Jacksonville, Fla. — Rick Regan, Co-Founder, joins Imagined.cloud to head North American sales. Rick’s experience providing enterprise solutions in the ARM and BPO industries strengthens Imagined.cloud executive team. With over twenty years of proven client engagement, Mr. Regan brings the knowledge and understanding necessary to build lasting relationships within the industry. 

Mr. Regan holds a B.A. in Business from The University of Texas at Dallas. Prior to joining Imagined.Cloud, Mr. Regan was a top performing strategic sales advisor for several technology and financial services companies. Carl Harkleroad, the original Founder of Imagined.Cloud, had this to say about Mr. Regan “It is exciting to re-align with Rick and have him head up our sales efforts. His operational management and diverse sales experience will complement our growing team and allow us to accelerate. I am looking forward to replicating our prior success of delivering the best software solutions and service to our customers.”

About Imagined.Cloud

Founded in 2016, Imagined.Cloud is focused on cloud native application development for recovery and business process outsourcing. Established to bridge the gap between traditional business processes and secure cloud architectures. Imagined.Cloud’s first solution, OutSourcer®, provides fluid outsourcing process management with real-time compliance and activity monitoring. For more information or to schedule a demo, visit www.imagined.cloud or call 877.787.0730.

On June 30th of this year, Colorado quietly tidied up some pieces of legislation and made a change to how collection agencies communicate with consumers.

Per the text of Colorado House Bill 20-1402, starting on 1 July 2020, agencies collecting debt from Colorado consumers need to update the language on the first notice sent.

Before 30 June 2020, collection agencies collecting in Colorado were required to inform consumers of their rights under the Colorado Fair Debt Colletion Practices Act. The language Colorado expected to see was this:

FOR INFORMATION ABOUT THE COLORADO FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT, SEE WWW.AGO.STATE.CO.US/CADC/CADCMAIN.CFM

If you weren’t able to fit that language on the first page of your notice, Colorado required language on the front notifying consumers to see the back of the letter for info about the CFDCPA.

That has changed.

Your letters now need to say:

FOR INFORMATION ABOUT THE COLORADO FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT, SEE HTTPS://COAG.GOV/OFFICE-SECTIONS/CONSUMER-PROTECTION/CONSUMER-CREDIT-UNIT/COLLECTION-AGENCY-REGULATION/

The only difference is the url that consumers are pointed to.

The requirement remains that if you can’t fit this language on the front page of your letter, that the letter needs to let consumers know they can find that information on the back of the letter.

This may be a surprise to some of you. For reasons beyond my ken, Colorado hosts the full text of its CFDCPA on LexisNexis, and it has not been updated with this new requirement. But the bill linked above is currently in effect, so if you haven’t worked with your letter vendors for Colorado, maybe that should rise closer to the top of your to-do list.

PHOENIX, Ariz. — Remitter USA Inc, ARM industry’s leader in AI powered digital communication solutions that helps lenders and BPOs optimize customer engagement and maximize revenue, announced today that David Nathanson is the newest member of its executive team. David brings over 20 years’ experience successfully building and leading high performing teams in the banking, financial services, BPO, data, and software spaces.

He joins Remitter as Executive Vice President and Head of Sales after spending the past ten years in a variety of senior leadership roles at Experian, focused on sales, sales engineering, business development, and account management across Collections, Software, Analytics, Fraud & Identity, and Consumer Information. Prior to Experian, David built extensive leadership experience in operations at Capital One, Transunion, and iQor.

“Especially as lenders work through the impact of the pandemic and prepare for the next few quarters of increased delinquencies, they are seeking out scalable and flexible consumer centric solutions,” said Founder, Simon Scalzo. “Remitter is dedicated to meeting these challenges by delivering  a proven platform, technical expertise and client support to fuel increased digital collections for lenders and BPOs.” 

“David’s market expertise, industry connections, and ability to build key relationships fit perfectly within the Remitter team. We’ve been busy this year expanding our executive leadership team across multiple countries and David is another fantastic addition to our growing world class team.”

Nathanson joins the recent key arrivals at Remitter of Executive Vice President of Strategic Partnerships Roxanne Bartley and CFO Jennifer Cummings, as the company continues to add strength to its leadership talent. With additional strategic partnerships, and its’ award winning technology Remitter is primed to bring its omnichannel solutions to all lenders seeking to digitize its customer engagement as customer preferences evolve.

David is excited to be joining the Remitter team, “I knew immediately after reviewing the solutions that Remitter has brought to market, and speaking with the executive team that this was an organization and opportunity that I needed to be part of.”

Today, we embark on Day 2 (of 3) of the iA Strategy & Tech conference. During this virtual event, we polled attendees to see how their companies are solving operational issues, especially now that the impact of COVID-19 will likely linger for a bit. The data is anonymous, but it paints a great picture of where your industry peers stand when it comes to ops, strategy, technology, and adjusting to this “new normal.” Check out the poll results as they stand now.

Editor’s Note: The polls are still active and will remain open throughout the conference. It’s not too late to join the conversation.

Where does your organization stand with these questions? Do you feel in-line with your peers or behind them? Want to join in on the conversation and speak directly to your peers about how they’re handling these issues? 

It’s not too late to register for iA Strategy & Tech. Over 500 collections strategy executives have already signed up for practical, data-rich insight on the industry’s most pressing challenges and plenty of digital networking. What’s more, all sessions from iAST will be available on-demand through the rest of 2020. Click here to sign up.

[article_ad]

Editor’s Note: This article was originally published on the Maurice Wutscher blog and is republished here with permission.

Agreeing with similar rulings in the First, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently held that the Fair Credit Reporting Act does not require consumer reporting agencies to determine the legal validity of disputed debts.

A copy of the opinion in Denan v. TransUnion LLC is available at:  Link to Opinion.

Factual Background

Two borrowers obtained loans from online payday lenders affiliated with Native American tribes. The loans charged interest in excess of 300% and the terms were subject to and governed by tribal law and not the law of the borrowers’ resident states.

After the borrowers stopped making the monthly payments, the lenders reported the delinquent amounts to a credit reporting agency. One of the borrowers contacted the credit reporting agency and disputed the accuracy of his credit reports because the loan was “illegally issued” such that “there was no legal obligation for [him] to repay.” The credit reporting agency investigated the dispute and verified the accuracy of the information provided by the lender. The other borrower never contacted the credit reporting agency.

[article_ad]

The Consumers’ Claims

The borrowers brought a putative class action against the credit reporting agency, alleging it violated two FCRA provisions: 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) — which requires consumer reporting agencies “to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information” contained in credit reports — and 15 U.S.C § 1681i(a) — which requires consumer reporting agencies to reinvestigate disputed items.

The plaintiffs’ claims under each provision presumed that the credit reporting agency transmitted “inaccurate” credit reports.  The borrowers did not claim that the credit reports were factually inaccurate and they did not contest the debt amounts or payment history. Instead, the borrowers claimed the credit reports contained “legally inaccurate” information because the loans were void ab initio under New Jersey and Florida usury laws and therefore “legally invalid debts.”

For their § 1681e(b) claim, the borrowers contended the credit reporting agency “knew or recklessly ignored” that loans made by the lenders were unenforceable, because (1) credit reporting agency’s lender screening procedures showed that the lenders lacked licenses to lend outside of Native American tribal reservations, (2) the same screening procedures showed that the lenders had histories of charging loan interest rates in excess of rates permitted in New Jersey and Florida, and (3) the credit reporting agency allegedly ignored government investigations and enforcement actions in several states — though none of them were in New Jersey or Florida — from which the borrowers alleged “[the credit reporting agency] easily could and should have discovered” that the lenders made illegal loans.

For their § 1681i(a) claim, the borrower who disputed the debt contended the credit reporting agency “failed to use reasonable reinvestigation practices for ascertaining the accuracy of information” contained in his credit report after he disputed the debt.

Procedural Background

The credit reporting agency moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that §§ 1681e(b) and 1681i(a) impose a duty to transmit factually accurate credit information, not to adjudicate the validity of disputed debts. The trial court granted the credit reporting agency’s motion, concluding that “[u]ntil a formal adjudication invalidates the plaintiffs’ loans … they cannot allege factual inaccuracies in their credit reports.” The borrowers appealed.

The Seventh Circuit’s Decision

The Seventh Circuit first analyzed § 1681e(b), which requires that “[w]henever a consumer reporting agency prepares a consumer report it shall follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates.” 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b). The statute requires a plaintiff to show that a consumer reporting agency prepared a report containing “inaccurate” information. See Walton v. BMO Harris Bank N.A., 761 F. App’x 589, 591 (7th Cir. 2019) (holding a consumer reporting agency “cannot be liable as a threshold matter [under § 1681e(b)] if it did not report inaccurate information”).

The borrowers argued that § 1681e(b) requires consumer reporting agencies to verify the factual and legal accuracy of information contained in credit reports, requiring the consumer reporting agencies to look beyond the data furnished and determine the legality of the borrowers’ loans.

The Seventh Circuit noted the FCRA does not require unfailing accuracy from consumer reporting agencies. Instead, it requires a consumer reporting agency to follow “reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy” when it prepares a credit report. 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b); see also Henson v. CSC Credit Servs., 29 F.3d 280, 284 (7th Cir. 1994) (“A credit reporting agency is not liable under the FCRA if it followed ‘reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy,’ but nonetheless reported inaccurate information in the consumer’s credit report.”).

The Court noted that is a different “accuracy” measure than furnishers are required to follow. “Accuracy,” for furnishers means information that “correctly [r]eflects … liability for the account.” 12 C.F.R. § 1022.41(a). Neither the FCRA nor its implementing regulations impose a comparable duty upon consumer reporting agencies, much less a duty to determine the legality of a disputed debt.

The Seventh Circuit held that what the borrowers called “legally inaccurate” and “legally incorrect” information amounted to non‐adjudicated legal defenses to their debts and only a court can fully and finally resolve the legal question of a loan’s validity. See DeAndrade v. Trans Union LLC, 523 F.3d 61, 68 (1st Cir. 2008) (holding the question of whether a consumer is entitled to stop making debt payments “can only be resolved by a court of law” and is “a legal issue that a credit agency such as Trans Union is neither qualified nor obligated to resolve under the FCRA”).

The Seventh Circuit joined the First, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits in holding that a consumer’s defense to a debt “is a question for a court to resolve in a suit against the [creditor,] not a job imposed upon consumer reporting agencies by the FCRA.” Carvalho, 629 F.3d at 892 (quoting DeAndrade, 523 F.3d at 68); accord Wright v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 805 F.3d 1232, 1244 (10th Cir. 2015) (citing Carvalho, 629 F.3d at 892) (“The FCRA expects consumers to dispute the validity of a debt with the furnisher of the information or append a note to their credit report to show the claim is disputed.”).

Therefore, because no formal adjudication discharged the borrowers’ debts, the Court held that no reasonable procedures could have uncovered an inaccuracy in the borrowers’ credit reports.

The Seventh Circuit concluded the borrowers’ § 1681i claim ran into the same problems.

The Court held that, when a consumer disputes the “accuracy of any item of information” contained in a credit report, § 1681i requires consumer reporting agencies to “conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether the disputed information is inaccurate.” 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(1)(A). Like § 1681e(b), § 1681i requires the “accuracy” of information but does not differentiate between factual and legal accuracy. Yet “one of the most basic rules of statutory interpretation” is that “identical words used in different parts of the same act are intended to have the same meaning.” Ortiz‐Santiago v. Barr, 924 F.3d 956, 962 (7th Cir. 2019) (quoting Sorenson v. Sec’y of Treasury, 475 U.S. 851, 860 (1986)).

Accordingly, as with the borrowers’ § 1681e(b) claim, the Seventh Circuit interpreted inaccurate information under § 1681i to mean factually inaccurate information, as consumer reporting agencies are neither qualified nor obligated to resolve legal issues.

As a result, the trial court’s entry of judgment on the pleadings was affirmed.

Want brief, visual summaries of industry-related cases?
The iA Case Law Tracker helps you do that in less time than it takes to pour your morning cup of coffee.

Today, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) announced that it will host a symposium on July 29, 2020, at 9:30 AM Eastern on the cost-benefit analysis of consumer financial protection regulations. The event, which will be available via webcast (register here), will include remarks from Director Kathleen Kraninger followed by two panel discussions.

The first panel is titled, “Cost Benefit Analysis in Consumer Financial Protection Regulation: Its Use and Agency Incentives.” Panelists include:

• CFPB Moderator: Susan Singer, Deputy Assistant Director, Office of Research 
• Jerry Ellig, Research Professor, George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center
• Stephen W. Hall, Legal Director & Securities Specialist, Better Markets
• Brian Hughes, Executive Vice President and Chief Risk Officer, Discover Financial Services
• Howell Jackson, Professor of Law, Harvard Law School
• Amit Narang, Regulatory Policy Advocate, Public Citizen

The second panel is titled, “Methodological and Subject Matter Considerations.” Panelists include:

• CFPB Moderator: Paul Rothstein, Section Chief, Financial Institutions and Regulatory Policy, Office of Research
• John Coates, Professor of Law and Economics, Harvard Law School
• Mark Cohen, Professor of Law, Vanderbilt Law School
• Alex Lee, Professor of Law, Northwestern Pritzker School of Law
• Christopher J. Mayer, Professor of Real Estate, Columbia Business School

According to the CFPB’s announcement:

The symposium is intended to seek perspectives [on] the use of cost-benefit analysis in consumer financial protection regulations.  The Bureau is exploring developments in the cost-benefit analysis arena and will consider lessons that may be useful as it nears the start of its second decade of work.

[article_ad]

Last week, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) released its July 2020 Complaint Bulletin, which updated data on COVID-19-related consumer complaints. While complaints that meet the CFPB’s criteria for being COVID-related—using coronavirus keywords—seem to only account for 4% of the total complaints received in 2020, this might not tell the whole story.

[article_ad]

COVID-19-Related Complaints

The updated consumer complaints data says the CFPB received 8,357 complaints through its database between January 1 and May 31 that mention “coronavirus keywords.” 

Complaints related to mortgages were most prominent. Mortgage complaints made up 19% of the coronavirus keyword complaints. 55% of those complaints revolved around consumers struggling to pay their mortgages. 

Credit reporting was also a big ticket item, making up 18% of the coronavirus keyword complaints. The main issue, accounting for 55% of the COVID credit reporting complaints, had to do with incorrect information on credit reports. 

Debt collection complaints were in 4th place of COVID-related complaints, but 2nd place in overall 2020 complaints. The biggest issue for collections-related complaints was attempts to collect a debt not owed.

Overall Complaints 

The Bulletin shows that the average number of complaints received since the President declared a national emergency has skyrocketed above the baseline. The graph below shows the difference in weekly complaint volume of all complaints received compared to the baseline, which represents the average complaint volume prior to the national emergency declaration.

This indicates that the volume of complaints has increased significantly post-COVID. Yet, COVID-related complaints account for only 4% of the total complaints received this year. This seems a little odd. One possible explanation for this discrepancy might be that consumers had COVID-related complaints that simply did not include a coronavirus keyword, as defined by the CFPB. 

While the average volume of complaints across all products increased significantly, debt collection complaint volumes remained generally steady pre- and post-COVID. According to the chart below (highlight added for ease of reference), complaints that saw the largest increase include prepaid card, money transfer or virtual currency, credit reporting, and credit cards. 

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has now approved “two safe harbors from liability for the unintended or inadvertent blocking of wanted calls, thus eliminating a concern that kept some companies from implementing robust robocall blocking efforts.” The two safe harbors “are meant to provide further assurance to phone companies and allow them to strengthen their efforts in the battle against illegal and unwanted robocalls.” The FCC’s decision further implements provisions of the Pallone-Thune TRACED Act which became law last December.

The first safe harbor will protect phone companies that “use reasonable analytics, including caller ID authentication information, to identify and block illegal or unwanted calls from liability.” The second safe harbor “protects providers that block call traffic from bad actor upstream voice service providers that pass illegal or unwanted calls along to other providers, when those upstream providers have been notified but fail to take action to stop these calls.”

TCPAWorld previously analyzed this safe harbor proposal when it originally was released.

[article_ad]

The decision – approved unanimously by the five FCC commissioners – also seeks comment on further rule changes to “protect consumers from robocalls and better inform them about provider blocking efforts.” A Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking included in the decision seeks comment on (a) “whether to obligate phone companies to better police their networks against illegal calls, and … require them to provide information about blocked calls to consumers for free” and (b) “notification and effective redress mechanisms for callers when their calls are blocked, and on whether measures are necessary to address the mislabeling of calls.”

TCPAWorld will be tracking the evolution of the notification and redress mechanism for callers who assert that their legitimate calls are being improperly blocked.

Editor’s note: This article is provided through a partnership between insideARM and Squire Patton Boggs LLP, which provides a steady stream of timely, insightful and entertaining takes on TCPAWorld.com of the ever-evolving, never-a-dull-moment Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Squire Patton Boggs LLP—and all insideARM articles—are protected by copyright. All rights are reserved.

ATLANTA, Ga. — Today, Capio announced a new strategic partnership with Seattle-based Attunely to further support its ongoing commitment to expand consumer offerings and enhance the overall patient experience. 

Under this new partnership, the companies will actively collaborate to leverage Attunely’s machine learning capabilities to better understand consumer needs and increase successful outcomes. In addition, both organizations believe the partnership will provide ongoing opportunities to identify and improve business efficiencies that better serve Capio’s provider clients. 

[article_ad]

“The global pandemic is changing the way healthcare is managed and delivered to patients. These unprecedented challenges, combined with the resulting economic impacts, have negatively impacted many of our consumers. Capio maintains our relentless commitment to providing the individual attention and offerings needed to successfully resolve outstanding healthcare accounts. We believe that Attunely and their leading machine learning technology, coordinated with the efforts of our internal teams, will be instrumental to achieving these successes,” said Mark Detrick, co-founder and CEO of Capio. 

“Attunely has deep experience building powerful optimization technologies tailored to our customers’ consumer strategies,” notes Scott Ferris, founder and CEO of Attunely. “Capio has been the leading purchaser of healthcare receivables for the past decade, and we are thrilled to partner with them on this important initiative.” 

About Capio

Capio assists healthcare providers and physician organizations increase cash flow, while also lowering their bad debt expense. To date, Capio has acquired and provided consumer services to over $35B in patient accounts receivable via partnerships with more than 525 provider clients across the United States. To learn more about Capio, please visit http://www.capiopfw.com.

 About Attunely Inc.

Attunely is a proven, compliant, and trustworthy machine learning platform that makes the recovery of receivables easy, seamless, and profitable. To learn more about Attunely, please visit http://www.attunely.com