allege a violation of the same statute will automatically have standing.  (see this article for a short primer on Article III standing)
  •  The majority held that Mr. Hunstein’s alleged harm was analogous to the tort of public disclosure of private facts. This particular tort requires 1) publicity of private information, 2) that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and 3) that is not of legitimate public concern.  Judge Tjoflat opines that the majority opinion’s finding is incorrect because:

a.   “Publicity” means the matter is made public by communicating it to the public at large or to so many persons that it is substantially sure to become public knowledge, neither of which was alleged in the Hunstein complaint. The only entity to which the information was conveyed was the letter vendor.

b.   The majority opinion stated that the publicity prong was satisfied because “publicity” entails communication and Preferred’s counsel’s admitted the transmission of data was a communication. Judge Tjoflat called the majority’s reasoning “baffling,”  and went on to say, “This is like saying that sugar cookie batter is the same thing as chocolate chip cookie batter because sugar cookie batter would be chocolate chip cookie batter if you added chocolate chips.”  

c.   The majority opinion’s lack of any analysis regarding the other two prongs of the requirements for a public disclosure of private facts claim (offensive to a reasonable person and not of legitimate pulis concern) “signals the sheer misfit between sending debt collection notices through a mail vendor and the tort itself.”  He then cited examples where disclosures regarding debt were deemed not offensive and said trying to apply the third prong is “nonsensical because the public does not know anything about Hunstein’s debt. Only the mail vendor has been given access to Hunstein’s information.” 

  • Congress seemed to explicitly envision the role of intermediaries, like mail vendors, in the statutory scheme. Specifically, Judge Tjoflat pointed out the verbiage in the Fair Det Collections Practices Act (FDCPA) where debt collectors are authorized to use telegrams, and states the majority “has yet to explain how a mailing vending company is any different from a telegram company.”
  • If Congress had been trying to eliminate mail vendors, it has not been clear to the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB). Under Regulation F (Reg F), the new rules go into effect on November 30, 2021, expressly contemplate the use of mail vendors.
  • Hunstein suffered no harm beyond the statutory violation.
  • If the case were to reach an analysis on the merits of the claim, there is a strong argument that the mail vendor is a “medium” under the FDCPA, not a person. As such, Preferred was not communicating with the mail vendor when it sent the information, just like a debt collector is not communicating with a telegram company when it sends a telegram to a debtor. (Editors Note: the Hunstein case was reviewed on a motion to dismiss. At this stage in litigation, a court must accept all allegations in the complaint as true, and the parties are not permitted to argue the merits of the case or present evidence.)

The complete opinion can be found here

InsideARM Perspective:

Since April, we’ve already seen courts outside the 11th
Circuit rule that Transunion dictates that Hunstein
copycat case consumers lack standing
. As noted by Brit Suttell and Jessica Klander,
while it is disappointing that two of the three judges held firm on their
original holding, the dissent should be a valuable tool for those defending copycat
cases. In addition to providing legal arguments regarding standing, the dissent’s
inclusion of the arguments raised in the amicus briefs provides a basis for
debt collectors to raise those issues in their defense of copycat cases, and perhaps
by using this dissent as a roadmap, we will see more dismissals.

Another takeaway from this decision, particularly as the
effective date of Reg F is right around the corner, is the importance of choosing the correct
counsel for the defense of FDCPA matters. This means engaging actual FDCPA
defense attorneys, not collections attorneys who dabble in defense or attorneys
who merely advertise that they deal in “creditors rights” but have no track record.
As shown by Hunstein, the fallout from bad decisions can affect
the entire ARM industry in significant ways. Genuine FDPCA defense attorneys
are not hard to find.

The above statement is not theoretical: in the substitute
opinion, the majority once again relied on Preferred’s original counsel’s admission
that transmitting data to a mail vendor was a “communication” as defined in the
FDCPA. The only person who seems to think this admission was correct is the
person who made it; not a single FDCPA defense expert has agreed
with this contention. The admission certainly backed this case into an
unpleasant corner since the original opinion seemed to hinge on it. 

Additionally, in support of its holding that the Transunion
decision does not require the Hunstein case to be dismissed for lack of
standing, the majority cited the case of
 Lupia
v. Mericredit Inc
. (Case #20-1294, 10th Cir). Lupia was a bad
case from the beginning. A debt collector attempted to argue a bona fide error
defense while simultaneously admitting on the record that it did not have policies
or procedures. After losing in the district court, despite having no fundamental
basis for a bona fide error defense, the case was inexplicably appealed to the
10th Circuit. Since the Lupia
opinion was issued after Transunion came out, the opinion included a section on standing, which did not favor the ARM industry. As noted
when the decision came out, no good can come from appealing a bad case, and we
see the results here. Was Lupia the crux for the majority’s decision in the
Hunstein substitute opinion? No. However, it certainly provided fuel for
the fire.

This issue is important to mention at this juncture because
the effective date of Reg F is right around the corner. The ARM industry expects
a flurry of lawsuits in the initial months following the effective date. If debt
collectors do not choose their defense counsel wisely, there is a very real
possibility that we will see bad decisions regarding Reg F, which must be followed
by the rest of the industry.

11th Circuit Issues Substitute Opinion in Hunstein; Will Dissent provide Key for Defense Against Copycats?
http://www.insidearm.com/news/00047800-11th-circuit-issues-substitute-opinion-hu/
http://www.insidearm.com/news/rss/
News

All the latest in collections news updates, analysis, and guidance