One of insideARM’s top priorities is making sure to inform but not overwhelm. That is why our editorial team only brings you the 3 biggest stories each week. To start the month of July we had a landmark Supreme Court decision, some important things to consider when engaging with consumers, and a new data privacy law that leaves a lot to be desired. Read on below for a rundown of those articles and why we felt you needed to see them!

The week started with a Supreme Court decision that will have ramifications far beyond the ARM industry. In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Riamondo the Supreme Court, by a 6-3 margin, overruled a legal principle called “Chevron Deference”. This longstanding doctrine required courts to defer to the statutory interpretations of government agencies (like the CFPB) if the statute itself was ambiguous. While Loper involved commercial fishing, this decision will have an impact on any industry where there is administrative oversight- which is all of them, including the ARM indsutry. One Justice argued that this places statutory interpretation back with the courts where it belongs, another considered the Chevron doctrine a constitutional violation that gave too much power to the executive branch, while one found the Loper decision to be judicial overreach that takes the interpretation of industry-specific statutes away from the industry experts. While it is unclear what the immediate aftermath will be, long term, expect more challenges to government agency actions and more private litigation. Keep this on your radar and we’ll keep you updated with pertinent developments. 

On Tuesday, we highlighted an article about engaging with consumers during a year of financial uncertainty for many. 2024 has truly been a roller coaster of emotion for consumers with sentiment about the economy hitting 3-year highs one month followed by nearly 2-year lows the next. With that in mind, the question must be asked: How do you talk to delinquent consumers who may have been hit hardest by post-pandemic inflation? The answer is surprisingly simple. On their terms. When reaching out about collecting on a debt an empathetic message and flexibility with repayment plans is key but, it is just as important to engage these consumers when they are ready to hear the message and through their preferred communication channel. Collectors and agencies should always be prepared to adjust to not only changing technology but also to the changing sentiments of consumers.

We finished the short week with another data privacy law being enacted as Rhode Island passed the “Rhode Island Data Transparency and Privacy Protection Act.” While many of the recent data privacy laws have been seen as reasonable measures taken to give consumers control over their personal data, the language of the Rhode Island law is confusing and, at times, seemingly impossible to adhere to. For example, one section requires companies to list “all third parties to whom [they]…may sell customers’ personally identifiable information,” while also not defining “personally identifiable information.” For those operating in or working with consumers in Rhode Island, this law is certainly one that needs to be analyzed. The chaotic nature of the law may also lead to future amendments to fix the language before its January 1, 2026, effective date.

Thanks again for trusting insideARM to keep you up to date on all that is important in the ARM industry! If you still feel out of the loop, you can see our recap for the week of June 24th here.

We also provide resources for anything the collections world can throw at you! Research Assistant by insideARM has a library of searchable documents, a reference tool for state law comparisons, and a weekly peer call where members can ask questions and discuss all the latest ARM news! Click here to learn more!

Rhode Island Senate Bill 2500, the “Rhode Island Data Transparency and Privacy Protection Act,” was enacted on June 28 without Gov. Dan McKee’s signature. The Act will go into effect Jan. 1, 2026.

This makes Rhode Island the 19th state to enact a comprehensive consumer data privacy law following  California, Virginia, Colorado, Utah, Connecticut, Iowa, Indiana, Tennessee, Montana, Texas, Oregon, Delaware, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Kentucky, Nebraska, Maryland, and Minnesota. 

Information Sharing Practices

The Act begins with a section titled “Information Sharing Practices,” which broadly applies to any commercial website (undefined) or internet service provider conducting business in Rhode Island or with customers in the state. Despite the title, this section has little to do with “sharing.”  If such an entity collects, stores and ss customers’ “personally identifiable information” (undefined), its controller must, in its customer agreement or on its website, “identify all third parties to whom the controller has sold or may sell customers’ personally identifiable information,” among other things.

This poses several problems. First, it would be almost impossible for a controller to predict every specific third party to whom it may sell personally identifiable information at any time in the future.

Second, and moreover, the term “personally identifiable information,” is undefined yet referred to 10 times in the Act, plus one reference to undefined “personally identifiable data.”  While “personal data” is defined, it is not clear that these are all one in the same.

Curiously, this section contains a lengthy list of entities and information that are exempt from the Act that differs from the shorter list provided in a separate section titled “Construction” summarized below, though there is some overlap.

Applicability

Apart from the “Information Sharing Practices” section, the Act applies to for-profit entities that conduct business in Rhode Island or that produce products or services that are targeted to residents of Rhode Island and that during the preceding calendar year did any of the following:

1. Controlled or processed the personal data of not less than 35,000 customers, excluding personal data controlled or processed solely for the purpose of completing a payment transaction.

2. Controlled or processed the personal data of not less than 10,000 customers and derived more than 20% of their gross revenue from the sale of personal data.

Oddly, these same thresholds are repeated in the sections titled “Customer Rights,” “Exercising Customer Rights,” and “Controller and Processor Responsibilities.”

Exemptions

In addition to the list of exemptions contained in the “Information Sharing Practices” section, the “Construction” section provides the Act does not apply to:

1. A financial institution, an affiliate of a financial institution, or data subject to Title V of the federal Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and its implementing regulations;

2. Information or data subject to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA);

3. Personally identifiable information or any other information collected, used, processed, or disclosed by or for a customer reporting agency as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(f);

4. Any entity recognized as a tax exempt organization under the Internal Revenue Code;

5. A contractor, subcontractor, or agent of a state agency or local unit of government when working for that state agency or local unit of government.

Additionally, the definition of “customer” excludes “an individual acting in a commercial or employment context or as an employee, owner, director, officer or contractor of a company, partnership, sole proprietorship, nonprofit or government agency whose communications or  transactions with the controller occur solely within the context of that individual’s role with the company, partnership, sole proprietorship, nonprofit or government agency.”

Customer Rights

The Act provides a customer with the right to:

1. Confirm whether their personal data is being processed;

2. Correct inaccuracies;

3. Delete personal data provided by, or obtained about, the consumer;

4. Obtain a portable copy of the personal data processed;

5. Opt out of the processing of their personal data if for the purposes of targeted advertising, the sale of personal data, or profiling in furtherance of solely automated decisions that produce legal or similarly significant effects concerning the customer.

Sensitive Data

A controller is prohibited from processing sensitive data without a customer’s consent.

“Sensitive data” is defined as “personal data that includes data revealing racial or ethnic origin, religious beliefs, mental or physical health condition or diagnosis, sex life, sexual orientation or citizenship or immigration status, the processing of genetic or biometric data for the purpose of uniquely identifying an individual, personal data collected from a known child, or precise  geolocation data.”

Contract Requirements

A contract between a controller and a processor must clearly set forth instructions for processing data, the nature and purpose of processing, the type of data subject to processing, the duration of processing, and the rights and obligations of both parties. It must also require that the processor:

1. Ensure that each person processing personal data is subject to a duty of confidentiality;

2. At the controller’s direction, delete or return all personal data to the controller as requested at the end of the provision of services, unless retention of the personal data is required by law;

3. Upon the reasonable request of the controller, make available to the controller all information in its possession necessary to demonstrate the processor’s compliance with the obligations of the Act;

4. After providing the controller an opportunity to object, engage any subcontractor pursuant to a written contract that requires the subcontractor to meet the obligations of the processor with respect to the personal data;

5. Allow, and cooperate with, reasonable assessments by the controller or the controller’s designated assessor, or the processor may arrange for a qualified and independent assessor to assess the processor’s policies and technical and organizational measures in support of the obligations of the Act.

Data Protection Assessments

A controller must conduct and document a data protection assessment for processing activities that present a heightened risk of harm to a customer, including:

1. The processing of personal data for purposes of targeted advertising;

2. The sale of personal data;

3. The processing of personal data for purposes of profiling that presents a reasonably foreseeable risk of unfair or deceptive treatment of, or unlawful disparate impact on, customers, financial, physical or reputational injury to customers, a physical or other intrusion upon the solitude or seclusion, or the private affairs or concerns, of customers, where such intrusion would be offensive to a reasonable person, or other substantial injury to customers;

4. The processing of sensitive data.

Enforcement

A violation constitutes a deceptive trade practice, and an intentional disclosure of personal data in violation of the Act may result in a fine of not less than $100 and no more than $500 for each such disclosure. The Attorney General has sole authority to enforce the Act, which contains no cure provision.

Impression

While similar in many respects to some of the post-California comprehensive data privacy laws, this legislation appears to have been cobbled together in a hasty and haphazard fashion, which may create compliance issues for those trying to align its compliance requirements with those of other states. Like California, it is anticipated that this act will undergo numerous corrective amendments in the next legislative session. For a chart comparing the state comprehensive data privacy acts, and more information and insight from Maurice Wutscher on data privacy and security laws and legislation, click here.

At the end of 2023, economists were hoping for a “boring” 2024—just a relatively uneventful year thanks to a soft landing with downward trends for inflation, unemployment, and interest rates. But instead, the first half of 2024 has been an economic roller coaster for consumer spending, resulting in a whiplash for consumer sentiment. While the soft landing may still be on track, that track doesn’t appear to be as straightforward as hoped. There is an onslaught of mixed messages:

Consumers are proving to be more resilient than expected as they continue to spend, staving off what had been predicted to be an inevitable recession

versus

Consumers are actually financially stretched from depleting their pandemic-era savings and battling ongoing inflation and higher interest rates

And between these highs and lows, a serious fact remains for businesses: delinquency transition rates have increased across all debt types. But for companies looking to recover those delinquent funds, understanding how to communicate with consumers where they are in this roller coaster can mean the difference between repayment and write-off.    

Let’s look at the recent trends between consumer spending and consumer sentiment and how businesses can effectively engage with customers in the event of delinquency.

Roller Coaster of Consumer Spending

Up and down the economic roller coaster goes, but the ride may be feeling different for different subsets of consumers: Americans with higher incomes have continued to spend at healthy rates, yet lower- and middle-income consumers are starting to pull back.

This “split-spending” pattern hasn’t been the case in recent years—pandemic-era benefits, a savings surplus, and rapid wage growth resulted in consistent spending rates across all income groups. But as excess pandemic savings decline at the same time as both inflation and interest rates increase, lower-income consumers are feeling the squeeze while higher-income consumers are mostly unaffected.

And even when there is a spending uptick in the lower-income sector, like we saw in April 2024, what these consumers are spending on and how they are paying for it is still quite different from their higher-income counterparts. These spending patterns show that consumers are “trading down,” or changing the type or quantity of purchases for better pricing and value, and are starting to put more everyday bills on credit cards—and in turn, credit card delinquencies and charge-offs for low-income consumers are returning to their pre-pandemic levels faster than other groups.

Regardless of where on the financial spectrum individuals may fall, an overall slowdown is expected. According to a Fitch Ratings report, annual consumer spending growth will lower from 2.2% in 2023 to 1.9% in 2024, with much of the slowdown expected in the second half of the year as income growth decelerates, pandemic savings dissipate, and higher interest rates persist.

And the Whiplash of Consumer Sentiment

So how is this roller coaster affecting how consumers feel about the economy and their own financial outlook? Overall, consumers are reporting they plan to spend less money on discretionary items in the coming months, with approximately 40% citing affordability constraints due to “economic reasons,” but that doesn’t quite capture the true whiplash of consumer sentiment we are seeing month over month:

• January: Consumer surveys find that 43% of respondents describe the economy as very good—but 59% are also worried about inflation.

• February: The Consumer Sentiment Index fell in the February 2024 survey, down from the more positive outlook reported in January.

• March: U.S. consumer sentiment rose unexpectedly in March to reach the highest it’s been in nearly three years.

• April: Consumer confidence deteriorates and falls to its lowest level in more than a year and a half.

• May: The Consumer Sentiment Index reports the largest decline in the index in approximately three years amid worsening concerns around inflation.

Despite these swings, recent consumer surveys have found that 22% of respondents expressed feeling less discomfort about spending a lot of money when using a credit card, and more than half reported they are more likely to make impulse purchases when using cards. Whatever the sentiment, people are feeling some confidence to continue to spend and continue to carry a debt balance, with 41% of consumers reporting a revolving month-to-month balance on their credit cards.

Looking at the dramatic spikes and dips in sentiment makes knowing how to message and engage delinquent consumers critical to eliciting commitments for repayment—especially when we already noted above that delinquencies and charge-offs are returning to pre-pandemic levels for certain income sectors.

How to Handle the Roller Coaster and Whiplash and Effectively Engage With Delinquent Consumers

So we’ve seen how although the roller coaster of spending trends may actually be split into two different tracks between income levels, consumers across the board are experiencing an almost monthly back-and-forth whiplash in their financial outlook and sentiment—how are debt collection and engagement strategies supposed to keep up when consumers are on this wild ride? In today’s world, traditional methods of outbound calling and mass blast emails are the epitome of “spray and pray” chasing the tail of the roller coaster and rarely reaching one of the consumers holding on.

To engage with today’s consumers, customization is key. Your debt recovery communications need to match where individual consumers are with the:

• Right message – engage with empathy and options for repayment
• Right channel – engage through their preferred method of communication
• Right time – engage compliantly when they are ready

This means most businesses need to shift the mindset of debt resolution operations from only being focused on roll rates and placements to a more consumer-centric engagement strategy. Yet many collection agencies still practice call-and-collect (and struggle due to declining right-party-contact rates and tightening regulations), and even those using email will typically only develop basic messaging for all customer communications.

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo overruling the Chevron doctrine. This decision marks a watershed moment in administrative law, fundamentally altering the landscape for judicial review of agency actions under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that the APA requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority. The Court explicitly rejected the Chevron doctrine, which had required courts to defer to administrative agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous statutes. Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, emphasized that the judicial role is to “say what the law is,” reaffirming the principle established in Marbury v. Madison.

The Chevron doctrine, established in 1984, mandated that courts defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute. This deference often gave agencies broad leeway to define the limits of their statutory authority, making it challenging for businesses, organizations, and individuals to successfully challenge agency actions in court. The doctrine came under intense scrutiny in recent years, with critics arguing that it undermined the separation of powers by allowing agencies to effectively legislate.

In Loper, several New Jersey herring fishers challenged the National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS) authority under the Magnuson-Stevens Act (the Act) to require fishers to pay the salaries of federal observers on their vessels. The Act itself is silent on the relevant point, but applying Chevron deference, the D.C. Circuit (over a dissent) ruled in favor of the NMFS, deferring to the agency’s interpretation of the Act. The Supreme Court’s decision to overrule Chevron means that courts will no longer be forced to defer to agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous statutes, instead exercising their own judgment to determine the best reading of the law.

The Court’s opinion traces the history of judicial deference to agency interpretations, noting that respect for executive branch interpretations was historically based on the thoroughness and consistency of the agency’s reasoning. However, Chevron‘s broad rule of deference, the Court found, was a departure from this tradition and incompatible with the APA’s mandate that courts decide all relevant questions of law.

Justice Gorsuch penned a concurring opinion emphasizing the historical role of federal courts in independently interpreting federal laws, without deference to executive agencies. He critiqued the Chevron deference doctrine as a departure from traditional judicial responsibilities and supported the Court’s decision to overrule, asserting that it restores the judiciary’s role in law interpretation as envisioned by the framers of the Constitution. In Justice Gorsuch’s opinion, “[p]roper respect for precedent helps ‘keep the scale of justice even and steady,’ by reinforcing decisional rules consistent with the law upon which all can rely … But that respect does not require, nor does it readily tolerate, a steadfast refusal to correct mistakes.”

Justice Thomas also concurred with the Court’s decision, emphasizing that Chevron deference violates the Constitution’s separation of powers. He argued that Chevron compelled judges to abdicate their Article III judicial power by requiring them to defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes, even if they believed another interpretation was correct. Justice Thomas underscored that Chevron deference not only compromised judicial independence but also expanded executive power beyond constitutional limits, disrupting the balance envisioned by the framers to safeguard individual liberty.

Justice Kagan, joined by Justice Sotomayor, wrote for the dissent defending Chevron deference as a cornerstone of administrative law that has functioned effectively for 40 years. She argued that Chevron appropriately allocates interpretive responsibility between courts and agencies, allowing agencies with expertise and accountability to resolve statutory ambiguities. Justice Kagan criticized the majority for judicial overreach and highlighted the disruption and uncertainty that overturning Chevron will cause, given its deep entrenchment in administrative law.

Justice Jackson recused herself because of her involvement in Loper as a judge at the D.C. Circuit, but joined the dissent as it applied to related case Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce.

The decision has significant implications for administrative law. By overruling Chevron, the Court has shifted the balance of power away from federal agencies, creating an even playing field in administrative rulemaking and judicial review of agency rules. This change is expected to increase the likelihood of successful challenges to agency actions under the APA, as courts will now independently interpret statutes without necessarily deferring to agencies’ interpretations. It may also make agencies more cautious in issuing far-reaching rules, especially ones changing interpretations issued by agencies in prior administrations.

There is never a shortage of news in the ARM space, but how do you determine what is worth knowing? That’s where we come in! Our editorial team brings you only the most important news each week. Last week in the ARM industry was a true mixed bag with news from the Colorado legislature, a warning shot from the CFPB, and some inter-industry data to help forecast the remainder of the year. For highlights of these stories and why we at insideARM felt you needed to hear about them, read on!

Tuesday’s news came from Colorado with an article about a new law amending the state’s consumer protection laws. Some of the major changes for debt collectors included: having to provide their name and original creditor’s name in legal actions, must possess full authority settle the debt, and there are $1,500 penalties for violations of this law that can be assessed by the state administrator. On the bright side, the law also takes aim at credit service organizations, who must now pay an annual fee and register with the state administrator, and debt-management service providers, who cannot provide services without a debt management plan for the consumer. While the law is another example of states placing restrictions on debt collectors, it is refreshing to see some movement against credit service organizations and debt-management service providers. 

On Wednesday we highlighted more CFPB comments regarding medical debt. While the Bureau has been aggressive recently in banning credit reporting on medical debt, this time they took aim at medical financing products. Their recent blog post discussed marketing practices, incentives given to healthcare providers, and the high-interest and/or deferred interest provisions in many medical credit cards. They claim that these products are being marketed too aggressively to consumers, that healthcare providers may have an ethical dilemma regarding incentives vs. the interest of the consumer, and that deferred interest rates are confusing to many consumers. As we have mentioned many times before, if the CFPB is talking about it, regulation will not be far behind. Any industry members working in this space should prepare accordingly and take note of the specific concerns put forward by the Bureau.

We finished the week with a look at the industry trends for the rest of 2024 and into the new year. In the article, a poll of ARM Industry participants provides emerging trends, the top collection channels, and the main operational challenges facing collections. Unsurprisingly, AI took the top spot in emerging trends with data analytics and digital collections close behind. Phone calls, text messages, and emails remain the most common channels for collecting debt while on-line portals have yet to take off. Finally, customer engagement was identified as the top operational challenge facing the industry, while many others are concerned about complying with ever-changing regulations. To stay competitive in the ARM space, its important to know where the industry as a whole is going. This article helps provide some of that insight. 

We at insideARM are extremely thankful that you continue to trust us to keep you up to date on the latest developments in the ARM Industry! Been out for a bit? You can see our recap for the week of June 17th here.

You’ve taken a great first step by staying informed, but the next step is to turn that knowledge into action. Sound daunting? Not to worry! We can help! insideARM’s Research Assistant hosts a weekly peer group meeting every Monday. Our members discuss the latest news and discuss their collection, legal, and compliance problems with other industry veterans. Click here to learn more about what a Research Assistant membership provides and how you can try it all out for free!

In the evolving landscape of collections and loss mitigation, understanding the operational challenges and emerging trends is crucial for developing effective strategies. So, we pulsed the industry to shed light on these aspects, offering valuable insights for industry professionals.

We reached out to US-based first and third-party collectors across various product areas, including credit card, student loan, mortgage, auto, HELOC, and personal loan.

AI and Digital Present Both a Challenge and an Opportunity for Collections Leaders

Looking ahead, AI and automation are expected to have the most significant impact on the financial services industry. Findings indicate that nearly 40% of respondents see AI as a significant area of opportunity and future impact. However, it is also the most misunderstood and challenging area.

AI offers significant potential for transforming collections, but there’s a clear need for education on its current and future capabilities. Successful organizations will have a roadmap and/or a reliable guide to follow through this transition. It’ll be critical to understand what AI can and cannot do, and how to strategically employ a cautious and effective implementation.

Repayment Strategies and the Human Touch

Digital portal options for repayment meet consumer preference needs and reduce costs for collections operations, as seen by nearly 40% of respondents. However, digital does not solve the larger problem of ensuring repayment commitment. The struggle remains to get people to adhere to a repayment plan. Traditional methods like letters and SMS still face the same challenges, even when digitized.

Regardless of channel, collections strategies should define how customers are segmented and how customer interaction channels are designed. Other strategic considerations include timing, messaging and the stages of collections that accounts pass through prior to charge-off. Strategic decisioning should be based on the best and most predictive internal and external data points available. Collections strategies should ebb and flow based on customer behavior and performance.

“Digital portal options for repayment meet consumer preference needs and reduce costs for collections operations, as seen by nearly 40% of respondents.”

While there is clear adoption of digitally enabled collection technologies, challenges with customer engagement persist. Respondents noted significant challenges in the use of digital tools due to low adoption rates. Customers often find it easier to disengage with automated systems than with live representatives. This underscores the continued relevance and effectiveness of a human touch in collections. Organizations who keep a focus on both digital and human intervention will require comprehensive training programs to enhance customer interactions and outcomes.

Operational Challenges Remain Unchanged

The information we’ve gathered highlights the critical challenges and trends in the collections industry, emphasizing the need for effective customer engagement, compliance, and technological adoption. With Bridgeforce’s expertise in collections and loss mitigation, organizations can better prepare for the future, leveraging advanced strategies to improve outcomes and navigate the complexities of the industry.

Regulatory Compliance: Ever Important and Consistently Shifting

Regulatory demands (state and federal) continue to be a significant burden within collections organizations, requiring constant vigilance and modifications. This vigilance is especially important as communication channels transition more to digital options. To best navigate these complexities, FIs should assess their current state of compliance and put into place frameworks and controls to remain compliant while driving efficiency and mitigating risks.

Over the course of the last year, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) has increased its scrutiny of medical financing products, such as medical credit cards and installment loans. In July 2023, the CFPB and other federal agencies launched an inquiry into medical payment products, discussed here. Last week, when the CFPB announced its proposed rule to ban the reporting of medical debt on consumer reports, discussed here, it stated it was considering action related to medical financing products. Then this week, the CFPB published a blog examining how financial institutions market their products to healthcare providers in an effort to ensure “consumers aren’t pushed into medical payment products.” The CFPB’s ongoing discourse on this topic signals a potential regulatory crackdown may be coming.

Highlights from the CFPB’s blog include:

• Aggressive Marketing Practices: The CFPB states that it has received reports of medical payment products being aggressively marketed to consumers, often those who are financially vulnerable or eligible for financial assistance. The Bureau is particularly concerned about the tactics used to “push” these products onto consumers.
• Incentives for Healthcare Providers: The CFPB alleges that financial institutions are incentivizing healthcare providers to enroll patients in financing products. The CFPB is concerned about potential conflicts of interest and the ethical implications of such incentives (e.g., pushing interest-bearing products on consumers who cannot afford them or who may be eligible for other benefits or lower cost alternatives).
• High-Interest Rates and Deferred Interest: The CFPB’s research indicates that medical payment products often carry interest rates exceeding 25%. Additionally, the “deferred interest” feature of medical credit cards is, according to the CFPB, frequently misunderstood by consumers who are unaware that they can be charged interest retroactively for the entire period if they do not pay off their full balance before the end of the promotional period. This is a concern that the Bureau has been expressing, on and off, for over 10 years now.

According to the blog, the CFPB will be monitoring the incentives, marketing materials, and oversight financial institutions are providing to healthcare providers. The Bureau is also collaborating with the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services and Treasury to address these issues. The CFPB’s persistent focus on medical financing products suggests that regulatory action may be imminent. Industry participants should be prepared for potential new regulations and increased oversight and should examine their practices to determine if they are subject to the criticisms outlined by the Bureau in this recent blog post.

SANTA CLARA, Calif. — CSS, Inc., a leading innovator in financial technology solutions, proudly announces the successful implementation and deployment of its cutting-edge flagship platform, IMPACT Enterprise Financial Cloud Ecosystem, for Santa Clara County.

Santa Clara County has reaffirmed its commitment to technological advancement by systematically replacing legacy platforms with CSS, Inc.’s advanced modules of its financial ecosystem. This strategic transition not only modernizes the county’s financial operations, but also significantly enhances efficiency and automation. By integrating CSS’s innovative solutions with universally recognized platforms such as EPIC, the county ensures a robust and streamlined financial infrastructure, ultimately fostering better service delivery and improved financial recoveries for the County’s hospitals.

“We are thrilled to bring our financial cloud technologies to Santa Clara County,” said Carl Briganti, President and CEO of CSS, Inc. “This implementation is a testament to our dedication to providing a versatile and innovative financial solutions technology stack that meets and exceeds the specific demands of government state and local municipalities, as well as entities in the collections and financial services sectors. Our platform will continue to empower Santa Clara County to operate more efficiently and enhance financial recoveries for the County’s hospitals.”

Santa Clara County, often referred to as the “Heart of Silicon Valley,” is a region steeped in history and innovation. The county is dedicated to serving and promoting the well-being of its residents through various initiatives and partnerships that foster economic growth. By adopting cutting-edge technology solutions, Santa Clara County continues to lead in progressive governance and public service. With this new financial cloud, the county is poised to further its commitment to providing excellence in services to its citizens and businesses.

Future Innovations with AI Technology Stack

Building on this successful implementation, CSS, Inc. is excited to announce the forthcoming integration of a new AI-embedded technology stack within the IMPACT Enterprise Financial Cloud Ecosystem. This advanced technology will further enhance and scale automation, voice and digital engagement, and advanced cognitive data analysis. It will provide deeper insights through data science analytics, optimizing financial operations to deliver even greater efficiency and service quality.

About Santa Clara County

Santa Clara County, located at the southern end of San Francisco Bay, is known as the center of Silicon Valley. The county is renowned for its high-tech industry, world-class universities, and vibrant cultural scene. With a commitment to innovation and community service, Santa Clara County continues to lead in various sectors, including healthcare, education, and technology.

About CSS, Inc.

CSS, Inc. is a leading provider of financial technology solutions, dedicated to delivering innovative and integrated services that empower businesses across various industries. With a focus on automation, customization, and user-friendly interfaces, CSS, Inc. offers comprehensive financial platforms designed to enhance operational efficiencies and drive business success.

For more information on how CSS’s Financial Cloud can transform your organization’s financial operations, visit www.cssimpact.com or contact us at 877.277.4621.

ORCHARD PARK, N.Y. — Orion Capital Solutions, a nationally-licensed collection agency, has made a generous donation to the Make-A-Wish Foundation of America, an organization renowned for its efforts in granting life-changing wishes to children with critical illnesses. This contribution highlights the company’s commitment to social responsibility while underscoring the broader importance of community support through charitable donations.

“This is a cause we all care about. Every single employee understands the impact of a wish and we all wanted to support our local Make-A-Wish chapter. Our donation to the Make-A-Wish Foundation is a reflection of our commitment to making a positive impact and supporting the dreams of children facing critical illnesses. Together, we can create moments of joy and hope that inspire and uplift everyone involved.” – Kristin LoVallo, HR/Compliance Director at Orion Capital Solutions.

The Impact of Make-A-Wish Foundation

Since its inception, the Make-A-Wish Foundation has been a beacon of hope and joy for children facing severe medical challenges. By fulfilling wishes, the organization provides extraordinary experiences that can uplift the spirits of young patients and their families, often at a time when they need it most. 

These experiences range from dream vacations and meeting celebrities to receiving desired gifts or becoming someone for a day, such as a firefighter or a superhero. Each wish is tailored to the child’s unique dreams and aspirations, making their wish come true in a profoundly personal and impactful way.

Orion Gives Back

Orion Capital Solutions recognizes the profound responsibility that comes with being a leader in the community. Supporting charities, both large and small, is not just a moral obligation but a cornerstone of the company’s corporate ethos. By actively engaging in philanthropy, Orion Capital Solutions contributes to the well-being of those in need while fostering a culture of empathy and solidarity within the organization. 

This commitment to giving back enhances employee morale, instills a sense of pride and purpose, and reinforces the idea that the company’s success is intrinsically linked to the health and prosperity of the communities it serves. Empowering employees to participate in these charitable endeavors ensures that the collective efforts have a lasting and meaningful impact.

For more information about Orion Capital Solutions and its community involvement, please read more on the About page of their website. If you’re a client or customer and would like to stay informed about what’s happening at Orion, please follow Orion Capital Solutions on LinkedIn or Facebook for more news in the future.

About Make-A-Wish

The Make-A-Wish Foundation is a nonprofit organization that grants wishes to children between the ages of 3 and 18 who have critical illnesses. The foundation’s mission is to create life-changing wishes for children with progressive, degenerative, or malignant conditions that put their lives in jeopardy. The foundation’s founding principle is to grant the wish of every eligible child.

About Orion Capital Solutions

Orion Capital Solutions, LLC, headquartered in New York, is a professional, nationally licensed collection agency founded in 2018. With over 30 years of industry leadership experience, Orion provides exceptional services through technology integration and a compassionate team. Committed to aiding consumer financial freedom, Orion offers flexible payment options and creative problem-solving. As a member of RMAI and a Better Business Bureau accredited business, Orion stays abreast of all rapidly-evolving industry changes. Orion’s mission is to deliver trusted debt collection services to creditors while providing accessible payment options.

On June 6, the Governor of Colorado signed into law HB 1380 (the “Act”) which revised the state’s consumer protection laws related to debt collection, credit services organizations, and debt management service providers. Key provisions of the law included:

• Debt collectors must now include their name and the original creditor’s name in legal actions against consumers and possess full authority to settle the debt.
• Credit services organizations will be required to provide the state administrator with essential business information (including name and address) and pay an annual notification fee.
• The state administrator can issue cease-and-desist orders and impose penalties of up to $1,500 per violation of the Code.
• Debt-management service providers cannot provide their services to consumers unless they have prepared a debt management plan for the individual that, among other things, lists all the creditors that the service provider expects to participate, and not to participate, in the plan, as well as those that it expects to participate but will not grant concessions to the consumer.
• Providing the state administrator the ability to adopt rules regarding debt settlement service fees by March 1, 2025, provided the rules do not “unduly limit consumer access to debt management services programs based on available state and national data.”

The Act’s amendments will go into effect 91 days following final adjournment of the General Assembly, subject to approval by Colorado voters if a referendum would be filed.