Federal Reserve Indicators are Predictors of Collection Industry Accounts Volume.

If I had a crystal ball in my office that predicted business volume, I’d use it—you likely would, too! And yet, several reputable indicators can help you anticipate volume. The Federal Reserve releases its report on credit card charge-offs and delinquencies each quarter. These data points help indicate industry account volume, especially considering that 80% or more of the NCBA member firms’ collective volume is credit card related.

[article_ad]

In ProVest’s experience, we generally see a 9-12-month lag from when the charge-offs occur before our litigation clients see the volume. Additionally, delinquencies are a 3–6-month early indicator of charge-off volume. What does this mean?

Based on this timeline, our clients will likely see their account volume continuing to increase throughout the year and into early 2024. According to the recent report’s data, the trend is favorable. Charge-offs increased from Q4 to Q1 from 2.30 to 2.80%; delinquencies rose from 2.10 to 2.28% during the same period.

Charge-offs are now more than halfway recovered from the COVID low of 1.58% to the pre-pandemic high of about 3.70%. Delinquencies are nearly back from a pre-COVID high of 2.5% from the pandemic’s low of 1.45%. This indicates that a continued rebound of charge-off volume should be expected.

The Federal Reserve’s charts for the data I reference follow. The charts are easily downloadable in several formats. The next quarterly results will be released toward the end of August 2023.

Charge-off Rate on Credit Card Loans (link to data)

Delinquency Rate on Credit Card Loans (link to data)

While it seems early to start thinking about 2024 plans and strategies—since it is the summer, after all—based on key indicators—the industry’s account volume will continue to grow.

On July 11, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) held a hearing on issues surrounding medical debt and specifically, payment products. Not surprisingly, the invited experts and special guests taking part in the discussion predictably targeted some key themes that are of recent interest to the Bureau: trendy exploitative practices targeting vulnerable individuals, the inadequate protection of consumers in a predatory marketplace, and the urgent need for regulatory reform to address and alleviate these systemic problems. While the panel was comprised of four accomplished consumer rights advocates, representatives from the healthcare and financial services sectors were noticeably absent and did not have an opportunity to confirm or rebut any of the volatile claims made. In this article, we summarize the hearing and point out the need for a nuanced regulatory approach that considers the complexities faced by healthcare providers, emphasizes consumer responsibility, and acknowledges the importance of proper risk assessments pertaining to the payment products discussed.

Exploitation of Vulnerable Consumers

Most of Director Chopra’s dialogue with the panelists was focused on the destructive nature of medical credit cards and certain loans. According to their testimony, these financial products often target uninsured individuals or those who cannot afford co-pays, trapping them in a cycle of debt. Providers, they allege, are then guilty of purposefully “hiding the ball” by unfairly blending these financing concepts with their formal charity care, hardship, and government-payer programs. In doing so, they fail to provide adequate assistance that is mandated of them as nonprofit entities under Section 501(r) of the Internal Revenue Code and otherwise. Essentially, their position is that by steering patients towards high-interest credit products in an exploitative manner, it compromises the individual’s financial, mental, and physical well-being.

Inadequate Consumer Protections

According to the Director and the panelists, the lack of transparency and understanding among consumers regarding medical debt and payment products is a significant concern. They assert that many individuals are unaware of available financial assistance programs and are often not informed of their rights and available protections by their healthcare providers. The panelists further mentioned that the non-profit healthcare facilities are aggressively advertising these third-party medical financing services with a 0% introductory interest rate. They often spoke out against deferred interest and certain hidden finance charges that burden the patients with unexpected and exorbitant costs. 

Each was able to point to anecdotal evidence from their clients to support their position, but notably, none referred to statistical research. They also indicate that these payment products in the healthcare space are a disservice to patients because, through this process, the patient’s debt transforms from a healthcare debt, an obligation that comes with many consumer protections attached (such as the No Surprises Act and the CFPB’s new mandates on medical credit reporting) into credit card or purely financial debt, which is less regulated and easily subject to various loopholes.

The panelists also mentioned that these issues in the medical debt and payment product landscape disproportionately impact women and minority communities, which is a major focus point for the Bureau in recent policy making across the financial services landscape. Panelist Julia Char Gilbert, of the Colorado Center on Law and Policy, for example, claimed that the lack of accessibility and clarity in financial assistance processes further widens the equity gap, perpetuating systemic racism and classism.

Regulatory Reforms and Solutions

Director Chopra and the panelists were unified in suggesting that there is an urgent need for comprehensive regulatory reforms to address the exploitative practices outlined above. The recommendations put forward by experts and stakeholders were quite expansive and included:

• Banning credit reporting of all medical debt: Panelist Mona Shah, a Senior Director of Policy and Strategy at Community Catalyst, along with nearly all the panelists, advocated for the outright elimination of credit reporting for medical debt, implying the CFPB’s recent efforts in restricting such reporting was an incomplete solution.

• Eliminating deferred interest: Panelist Chi Chi Wu, a Senior Attorney at the Consumer Law Center, emphasized the importance of banning deferred interest outright. She suggested that the CFPB should close the existing loophole in the Card Act and restrict this exploitative practice once and for all.

• Strengthening Financial Assistance Programs: Panelist Jennifer Holloway of Tzedek DC and nearly all others stressed the importance of improving and simplifying Financial Assistance Programs processes, making them more accessible and user-friendly for individuals in need.

• Enhancing provider education….and enforcement(?): Director Chopra speculated that healthcare providers may not be aware of the technical practices in the medical loan industry and the true financial impact on patients, but believes they have an obligation to understand this. He and the other panelists emphasized that the providers must be better educated about the implications and consequences of medical credit products and even stated that the Bureau will strategize to see how to make that a reality. Chopra wants providers to prioritize genuine financial assistance rather than steering patients towards high-interest and costly payment options. He indicated that this may be an area of focus for the Bureau in the near future.

Balancing the equation: unmaking the bias in the CFPB hearing

As indicated above, the CFPB hearing cast a light on certain practices related to medical debt and associated payment products – labeling them as exploitative. Yet there were no healthcare or financial services representatives present to balance the rhetoric. As a result, this hearing morphed into a somewhat self-serving attempt to confirm the sentiment found in the Bureau’s May 4 report titled Medical Credit Cards and Financing Plans, which stated summarily that, “[t]he growing promotion and use of medical cards and installment loans can increase the financial burden on patients who may pay more than they otherwise would pay and may compromise medical outcomes.” While the report and hearing do shed light on important concerns surrounding medical debt, they fail to consider alternative perspectives and overlook key factors that contribute to the complexity of the issue at hand.

Oversimplification of Provider Practices

The CFPB report and hearing primarily portray healthcare providers as self-serving manipulative actors, focused on guiding vulnerable patients towards high-interest credit products. However, they fail to acknowledge the challenges providers and consumers face with routine billing practices nor provide any statistical basis for how prevalent these practices even are. While the panelists acknowledge that the specialty credit offerings at issue first sprouted up in the dentistry and elective surgery markets, the audience was told that the practices have now permeated into primary care, without many surrounding details other than anecdotes. 

Panelist Wu referred to an NCLC report on medical credit cards to support her position, but our review showed this was based on data from only 35 respondents. And in this study, only one respondent reported that a client was offered a medical credit card in the emergency room. In contrast, the remaining 34 respondents shared that their clients were offered such cards during non-emergency, non-essential healthcare services. These include visits to the dentist’s office, cosmetic surgery, and weight loss procedures, among other things. The findings suggest that medical credit cards are still predominantly offered for non-essential health care services, which does not quite mesh with the contentions made at the hearing.

Lack of Consumer Responsibility

The CFPB report and hearing place a heavy emphasis on the vulnerability of consumers and the alleged lack of transparency surrounding medical debt. While it is crucial to protect consumers from predatory practices, it is equally important to acknowledge the responsibility consumers have in understanding their financial obligations. In some cases, these products might make sense for certain patients. Personal financial literacy and responsibility should be emphasized to promote a more comprehensive approach to addressing medical debt issues and to increase understanding. The CFPB can and should launch a large-scale program, perhaps in tandem with providers, to help educate and empower consumers about some of the various financial products available rather than simply pointing their proverbial fingers at providers and fintechs.

Incomplete Evaluation of Payment Products

The CFPB report and hearing generalize the nature of medical credit cards and loans, primarily portraying them as abusive tools that trap individuals in a cycle of debt. However, they fail to consider that these financial products can also provide accessible options for individuals who may not qualify for traditional forms of financial assistance, along with some key benefits for accounts that can actually be paid off without interest.

While caution should be exercised to prevent abusive practices, a more balanced evaluation of payment products is necessary to ensure the availability of viable options for those in need. The report itself, in the Appendix, shows how the terms can vary widely for different cards and financing loans in the space, with some affording more flexibility to consumers than others. Further, Table 2 of the report shows that a significant majority of individuals, 76%, who were offered a promotional 0% interest rate took advantage of this incentive and managed to pay off their medical debt before the promotional period ended. This effectively allowed them to enjoy the benefits of an interest-free loan. 

The group that most utilized these deferred interest products, the “superprime” debtors, demonstrated even better results, with 90% managing to pay off their debt within the promotional period, thereby benefiting from the 0% interest on the loan. The report and the panelists also highlighted that the medical credit card charges a higher interest rate compared to other financial product. However, current average interest rate on regular credit cards is 24% which is comparable, and in fact higher, than the 23% interest rate on medical credit card mentioned in the Table 3 of the CFPB’s report.

Disregard for the Economic Realities

The report and hearing overlook the serious economic challenges faced by healthcare providers, particularly non-profit organizations. These entities often rely on revenue generated from their accounts receivable to sustain their operations and continue providing crucial services. While the panelists advocated for a full ban on credit reporting and enhanced financial assistance waivers, it fails to propose viable alternatives that would ensure the financial sustainability of healthcare providers.

Ignoring the Importance of Risk Assessment

Blanket criticism of deferred interest and hidden finance charges fails to consider the risk assessment process typically performed by financial institutions. Lenders employ various measures to assess borrowers’ creditworthiness, and the interest rates charged often reflect the associated risks. Overregulation or outright banning of deferred interest could hinder access to credit for individuals who require, and then in turn lack, alternative financing options; and this would extend beyond the confines of medical debt.

Conclusion

While the Bureau’s approach sheds light on some legitimate concerns surrounding medical debt and payment products, it falls short of providing a comprehensive and balanced assessment of the issue. A more nuanced approach is necessary, one that considers the complexities faced by healthcare providers, emphasizes consumer responsibility, and acknowledges the importance of risk assessment in financial practices. It is very possible that by overregulating, CFPB might, unintentionally, suppress the quality of healthcare and innovation in this space. By addressing these limitations, both Bureau and industry can foster a more constructive dialogue and develop effective solutions to the challenges posed by medical debt.

The views and opinions expressed in the article represent the view of the author(s) and not necessarily the official view of Clark Hill PLC. Nothing in this article constitutes professional legal advice nor is intended to be a substitute for professional legal advice.

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. 

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.

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.

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.