Archives for July 2023

Article III standing has been one of the most talked about and litigated issues since the Transunion decision was published in June of 2021. Though standing might be a factor to consider in your collection or litigation strategy, it may not be nearly as important as all the media coverage would have you believe. Most importantly, standing does not necessarily equal success. Why not? Let’s take a closer look.  

So, What is Standing?

Without getting into the specific legalese,  Federal courts can only hear cases in certain circumstances. “Standing” refers to the legal requirement that an individual must have a sufficient connection to a case to participate in it. In the context of the ARM industry, Article III standing ensures that the parties involved have a legitimate interest and a stake in the outcome of their FDCPA or FCRA case and that the Federal court can hear that particular case.

What Standing isn’t.

Standing does not determine if the defendant’s conduct violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) or any other relevant law. It simply establishes the court’s ability to proceed with the case. It says the person filing the complaint included enough language in it to establish federal court is the right place. 

Though standing requires the plaintiff to demonstrate a concrete and specific injury directly caused by the defendant’s actions, determining if the harm amounts to a violation of the FDCPA involves a separate analysis of the specific facts and the application of those facts to the law. In other words, though allegations may establish standing, those allegations don’t necessarily equal a violation of the FDCPA or other relevant law.

Likewise, a dismissal based on the lack of standing should not be viewed as a determination that the defendant’s actions did not violate the FDCPA. It only means that the plaintiff did not meet the requirements to continue with the case in Federal court.

Where are we now?

While the concept of standing is well-established, there is currently a circuit split among the federal courts regarding the interpretation of Article III standing in certain creditor’s rights cases.

The 2nd, 5th, and 9th circuits have all held that conclusory allegations of loss or mental and emotional distress are insufficient to confer Article III standing. This narrower reading of standing emphasizes that the alleged harm caused to a consumer must be more than speculative or hypothetical, demanding a clear and direct connection between the consumer’s injury and the collector’s actions. Conversely, the 10th and 11th circuits have held that emotional injuries and other intangible harms are sufficient for Article III standing. 

For practical purposes, this means that the 2nd, 5th, and 9th circuits are less likely to find that a consumer has standing to pursue FDCPA claims in federal court, and you are more likely to be litigating these cases in state courts and based on state law. The broader interpretation of the 10th and 11th circuits will allow more consumer complaints to be heard in Federal Court.

A recent webinar from the Consumer Relations Consortium that discusses this issue in detail can be found here.

What does this mean for your operations?

While the determination of standing is a critical step in creditor’s rights cases, it is crucial to recognize that standing alone does not determine a case’s ultimate success or failure. Just because a consumer is found to have standing to stay in federal court does not mean a creditor has lost. Similarly, if a consumer is deemed to lack Article III standing, it does not necessarily mean the creditor will prevail in state court.

The standing issue only determines where the case will be heard and who will hear it. Another recent webinar presented by the Consumer Relations Consortium includes an in-depth discussion on the benefits of litigating in both courts and the strategies your lawyers can employ. The webinar can be found here.

The bottom line is this: Winning a case depends on a range of factors, most notably the overall merits of the case. Though standing is important, it’s just the beginning and not the end of a case. As a result, while ARM entities should be paying attention to the circuit split, this line of cases doesn’t necessarily mean your organization should be making big strategic companywide decisions because of it. As always, it’s recommended that ARM entities consult with their own counsel before making any decisions affecting legal strategies. 

On July 13, the CFPB joined state attorneys general from Washington, Oregon, Delaware, Minnesota, Illinois, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia in taking action against an education firm accused of engaging in deceptive marketing and unfair debt collection practices. California’s Department of Financial Protection and Innovation is participating in the action as well. 

Prior to filing for bankruptcy, the Delaware-based defendant operated a private, for-profit vocational training program for software sales representatives. The joint complaint, filed as an adversary proceeding in the firm’s bankruptcy case, alleges that the defendant charged consumers up to $30,000 for its programs. The complaint further alleges that the defendant encouraged consumers who could not pay upfront to enter into income share agreements, which required minimum payments equal to between 12.5 and 16 percent of their gross income for 4 to 8 years or until they had paid a total of $30,000, whichever came first.

The complaint asserts that the defendant engaged in deceptive practices by misrepresenting its income share agreement as not a loan and not debt, and mislead borrowers into believing that no payments would need to be made until they received a job offer from a technology company with a minimum annual income of $60,000. The defendant is also accused of failing to disclose important financing terms, such as the amount financed, finance charges, and annual percentage rates, as required by TILA and Regulation Z. The complaint also claims that the defendant hired two debt collection companies to pursue collection activities on defaulted income share loans. 

One of the defendant debt collectors is accused of engaging in unfair practices by filing debt collection lawsuits in remote jurisdictions where consumers neither resided nor were physically present when the financing agreements were executed. The complaint further alleges the two defendant debt collectors violated the FDCPA and the CFPA by deceptively inducing consumers into settlement agreements and falsely claiming they owed more than they did.

According to the Bureau and the states, after the Delaware Department of Justice and Delaware courts began scrutinizing the debt collection lawsuits, the defendant unilaterally changed the terms of its contracts with consumers to force them into arbitration even though none of them had agreed to arbitrate their claims. Additionally, the complaint contends that settlement agreements marketed as being “beneficial” to consumers actually released consumers’ claims against the defendant and converted income share loans into revised “settlement agreements” that obligated them to make recurring monthly payments for several years and contained burdensome dispute resolution and collection terms.

The complaint seeks permanent injunctive relief, monetary relief, consumer redress, and civil money penalties. The CFPB and states are also seeking to void the income share loans.

DALLAS, Texas — McGlinchey Stafford is pleased to announce that Christopher John has joined the firm’s Financial Services Litigation Group as an Associate Attorney in the Dallas office. Christopher focuses his practice on representing financial services clients in the mortgage lending, automobile finance, and insurance industries.  McGlinchey hired 31 new attorneys, including 28 litigators, from January to the end of June 2023.

“I am very pleased to welcome Christopher to our Dallas office,” said Dwayne Danner, Managing Member of the firm’s Dallas office. “His diverse background spanning both federal and municipal government as well as private practice brings a well-rounded perspective to a broad spectrum of litigation.”

Christopher primarily focuses on defending clients regarding alleged violations of Texas state and federal consumer protection statutes such as the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), Truth in Lending Act (TILA), Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA), and others. His keen attention to detail allows him to evaluate the key facts and legal issues at play and uncover what discovery might be needed to answer each case’s “big questions.”

“Christopher’s litigation experience, ranging from class actions to mediations, makes him a valuable asset to our team as we continue to provide excellent legal solutions to clients in litigation,” said Shaun Ramey, Co-Chair of the Firm’s Financial Services Litigation Group.

[article_ad]

In his previous roles, Christopher worked for the U.S. Small Business Administration, where he interfaced with business owners and borrowers during the peak of COVID-19 relief initiatives, notably the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and Economic Injury Disaster Loans. Within the private sector, Christopher’s work has encompassed an array of litigation, including torts, breach of contract, premises liability, labor and employment, and third-party construction defense. His acumen in drafting and scrutinizing municipal contracts further bolsters his skill set.

Admitted in Texas state and federal courts as well as the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, Christopher received his J.D. from The University of Tennessee College of Law. He also received a bachelor’s degree in Political Science from Abilene Christian University in Abilene, Texas.

About McGlinchey

McGlinchey Stafford is a premier midsized business law firm offering services in nearly 30 practice areas through a highly integrated national platform. McGlinchey attorneys leverage bold innovation, diverse talent, and leading-edge technology across our powerful network to serve clients at the local, regional, and national level. With 160 attorneys licensed in 33 states, McGlinchey operates from 17 offices nationwide. The firm currently has 18 attorneys and 9 practice areas recognized in Chambers U.S.A. 2023 and Chambers FinTech 2023, and 53 attorneys recognized by Best Lawyers, 40 attorneys recognized in various Super Lawyers rankings, 49 practice areas recognized by Best Law Firms, and was named a “Top Performer” by the Leadership Council for Legal Diversity (LCLD) since 2018. To learn more, visit www.mcglinchey.com.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently held that a single ringless voicemail is enough to confer standing to a plaintiff under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

A copy of the opinion in Dickson v. Direct Energy, LP, et al. is available at: Link to Opinion.

The plaintiff individual alleged that the defendant sent multiple ringless voicemails to his cell phone advertising its services. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant left a ringless voice mail “RVM,” an RVM is a voicemail left directly into a recipient’s voicemail box, without placing a traditional call to the recipient’s wireless phone. The plaintiff alleged that he received numerous RVMs from the defendant.

[article_ad]

The plaintiff filed suit individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, alleging the defendant violated the TCPA’s automated calling prohibitions under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1) by sending the RVMs to him without his consent. The plaintiff claimed that he was harmed by these communications because they tied up his phone line, cost him money, and were generally a nuisance. The plaintiff also averred that the calls disturbed his solitude and invaded his privacy.

During discovery, the defendant’s expert maintained that out of the 11 voicemails allegedly received by the plaintiff, only one could be attributed to the defendant. Based on this, the defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s lawsuit for lack of Article III standing and argued that the plaintiff suffered no concrete injury. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion and held because the plaintiff only received one RVM, a single RVM did not constitute a concrete harm sufficient for Article III purposes because: (a) the plaintiff could not recall what he was doing when he received the RVM, (b) the plaintiff was not charged for the RVM, (c) the RVM did not tie up his phone line, and (d) the plaintiff spent an exceedingly small amount of time reviewing the RVM. This appeal followed. 

On appeal, the Sixth Circuit examined the factors necessary for the plaintiff to establish standing: (1) a concrete and particularized injury-in-fact which (2) is traceable to the defendant’s conduct and (3) can be redressed by a favorable judicial decision. Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992); see also Spokeo, 578 U.S. at 338 n.6; Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 338 (2016).

The Sixth Circuit had not previously ruled on whether the receipt of a single RVM for commercial purposes presents a concrete harm sufficient to confer standing to make a claim under the TCPA. Here, the Court found that the plaintiff’s claims satisfy the demands of Article III. To determine whether an intangible harm — such as the plaintiff’s receipt of an unsolicited RVM — rose to the level of a concrete injury, the Appellate Court examined common law history and tradition and Congress’s judgment in enacting the law at issue.

The plaintiff argued that the unwanted RVM resembled the common law tort of intrusion upon seclusion. The Sixth Circuit noted this common law tort can result in an unlawful invasion of privacy, but the scope of liability for the actual tort of intrusion upon seclusion is more circumscribed and confined to liability to cases where a defendant’s conduct is “highly offensive to the ordinary reasonable man.” Restatement § 652B cmt. d; see also Charvat v. NMP, LLC, 656 F.3d 440, 452–53 (6th Cir. 2011); In re Nickelodeon Consumer Priv. Litig., 827 F.3d 262, 291, 293 (3d Cir. 2016).

The Sixth Circuit addressed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit’s opinion in Gadelhak v. AT&T Services, Inc., 950 F.3d 458 (7th Cir. 2020). In Gadelhak, the Seventh Circuit held that the plaintiff in that case suffered an injury after receiving five unwanted text messages. The Seventh Circuit reasoned that when the defendant sent unsolicited text messages, it made a similar intrusion into his privacy or seclusion. Id. at 462 (citing Restatement § 652B cmt. d).

In addition, the Sixth Circuit examined the Supreme Court of the United States’ analysis in Spokeo that distinguished the common law and congressional power to define the injury as outlined in the TCPA. Specifically, the Sixth Circuit held, “a few unwanted automated text messages may be too minor an annoyance to be actionable at common law. But such texts nevertheless pose the same kind of harm that common law courts recognize — a concrete harm that Congress has chosen to make legally cognizable.” Id. at 462–63 (quoting Spokeo, 578 U.S. at 341); see also id. at 463 n.2.

The Sixth Circuit further noted that the defendant’s single voicemail to the plaintiff combined with considerations that some consider their phone number a matter of private information, and people commonly exercise discretion in publicizing their phone numbers, entrusting them only to their circle of friends and family indicated that telephones can logically be considered part of one’s private domain to which the right to be left alone extends.

The Sixth Circuit explained that its ruling is consistent with jurisprudence from the Seventh Circuit in Gadelhak, 950 F.3d at 462, 463 n.2 and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Van Patten v. Vertical Fitness Grp., LLC, 847 F.3d 1037, 1043 (9th Cir. 2017). In Van Patten, the Ninth Circuit held that unsolicited phone calls or text messages, by their nature, invade the privacy and disturb the solitude of their recipients. Van Patten, 847 F.3d at 1043.

In reaching its decision, the Sixth Circuit rejected a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit that held a plaintiff did not establish standing based on the receipt of a since voicemail or RVM because the plaintiff failed to show the voicemail “rendered her phone unavailable to receive legitimate calls or messages for any period of time.” See Grigorian v. FCA US LLC, 838 F. App’x 390 (11th Cir. 2020); Salcedo v. Hanna, 936 F.3d 1162 (11th Cir. 2019).

The defendant here argued that an intrusion upon seclusion occurs only when a person’s “peace and quiet” is disturbed by an audible sound like a ringing phone, or when a person’s attention is otherwise taken away from what they are doing. However, the Sixth Circuit disagreed and noted that the inquiry of the injury is limited to whether the plaintiff’s claimed injury is similar in kind to one recognized at common law. Moreover, the Sixth Circuit held the plaintiff alleged an intangible harm that bore a sufficiently close relationship to the traditional common law tort of intrusion upon seclusion.

Therefore, the Sixth Circuit held the plaintiff suffered a concrete injury in fact sufficient for Article III standing purposes because the receipt of an unsolicited RVM bears a close enough relationship to the kind of injury protected by the common law tort of intrusion upon seclusion, and the plaintiff’s claimed harm is directly correlated with the protections addressed by Congress in the TCPA.

Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s suit for failure to demonstrate an injury in fact and remanded the case for further proceedings.

SALT LAKE CITY, Utah — The State of Utah, recognized as a prominent technology hub, has launched their new Cloud Collections Financial Ecosystem, CSS IMPACT! HD™ 2.0. CSS, Inc., a leader in innovation in the financial services, proudly delivers enterprise-grade financial ecosystems and omnichannel contact engagement solutions, catering to all verticals of the financial industry.

The State of Utah is a vibrant tech hub rapidly expanding and quickly becoming synonymous with cutting-edge technology. Affectionately known as the “Silicon Slopes,” this dynamic region stretching from Salt Lake City to Provo, with its epicenter in Lehi, is home to a constellation of industry giants such as Adobe, Ancestry, and Overstock.com, just to name a few.

This monumental deployment signals Utah’s unwavering commitment to modernizing its debt-management processes through highly tailored and automated workflows, all while upholding strict governance controls and a remarkable level of transparency. Moreover, the State is determined to revolutionize citizen engagement by embracing state-of-the-art digital technologies and services, fostering unprecedented levels of consumer participation and delivering enhanced services that cater to the needs of its citizens.

The implementation of the groundbreaking HD 2.0 Collections Ecosystem is perfectly aligned with State’s vision of establishing a cutting-edge centralized debt management automation system. This revolutionary platform empowers the State to optimize its workforce resources, driving new revenue management strategies, prioritizing customer service, and ultimately fueling exceptional revenue growth. Joining the ranks of other esteemed technology pioneers like the City of San Francisco, the County of Santa Clara “Silicon Valley,” and the City of Pittsburgh, the State of Utah is taking its place among the elite government agencies harnessing the transformative potential of CSS’s Enterprise Debt Collections Ecosystem Financial Cloud Platform.

“Through the strategic implementation of our cutting-edge ‘NextGen’ HD 2.0 Collections Ecosystem, the State is poised to revolutionize its legacy systems, unlocking a world of possibilities for users & citizens. Streamlining processes and supercharging efficiencies, effectiveness, and transparency will be just the beginning. Brace yourself for a seismic shift that will propel the State to new heights of financial success, boosting revenues while delivering an unparalleled experience to its cherished citizens,” exclaimed Carl Briganti, the visionary President and CEO of CSS, Inc.

About Utah 

The State of Utah is known for having some of the best skiing in the country and it has been coined as “Silicon Slopes” as one of the  most vibrant and fastest growing tech centers in the nation. The state is the 13th-largest by area within the fifty U.S. states, with a population over three million, it is the 30th-most-populous and 11th-least-densely populated. Urban development is mostly concentrated in two areas: the Wasatch Front in the north-central part of the state, which is home to roughly two-thirds of the population and includes the capital city, Salt Lake City; and Washington County in the south, with more than 170,000 residents.

The state has a highly diversified economy, with major sectors including transportation, education, information technology and research, government services, and mining; it is also a major tourist destination for outdoor recreation. In 2013, the U.S. Census Bureau estimated that Utah had the second-fastest-growing population of any state.

About Utah – Office of State Debt Collection (OSDC)

The Office of State Debt Collection (OSDC)’s mission is to maximize receipt of money to the State of Utah by effectively managing and collecting state receivables.

About – Utah Department of Technology Services (DTS) 

The state of Utah Department of Technology Services (DTS) provides innovative, secure, and cost-effective technology solutions that are convenient and empower the State’s partner agencies to better serve and simplify the lives of Utah residents.

For more information, please visit http://utah.gov

About CSS

CSS, Inc. is a leading provider of complete enterprise-level Financial Ecosystems for the financial services industry. Our diverse range of solutions caters to all verticals and allows businesses to modernize their revenue and payment management systems by consolidating them into a single, unified enterprise-level cloud-based financial ecosystem with a wide range of fully integrated merchant services. This comprehensive solution unifies all areas of the enterprise, ensuring the highest level of financial transparency.

As pioneers in the industry, CSS prides itself on continuously introducing an innovative line of products such as the revolutionary COLLECTOR IQ+ & IMPACT IQ+. This powerful application seamlessly integrates Ai and Machine Learning into the debt-recovery workflows, providing both system administrators and agents with an intuitive and powerful set of dynamic tools for an unparalleled experience. Discover the future of financial management with CSS.

To learn more about how municipalities are leveraging CSS’s Cloud Financial Ecosystem, please visit https://www.cssimpact.com/collections or download our brochure at http://brochure.cssimpact.com.

On June 29, 2023, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking clarifying how consumers may revoke consent to receive calls or texts under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The FCC is accepting comments on the proposed rule until July 31, 2023.

There are three issues on which the FCC is requesting comment:

A. Revocation of Consent in any Reasonable Way

The FCC proposes to codify its 2015 ruling that a consumer may revoke prior express consent to receive autodialed or prerecorded voice calls through any reasonable means. Per the FCC’s commentary, consumers only need to clearly express a desire not to receive further calls or text messages, including words such as “stop,” “revoke,” “end,” or “opt out.” Revocation could be done by text message, voicemail, or email to any telephone number or email address where the consumer can reasonably expect to reach the caller. Doing so would create a rebuttable presumption that the consumer has revoked consent in a reasonable way.

Callers, however, could not designate an exclusive means to request revocation of consent. If a text initiator uses a texting protocol that does not allow reply texts, it would be required to provide a clear and conspicuous disclosure that return texts are not received and provide a reasonable alternative to revoke consent. Callers would be allowed to provide evidence to rebut the presumption that the revocation was reasonable.

The proposed rule also would require requests to revoke consent to be honored within 24 hours, although the FCC suggested it was open to a stricter rule requiring revocations to be honored immediately.

The Commission additionally proposed requiring package delivery companies to offer recipients the ability to opt out of future notifications, which must be honored immediately, and if a residential telephone subscriber requests to not receive artificial or prerecorded voice calls, the caller must record the request and put the subscriber’s name and phone number on the do-not-call list, within 24 hours of such request.

B. Sending Revocation Confirmation Text Messages

The FCC further proposes to codify its prior ruling that a one-time text message confirming a consumer’s request for no further text messages does not violate the TCPA, provided the message only confirms the opt-out request and does not include any marketing or promotional information.

The FCC is considering expanding that ruling to allow the one-time confirmation text to include a request for clarification of what the consumer is opting out of in situations where the consumer receives several different types of messages from the texter. The clarification message cannot include any marketing or promotional information and no response from the consumer must be taken to mean they are opting out of all messages.

C. Wireless Subscribers May Be Able to Revoke Consent to Receive Notices From Their Provider

A prior Commission ruling provided that wireless carriers did not need to obtain prior express consent to send messages to their subscribers if the subscribers are not charged. The FCC now proposes to narrow that exemption to apply only if certain conditions are satisfied:

1. Calls and texts are initiated only to an existing subscriber at a number maintained by the wireless provider;
2. Calls and texts must state the name and contact information of the provider (for calls that must be stated at the beginning of the call);
3. Calls and texts must not include any telemarketing, solicitation, or advertising;
4. Calls and texts must be concise — one minute or less or 160 characters or less;
5. The provider may initiate up to three calls or text messages during any 30-day period;
6. The provider must offer an easy means to opt out of future messages for each message or call; and
7. Opt-out requests must be honored immediately.

The FCC requests comments on these proposed rules, specifically whether the time frames are reasonable, situations where opt-out requests cannot be quickly processed, the type of evidence that would rebut the presumption that revocation was done in a reasonable way, and whether there are other situations where exemptions to the prior express consent requirement should remain.

CAMAS, Wash. — The Intelitech Group™ introduces LEVERAGE™ and OPTIQ™, new solutions that improve decision-making through evidence.

LEVERAGE is the next generation of Intelitech’s score, data, and analytics solutions. It introduces several new features for applying the right amount of the right kind of effort against account inventories. “Using data and technology to make better decisions is the core of what LEVERAGE provides.” Said Bryan Houston, Managing Partner at The Intelitech Group.

[article_ad]

See your agency and the industry through a new lens.

OPTIQ establishes continuous improvement through tracking historical and comparative KPIs along with a framework for safe experiments to change agency operations. “I am proud of the work of our team and their ability to bring something to the market nobody else has done.  OPTIQ logically allows agencies to see a clear path to profitability.” Houston said. 

To learn more on how to take advantage of these new solutions, click here.

About Intelitech

The Intelitech Group pioneered the use of machine learning based models in account segmentation and prioritization. Intelitech continues to be on the forefront of innovation with technology-enabled solutions delivered by dedicated consultants. As a result, our customers have made confident, evidence-based business decisions for over 20 years.

SACRAMENTO, Calif — RMAI recently acted in response to reports from many RMAI members that they have noticed an unexplained exponential rise in complaints filed with the Better Business Bureau (BBB) against their companies. Upon investigation, RMAI identified that this rise in BBB complaints coincided with the release of two YouTube videos informing consumers how to remove credit report entries through the BBB, drawing no distinction between legitimately owed debt and fraudulent debt. Coinciding with the rise in BBB complaints, RMAI members also reported an increase in complaints with the credit bureaus and on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau consumer complaint portal which were referenced in one of the videos.

RMAI leaders immediately began investigating the increase in BBB complaints against their own companies and working with their local BBBs to dig deeper into the source of the complaints. Not surprisingly, the complaints all had similar, if not the exact language suggested in the YouTube videos.

RMAI reached out to our colleagues at the national BBB as well as the Consumer Data Industry Association sharing details of the investigations conducted. Both looked into the complaints from their side. The national BBB reached out to the local network of BBBs. On July 18, the national BBB sent a notice to local BBBs with guidance on handling any complaints coming in containing template language similar to that presented in the videos. The BBB advised that when a complaint filed with the BBB seeks to eliminate a debt and only minimally alleges problems with collection activities, BBBs are authorized to request substantiation of the alleged problems with collection activities. If none is provided, the BBB can reject the complaint.

RMAI’s swift action is expected to compel the rejection of frivolous complaints. If, however, these complaints continue, please notify RMAI Executive Director, Jan Stieger at jstieger@rmaintl.org or 916-482-2462. Please indicate the dates of the complaints as well as the local BBB where they were filed.

RMAI will continue vigilantly monitoring this situation as part of its ongoing effort to protect RMAI members and the receivables management industry from unethical activities.

About RMAI

Receivables Management Association International (RMAI) is a nonprofit trade association representing more than 600 companies that purchase or support the purchase of performing and nonperforming receivables on the secondary market. The RMAI Receivables Management Certification Program is celebrating its 10th anniversary in 2023. Together with RMAI’s Code of Ethics, the Certification Program sets the global standard within the receivables industry due to the rigorous uniform standards of best practice which focus on protecting consumers. More information about RMAI is available at www.rmaintl.org.

In an era of workforce shortages, organizations are looking at all their options to improve employee efficiency and productivity. For some, that means adding a payment platform that is compatible with your current workflow system. But it is important to ensure the payment platform has some key features to accelerate the payment process. Let’s look at a few of those.

Payments, payments, payments

Digital payments are commonplace. So much so that the total transaction value of digital payments in the United States is estimated to be $2.041 trillion in 2023. And the digital payments market in the U.S. is expected to reach $3.528 trillion by 2027.

[article_ad]

While some expressed concern about the security of making payments online, those fears have clearly dissipated. A recent survey showed that 64% of U.S. consumers think paying online is secure. Another 65% reportedly prefer to use online methods to pay regular monthly bills (car payment, cell phone, mortgage, recurring medical bills, etc.). And another 57% say they prefer digital methods to pay infrequent bills (one-time medical bills, court fines, insurance payments, etc.).

This means that your employees must process all these payments. But what happens when a payment is denied? Employees must now investigate the reason for the denial and manually update any incorrect account information in the hopes that the charge will now be approved. Your employees must also manually review and reconcile all these transactions.

These are just some of the tasks an integrated payment platform can handle for you.

Automatically update accounts

With many of these payments being made with a credit card, some of the credit card information will inevitably be out of date. We’ve all experienced trying to make a payment, but the charge was denied because the date on the saved credit card was expired. Now imagine having hundreds or thousands of those. That’s a lot of information that needs to be updated.

But what if your payment platform was able to connect with the credit card companies to automatically update debit and credit card information? That would certainly eliminate the task of chasing down and updating this information manually. After all, there are more important things your employees could be doing. ​

Updated transaction information

How many times has a customer called about a problem with an account, yet your employee doesn’t see the same thing as the customer? Or several payments failed to settle and now reversals are needed? Inevitably, the employee must access multiple systems to get updated information. This is because your current platform doesn’t fully integrate with your system of record. And your employees are forced to access multiple systems to gather all the necessary information.

Modern, innovative payment platforms that integrate with your core operating system will enable automated status updates as well as easy batch reversals. These features provide real-time updates on all transactions and allow your employees to reverse multiple posts with just a few clicks.

Your employee will no longer have to analyze and compare multiple reports from different systems, then manually enter individual reversals one at a time.

Chargebacks or transactions that do not settle due to insufficient funds are automatically posted as a batch file. This allows employees to reverse the transaction in minutes – improving efficiency and accuracy.

Enhanced reconciliation

It is time-consuming to review and reconcile all transactions to determine:

• If a payment has been successfully deposited into the given trust accounts.
• If any payments need to be reversed due to insufficient funds or a chargeback needs to occur.
• If funds need to be transferred from one trust account to another.​

These manual processes can be a nightmare for employees and organizations, as multiple errors can easily be introduced.

Again, if your payment platform doesn’t fully integrate, your employees are stuck completing these manual, time-consuming tasks.

However, a payment platform that fully integrates with your system of record can provide enhanced reporting capabilities. With configurable reports, employees get clear visibility into how much has been deposited into each trust account and what amounts must be transferred to different accounts. This helps take the guesswork out of payments reconciliation and helps streamline your daily operations.

Say hello to efficiency

Your employees are working hard. So it’s incumbent on you to give them the tools they need to be more efficient and productive at their jobs. And a payment platform that fully integrates with your current workflow system is one of those tools. The right all-in-one platform will revolutionize your collection processes and it will free your employees for more important assignments.

New York, NY — Sedric.ai (“Sedric AI “), a pioneer in AI-driven compliance solutions for consumer finance firms, today announced that accounts recovery management (ARM) industry veteran David Sargent has been named Director of Sales. Sargent, who brings more than 30 years of experience in the ARM industry as an entrepreneur and sales executive, will expand and strengthen Sedric AI’s U.S. client relationships. 

“David is well-known for helping to transform the debt collection industry from a paper-based, dialer-focused sector into a more digitized industry,” said Nir Laznik, Co-Founder and CEO at Sedric AI. “His sense for innovation and extensive business experience brings additional expertise to help our clients boost collections while minimizing risks and navigating the current economic and regulatory climate. David is deeply familiar with the ARM ecosystem and we are thrilled to welcome him to our team.”

“I’m excited to join Nir and the Sedric AI team on their mission to bring advanced AI technology to the ARM industry,” said Sargent. “Throughout my career, I’ve seen the transformative impact technology can have for debt collection firms. Sedric AI’s platform can help alleviate a number of challenges that the industry is currently facing at the compliance, operational, and human resource levels. The insights it provides helps compliance and operations teams work better together, creating the first love story, so to say, between these two functions that are usually at odds.”

Prior to Sedric AI, Sargent served as the National Account Director at LiveVox. Before that, he either co-founded, or led several successful ARM tech ventures, ranging from contact center solutions to a cloud-based collection software company that was acquired by Fiserv. 

[article_ad]

This appointment is another important milestone in the company’s U.S. expansion where AI-based RegTech solutions are in growing demand due to tightening consumer protection regulations. Over the past 12 months, Sedric AI has onboarded numerous high-profile financial services companies across lending and collection, trading, and foreign exchange. The company has built out its platform to help collectors and creditors optimize their entire compliance and operations cycle, from real-time agent assistance and AI summarization to automated QA, and personalized coaching. Sedric AI has also added new documentation capabilities to alleviate the ever-growing reporting and auditing burden. Collectors using the application have seen significant improvements in their business, including a 30% increase in outcomes and a 40% decrease in compliance violations. 

About Sedric AI

Sedric AI is a compliance excellence platform for consumer finance organizations. With AI-based real-time monitoring, detection, and analysis of all consumer interactions, Sedric AI ensures customer protection, minimizes risk and expedites business growth. Sedric AI empowers compliance teams to quickly apply new laws and regulations across their growing business operations and enables them to focus on high-risk events across traditional and digital channels. The company was established by Nir Laznik and Eyal Peleg in 2020 and is proud to serve consumer finance organizations on three continents. It was recently awarded Most Promising Fintech Startup by CitiBank and Visa. For more, please visit: https://www.sedric.ai/