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

—

Following its enaction, the Dodd-Frank Act left the financial services industry with uncertainty in many areas. For nearly 10 years, the industry has wondered and speculated about the inclusion of a prohibition against abusive acts and practices.  What exactly is abusive conduct? Is abusive conduct different from false and misleading acts or unfairness? How will the CFPB handle enforcement?

On Jan. 24, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announced the long-awaited policy statement regarding the framework that it will use in enforcement activities related to the catch-all category of “abusiveness.”

At the get-go, the objective demonstrates a common-sense view: the principles are designed to promote compliance and certainty. This theme is carried on with the delineated principles:

• In evaluating conduct, to be abusive, the harm to consumers should outweigh the benefit.
• Abusive conduct is distinguishable from unfair or deceptive violations; therefore, no “dual pleading.”
• Monetary relief (penalties) for abusiveness only when there has been a lack of good-faith effort to comply. CAVEAT: restitution for injured consumer regardless of whether a company acted in good faith or bad.

[article_ad]

The full policy may be found here.

Seattle, Wash. — Attunely Inc., a pioneer in deploying machine learning to maximize revenue recovery, is announcing the release of an innovative Time of Day model to their existing suite of dynamic machine learning models to drive more efficient and productive revenue recovery efforts.

Time of Day Model

Leveraging billions of de-identified historical call records, Attunely’s Time of Day model is a new, innovative solution for a longstanding challenge in the financial services industry — finding the optimal times to contact each consumer. Combined with Attunely’s existing Liquidation scoring model, it produces a dialer-ready call file that matches the highest-yielding accounts with their preferred time slots. This allows for more contacts using fewer call attempts, building on Attunely’s comprehensive suite of machine learning models.

“Our chief objective with Time of Day is to provide for a better consumer experience. The opportunities in the fintech space are many and we think the collection and debtor interaction can be greatly improved through the creation and implementation of innovative personalization technologies like the Time of Day solution,” said Scott Ferris, CEO, Attunely.

Powered by de-identified consumer behavior from customers, Attunely’s machine learning platform prescribes the most effective outreach tactics through every phase of the servicing and delinquency life cycle. Attunely’s models are customized to enhance revenue recovery, reduce expenses, prevent customer churn and identify the best time of day to reach a consumer.

“As a long-time participant in the financial services industry, I have seen many innovation initiatives come and go. Some have met expectations, others have not. Attunely is well positioned to be an impactful fintech pioneer by bringing pragmatic machine learning to the consumer delinquency and consumer credit cycle,” said Jack Lavin, Managing Partner, Javlin Partners, and an Attunely outside board director. “Furthermore, Attunely has moved out of the proof of concept stage. They are engaged with customers today to unlock value and create new efficiencies.”

The Time of Day solution joins the following in-market Attunely dynamic scoring models:

Propensity to Pay Model

The Attunely propensity model estimates the likelihood of immediate payment from each delinquent account, producing an overall probability score that changes dynamically in response to ongoing interactions between an organization and its consumers.

Liquidation Model

The Attunely liquidation model combines behavioral signals with a client’s historical transaction data to produce an expected value when liquidating debt. It is informed by billions of historical calls, letters, emails, and text messages, and dynamically refines an account-level score based on each interaction with the consumer.

Omnichannel Model

The Attunely Omnichannel score ranks each communication channel and identifies the highest-yielding form of outreach on every account. Combined with the liquidation score, this strikes the optimal balance between immediate recovery, maximizing long-term recovery, and giving the consumer time to repay.

Settlement Optimization Model

Attunely’s Settlement models leverage de-identified historical collection data to estimate the likelihood, timing, and expected liquidation value of contingent or purchased debt portfolios. This enables recovery experts to calculate the best offer, whether that’s a settlement, payment plan, or paid-in-full demand for every account.

Delinquency Prevention Model

The Attunely pre-delinquency model estimates the risk of an account entering delinquency. It leverages behavioral analytics and detection of anomalies to identify which accounts are most at-risk and then recommends the most effective communications channel for preemptive outreach, including offering delinquency mitigation programs.

Default Prevention Model

Attunely Default models determine which accounts require minimal intervention and which need additional counseling or support to prevent default. They provide a dedicated approach to handling alternative successful outcomes, such as deferrals, forbearance, or third-party revenue streams.

Agent Productivity Model

The Attunely Agent model provides insights into the performance of each collection agent with different types of accounts. Combined with time of day algorithms, this method enables more effective staffing strategies by matching individual agents with specific accounts and appropriately balancing their work loads.

Adds Attunely CEO Scott Ferris: “Our dynamic scoring models help Attunely customers unlock the value within their own databases by maximizing the best time to reach a consumer, increasing margins, improving resource management, and enhancing compliance. We are excited by the impact they are making in our client environments.”

About Attunely Inc.

Attunely is a cloud-based, yield optimization platform for the financial services and receivables management industry that uses the latest advances in machine learning to increase yield in the revenue recovery process, thus improving outcomes for creditors, lowering risk in the credit ecosystem, and facilitating a better consumer experience. For more information, visit http://www.attunely.com.

Getting sued is irritating and frustrating, to say the least. You literally have, in most cases, 21 days from the time you are served to make many of the most critical decisions about the case. Is there any merit? Do you settle it? If needed, who do you hire for defense counsel? Do you have to notify insurance?

While getting sued is the first irritation, it can be even more frustrating when it feels like the only thing moving along in a case is the lawyer’s billable hour count. So what can you do to try and speed things along? What behavioral aspects can be gathered to help you? The good news is, there are plenty. Below are five things to do when that lawsuit comes through the door.

1. Know who is suing you

The more you know about the plaintiff, the better. Plaintiffs are human too and it’s amazing what a little knowledge and kindness can do. Often times, I have found plaintiffs not knowing a case even existed for them; other times, they have just wanted a tradeline removed on a legitimate dispute. 

You can also make critical findings through a quick social media search that may be extremely valuable, sometimes dropping the case’s value significantly or all together. There may be vacation pictures when they should be at mediation or hearing, or they list a cell phone as a business number and invite anyone to call.

2. Do your research on the claim and the plaintiff’s lawyer

It’s no secret that most of the FDCPA, FCRA, and TCPA lawsuits come from the same few plaintiffs’ lawyers, sometimes even after courts have thoroughly rejected their arguments. In this aspect, knowledge is power. Knowing how a particular claim or specific attorney faired in a specific jurisdiction or before a specific judge—which can all be gathered quickly in a few clicks on the iA Case Law Tracker—can help you make an informed decision about whether to defend or settle a case. 

If, for example, you knew that Judge Azrack in the Eastern District of New York recently filed four copy/pasted decisions on the same day dismissing a specific claim in four nearly identical FDCPA lawsuits—three of which were filed by the same plaintiff’s lawyer—you’d know that a similar claim before Judge Azrack or with that particular plaintiff’s counsel would likely go in your favor. This type of analysis was available in this week’s Case Law Tracker newsletter. This tool is invaluable.

3. Take it to trial before you send it to outside counsel

Do as much internal review as possible. Gather the notes, call recordings, letters, speak with staff, and so forth. Find out what truly took place. This will save time and money in the short and long run. When cases are sent out to outside counsel without a deep-dive review, things get missed. Not intentionally, but others may presume that you found no issues or concerns and that the case is defensible. They may not know or see that the issue derived from a client error, which may be a backbone for client indemnification. I see this happen quite frequently. Always, always request documentation from the clients! Always find the “nuggets.” If you dig deep enough, you will usually find something.

4. Give early mediation a shot

I like to do early mediations as it gives me far more insight than any written discovery ever has. You get to see the plaintiff and his lawyer in person, allowing you to observe everyone’s interactions in one setting.

Here is a small tip: I always review the plaintiff’s birth date in their account notes. I always try to schedule mediations (if, of course, it is manageable to do so) around their birthdays. People are happier around their birthdays and most plaintiffs lawyers don’t keep track of that information. It has been helpful in getting resolutions when the consumer sees that we have taken the time to get to know information about them.

5. If needed, hire the right counsel

There are a few important things to consider when choosing outside counsel. Know the relationship between the defense counsel and plaintiff’s counsel. Do they hate each other? Do they have a ton of cases together? Do they play golf together? I have experienced all of these scenarios. If they hate each other, oftentimes your case becomes a pawn in a larger battle, resulting in unproductive and costly legal moves that may not have been initiated if the hostility didn’t exist between the two sides. If they have several cases together, it can be a hit and miss. If they are settling several cases all the time you may get “the typical settlement” amount as the rest. If you have a horrible case, sometimes you would prefer the going rate in order to avoid being noticed. If your case is a great one and should be dismissed, you may get stuck with the plaintiff’s lawyer trying to push for the “going rate” demand anyway. 

Hire a litigator if you are going to fight a case. Ask the attorney prior to hiring, how many times they have gone to trial? How many cases have they tried against this particular plaintiff’s attorney? It’s surprising how many attorneys haven’t actually tried cases against each other even though we have all seen their names around for years. Another critical aspect is to look at the personalities, both of the plaintiff’s attorney and the defense counsel you are thinking of retaining. I always think, “Hmm, now if these two were in a trial against each other, who would the jury like/adapt/respond to better?” I may lose on a motion but have hands-down won with juries that appealed to our delivery and presentation of the case.

Bringing it all together

Strong facts and supporting case law are clearly important but the behavioral aspects of the individuals involved (plaintiff, attorneys, and judge) can be very instrumental in the outcome of the case and how long it will take to be resolved. We’ve all seen egos and opinions get in the way of resolutions. The players matter…people matter… relationships matter…especially in the inevitable game of litigation.

[article_ad]

About the Author

SHANNON SMITH has managed large organizations’ risk and litigation departments for several years. She has implemented highly successful programs and strategies that have resulted in dramatically reducing litigation budgets by 25-40%. She has successfully negotiated or obtained dismissals in hundreds of cases filed nationally against the companies and creditor clients by using her unique approaches to litigation as a non-lawyer. She can be reached at shannon@lit-logic.com.

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. 

Those of you following TCPAWorld.com’s daily TCPA filing counter know that the cases continue to pour in. 14 more cases were filed today. It seems the combined impact of Glasser and a SCOTUS review are simply not enough to stop the onslaught. And a case out of New Jersey on Friday helps to explain why.

In Johnson v. Comodo Group, Case No. 16-4469, DKT # 221 (D. N.J. Jan. 31, 2020), the Court denied summary judgment to the Defendant concluding that the use of a predictive dialer per se triggers TCPA coverage under the plain language of the statute. The Court also held that pre-recorded voicemails trigger the TCPA—even where a live caller is on the line to play the message—and concluded that willfulness does not require knowledge that the TCPA is being violated. Eesh. (Case is available here: Johnson MSJ Order)

[article_ad]

On the ATDS issue, the Court first recognizes the ongoing split of authority around the TCPA’s ATDS definition. Although the Plaintiff invited the Court to rely on the 2003 and 2008 predictive dialer rulings the Court ultimately concluded that doing so was unnecessary to deny the motion. Instead, the Johnson court concludes that even under the statutory language a predictive dialer qualifies, and cites to Marks for support. So the popular VICIdialer is, definitively, an ATDS—at least in the view of one court.

That is just the start of the bad news for the Defendant, however. Defendant argued—rather convincingly—that the TCPA should only apply to messages played to a live call recipient; not to voicemails. Moreover, the Defendant used quite a bit of human intervention in leaving voicemails—each one was initiated by an agent specifically pushing a button to play the message. The Court was unmoved. Without providing much analysis the Court observed that many courts have found voicemails subject to the statute and pointed out that Defendant failed to cite to any authority supporting its position.

The Court also concluded that a party can be guilty of a “willful” violation of the TCPA where they were “warned” by the manufacturer of the dialer to scrub numbers. The Court was unmoved by Defendant’s argument that it thought calls to business numbers did not trigger the TCPA.

As Johnson demonstrates, TCPAWorld remains a dangerous place. While the Eleventh Circuit has cleaned up some of the TCPA mess, the statute continues to plague callers in the rest of the country. More to come.

—

The iA’s Case Law Tracker can help you keep up with new court decisions and conduct quick, incisive legal research in less time than it takes to pour your morning cup of coffee.

This article is part of the iA Think Differently series. Written by members of the iA Innovation Council, the series showcases thought leadership in analytics, communications, payments, and compliance technology for the accounts receivable management industry.

—

As many collection operations lay out their goals for 2020, they are challenged to achieve those objectives using their legacy collection system. To achieve those goals, many organizations are considering upgrading to a more modern collection system. If you are anywhere in the process of thinking about a new collection system, here are some areas for you to consider as you use this opportunity to enhance your organization and operations, not simply making a technology refresh.

1. Automation

Look for a collection system that can provide you with significantly more automation than your current system. There will always be areas where you will need a live agent, but for everything else, your collection system should automate as much as possible. This includes:

• Linking debts and debtors into consolidated cases. Many legacy systems treat each debt separately. By consolidating liabilities into cases where permitted, you will increase efficiency and improve customer service by talking with customers about the totality of the amount owed. You will also be able to reduce phone calls and postage costs because debtors will only receive one contact per case.
• Support for risk-based collection and correspondence strategies tailored to each account. Not all debtors are the same, so why should you collect on them all using one strategy? While you should treat similar debtors the same, you don’t need to treat all debtors using one strategy. The system should automatically execute the best strategy for each case.

Automation delivers both consistency and compliance. When the process is automated, you can ensure that your customers receive consistent treatment, and all applicable due process and compliance checks are performed each time.

2. Self-Service Portal

Many of your customers no longer want to talk with a live agent. When they are ready to resolve their account, most would rather go online and do it themselves. You will see a significant number of customers that resolve their debt with no human contact, so key features you want on your portal include allowing consumers to make payments and payment Agreements, and if allowed, to request settlements.

3. Automated Communication

As technology changes and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) continually evolves, you will want to ensure that your new collection system supports fully automated communications. The FDCPA controls who you can contact and how you can contact them. While the FDCPA has not been updated to cover newer methods of communications such as SMS and emails, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau published proposed rules in 2019, and the industry is actively awaiting changes that may allow for these modern forms of communication within collection activities.

[article_ad]

When you have the proper permission from your customer to use automated communications (calls, emails, and SMS), you can lower the cost of collections and increase customer satisfaction as you utilize their communication channel of choice.

Technology is now available to send fully automated outbound communications, allowing the consumer to pay directly from their smartphone. A modern automated system should support both SMS and emails, each of which should provide the capability for the customer to click a hyperlink to pay or enter into a payment agreement, and receive payment reminders via email or SMS.

4. Open Architecture

Change is the only constant you can bank on. Many organizations use their collection system for 10-20 years or more before they actively look for a new system. Therefore, you not only need a new collection system that can support your needs of today but one that can support your needs of tomorrow. To support this, you want a system that delivers an open architecture, allowing you to connect to any data provider or third-party system (e.g., dialer, documentation management, communications) of your choice. If you select a collection system with those capabilities pre-built into the (closed/proprietary) system you could be stuck using their preferred providers, not your preferred provider. You also may want to utilize tools like an enterprise-level data warehouse and will want the ability to easily export your data in real-time.

5. Configuration, Not Customization

Another way to ensure that you remain future proof is to have a collection system that is flexible and configurable enough so you can implement your business rules with no modification to the base system. You will want to ensure that new data elements can be added through configuration and that those data elements are available within the system for workflow, display, and reporting. You will also want to confirm that the system is flexible enough to add new user interface windows through configuration.

If the new collection system doesn’t require modification, then you can be assured that it has the flexibility to configure new data and a highly diverse set of collection strategies. Over time, change will occur (that is a given), and you want to be able to add new debt types and new customers and support new external compliance rules through configuration. You want to be sure that you can receive, utilize and display new data and change your business rules without having to go back to the vendor or to modify the application. This allows you to lower your total cost of ownership and maintain control of your future.

If you have a system that requires modification it means future upgrades will be more difficult and costly. You might even reach a point where it is cost-prohibitive to take upgrades, preventing you from taking advantage of the new capabilities.

Conclusion

Many organizations are realizing their collection system is nearing its end of life. As you consider your next steps, the choice you make will truly shape your organization for years to come. Make sure you are thinking about your needs both for today and tomorrow. While you need to be cost-conscious, the selection you make will also allow you to dramatically move your organization forward and achieve greater success for years to come.

—

Ted London is Senior Director of FICO’s Government, Higher Education and Collection Agencies sector.

—

About the iA Innovation Council

The iA Innovation Council is a collaborative working group of product, tech, strategy, and operations thought leaders at the forefront of analytics, communications, payments, and compliance technology. Group members meet in person several times each year to engage in substantive dialogue and whiteboard sessions with the creative thinkers behind the latest innovations for the industry, the regulators who audit and establish guardrails for new technology, and educators, entrepreneurs and innovators from outside the industry who inspire different thinking. 

2020 members include:

Last week, the two Federal agencies that police illegal robocalls – the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) – flexed their regulatory authority in a targeted fashion.

First, the FCC proposed a USD $12.9 million forfeiture against one Scott Rhodes (a/ka Scott David Rhodes and other apparent variations) “for apparently using caller ID spoofing in thousands of robocalls that targeted specific communities….”

[article_ad]

In announcing the Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL), the agency gave various examples of how the caller made “unlawful, spoofed robocalls” to California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, and Virginia. In one example, the FCC noted that the caller apparently made “827 spoofed robocalls… [to Brooklyn, Iowa residents] following the murder of a local college student and arrest of an illegal alien…for the crime.” Other targets included political races and candidates and a newspaper that “exposed the identity of the caller as the robocaller involved in other calling campaigns.”

According to the FCC, the “caller appears to have used an online calling platform to intentionally manipulate caller ID information….” As a result, the calls appeared to come from local numbers – “a technique called ‘neighborhood spoofing.’”

Four FCC Commissioners voted in favor of the NAL. Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel dissented because the “fine in this enforcement action is nowhere near as high as it should be given that the individual behind this mass of robocalls was responsible for no less than six separate spoofing campaigns. In fact, it falls far short of the maximum fine the agency could have levied.” Interestingly, although voting in favor of the NAL, Commissioner Michael O’Rielly warned that the Commission “need[ed] to be especially careful not to play fast and loose with the statute when speech intended to persuade others or influence public opinion—in other words, political speech—is involved.  Putting aside my disagreement as to Rhodes’ motive, the item at least appears to apply the statute in a content- or viewpoint-based manner.” A copy of the NAL text is here.

In a more widespread action, the FTC staff sent letters to 19 Voice over Internet service providers (VoIP), “warning them that ‘assisting and facilitating’ illegal telemarketing or robocalling is against the law.” The agency staff noted that “‘VoIP service providers play a unique role in the robocall ecosystem, allowing fraudsters and abusive telemarketers to call consumers at a fraction of a penny per minute.’” The warning letters were to put the service providers, whose names were not disclosed, on notice that the FTC “‘will take action when they knowingly facilitate illegal robocalls’” in violation of the Telemarketing Sales Rule administered by the agency. Conduct listed in the letter includes “initiating pre-recorded telemarketing robocalls, unless the seller has express written permission to call.”

TCPAWorld will continue to monitor enforcement developments such as these and others that may emerge from the enactment of the Pallone-Thune TRACED Act.

—

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. 

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

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently reversed the dismissal of a consumer’s second lawsuit against a debt collector for failure to notify a credit reporting agency that the debt was disputed.

In so ruling, the Court held that because the debts were owed to different creditors, they were two distinct transactions giving rise to separate claims because “[e]ach failure to notify could have caused an additional harm to credit score or peace of mind.” 

A copy of the opinion in Horia v. Nationwide Credit & Collection, Inc. is available here. 

[article_ad]

A debt collection company sent a dunning letter to the debtor seeking to collect a medical debt. The debtor sued for injury to his credit rating and mental distress, alleging that the debt collector violated section 1692e(8) of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by notifying a credit reporting agency of the debt, but not that it was disputed.

The same debtor had just settled a similar lawsuit against the same debt collector for sending him a letter attempting to collect a debt owed to a different creditor, but failing to notify the credit reporting agency the debt was disputed.

The debt collector moved to dismiss the second lawsuit, arguing that the plaintiff was “gaming the system by seeking multiple recoveries for a single kind of wrong.” The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the second case, ruling that the debtor’s second case “split his claims impermissibly.”  This appeal followed.

On appeal, the Seventh Circuit explained that “[t]he doctrine of bar forecloses repeated suits on the same claim, even if a plaintiff advances a new legal theory or a different kind of injury.” In addition, “[f]ederal law—which applies here because the first judgment was entered by a federal court, …—defines a ‘claim’ by looking for a single transaction.”

The Court reasoned that there was no need to seek a more precise definition of “claim” because the plaintiff “has alleged two transactions on any understanding.” The debts were owed to different creditors, and although “[t]hey involve the same statutory rule and the same debt collector[,] … the wrongs differ—[the debt collector] could have given proper notice for one debt but not the other—and the injury differs. Each failure to notify could have caused an additional harm to credit score or peace of mind.”

By way of analogy, the Seventh Circuit explained that just as the Supreme Court of the United States held in National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, an employment discrimination case involving the statute of limitations, that “each discrete discriminatory act produces one claim[,]” “[d]iscrete and independently wrongful acts produce different claims, even if the same wrongdoer commits both offenses and the second wrong is similar to the first. Likewise with discrete violations of § 1692e(8). Each time a debt collector fails to give a credit agency the required notice for a debt is a stand-alone wrong. Disputes that have an independent existence may be litigated separately. Joinder in federal practice is permissive, … not mandatory[,]” except for compulsory counterclaims, which did not apply to the case at bar.

The Court rejected the debt collector’s argument that “allowing sequential litigation is inequitable because 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(A) sets a maximum of $1,000 in statutory damages per case[,]” reasoning that while it’s true that “[m]ultiplying the number of cases multiplies the maximum award[,]” “[j]udges aren’t authorized to turn per-case caps into per-defendant caps; that choice is legislative.”

Accordingly, the Seventh Circuit reversed the dismissal, and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with its ruling.

In so ruling, the Court explained that debt collectors are not defenseless.

First, a release can be drafted to cover “all disputes between the same parties, not just the dispute already in court.”

Second, the Seventh Circuit noted that debt collectors can argue that § 1692k(a)(2)(A) gives the court discretion to award up to $1,000 in statutory damages, and that “a debtor who has already collected $1,000 in statutory damages should not receive more from the same defendant for the same sort of wrong. … Debt collectors are also free to contend, and judges to find, that the second suit entails the same ‘actual damage’ (§ 1692k(a)(1)) as the first, so that an additional award on that front is inappropriate. If a bill collector’s first failure to notify a credit bureau damages a debtor’s credit score and causes emotional distress, a second suit based on a second failure to notify the same credit bureau allows the debtor to collect only the marginal loss caused by the second wrong.”

Finally, “a defendant who persuades a court that a sequential suit was brought to harass not only avoids an award of attorneys’ fees but also becomes eligible to collect its own attorneys’ fees from the debtor” pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692(a)(3). “The statute thus provides debt collectors with tools to discourage abusive litigation.”

—

The iA’s Case Law Tracker can help you keep up and conduct incisive and quick legal research in less time than it takes to pour your morning cup of coffee.

ANN ARBOR, Mich. — HealPay, a leading payment solutions provider, announced today its new Text to Pay product will be revealed at the upcoming Receivables Management Association International’s 2020 Annual Conference.

Text to Pay will allow billers to provide customers with simple pay-by-text options, increasing on-time payments and reducing collection costs. The solution will be available for live demo during RMAi’s 2020 Conference to be held on February 3rd through 6th at the Aria Resort & Casino Las Vegas.

“Consumers increasingly expect to connect with businesses with the same ease and convenience as their family and friends,” says Co-Founder and CEO, Erick Bzovi. “Achieving customer satisfaction means taking advantage of technologies that consumers already use in their day to day interactions.”

The modern text payment solution allows organizations in accounts receivables, consumer finance, healthcare, and charitable and religious organizations industries to offer customers a convenient payment experience while being compliant with the latest industry regulations.

“A significant number of consumers have a mobile phone or smartphone and carry it with them all the time,” remarks Lance Carlson, Co-Founder and Head of Product Development. “Text to Pay puts the power to pay in the palm of the consumer’s hands, in turn allowing firms to deliver a more personalized and stress-free payment experience.”

[article_ad]

With the capability to integrate with other industry software, HealPay allows firms to interact with consumers with the same workflow as other channels. Integration empowers firms to use their existing software to send text updates to consumers, including rich media, like images. In turn, consumers can send a short text message to view their account balance, make a payment, or opt-out of future SMS communications.

About HealPay  

HealPay provides innovative, consumer-centric payment solutions to businesses nationwide. Attorneys, collections, receivables, charitable organizations, property managers, finance companies, and other types of billers rely on our solutions to accept multiple payment types online and over the phone with or without a human agent. 

Today, the House of Representatives passed the Comprehensive Credit Reporting Enhancement, Disclosure, Innovation, and Transparency (CREDIT) Act (H.R. 3621), introduced by Rep. Ayanna Pressley. While the CREDIT Act—which still needs to go through the Senate—is primarily aimed at credit reporting agencies (CRAs) such as Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion, its impact will likely be felt among data furnishers.

The CREDIT Act points out how important accurate credit reports are to consumers for both banking and non-banking needs. The Act claims that:

The nationwide CRAs have failed to establish and follow reasonable procedures, as required by existing law, to establish the maximum level of accuracy of information contained on consumer reports. Given the repeated failures of these CRAs to comply with accuracy requirements on their own, [this] legislation is intended to provide them with detailed guidance improving the accuracy and completeness of information contained in consumer reports, including procedures, policies, and practices that these CRAs should already be following to ensure full compliance with their existing obligations.

The Act, which is 197 pages in total, incorporates into itself several other house bills, including:

• H.R. 3642, the Improving Credit Reporting for All Consumers Act, a bill sponsored by Representative Alma Adams;
• H.R. 3622, the Restoring Unfairly Impaired Credit and Protecting Consumers Act, a bill sponsored by Representative Rashida Tlaib;
• H.R. 3614, the Restricting Use of Credit Checks for Employment Decisions Act, a bill sponsored by Representative Al Lawson;
• H.R. 3621, the Student Borrower Credit Improvement Act, a bill sponsored by Representative Pressley;
• H.R. 3629, the Clarity in Credit Score Formation Act sponsored by Representative Stephen Lynch; and
• H.R. 3618, the Free Credit Scores for Consumers Act sponsored by Representative Joyce Beatty.

There are some industry-related highlights presented in the CREDIT Act. For example, the Act requires the removal of fully paid or settled medical debt. The Act makes mention of the CFPB’s Fall 2016 Supervisory Highlights that found that one or more debt collectors never investigated indirect disputes that lacked detail or were not accompanied by attachments. The Act also points out that, “there are no objective or enforceable standards that determine when a debt can or should be reported as a collection trade line. Because debt buyers and collectors determine whether, when, and for how long to report a collection account, there is only a limited relationship between the time period reported, the severity of the delinquency, and when or whether a collection trade line appears on a consumer’s credit report.”

[article_ad]

insideARM Perspective

One thing notably absent from the CREDIT Act is the impact that credit repair organizations have had on the ability to effectively investigate credit reporting disputes. Credit repair organizations flood data furnishers with generic disputes in order to either get the trade line deleted—regardless of its accuracy—or to bait data furnishers into inadvertent FCRA violations. The outrageously high volume of such disputes received by data furnishers makes it impossible for a company with even the most sophisticated and robust compliance department to properly categorize and investigate each claim. 

Just last year, a jury found such a credit repair organization guilty of fraud against a debt collector for the practice of sending massive quantities of credit report dispute letters. In 2018, a different debt collector filed a RICO suit against a credit repair organization for the same reason. These are just examples in the limited sphere of the debt collection industry; the financial industry at large has likely seen similar issues. Even the CFPB filed a suit against a credit repair organization for its questionable marketing practices. 

It’s troubling that a comprehensive bill designed to promote accuracy in credit reports doesn’t even mention one very present threat to the bill’s mission.

An Idaho businessman, Frank VanderSloot, founder and chief executive of the health care products company Melaleuca, appears to finally be ready to introduce legislation that would set limits on medical debt collection.

VanderSloot first came to attention in early 2019 with his proposal:

• Within 30 days of service, providers have submitted all bills to the patient’s insurance plan.
• Within 30 days of service, providers have provided notice of services rendered to the patient and health care facility.
• Within 60 days of service, the health care facility provides a consolidated notice to the patient.
• The health care provider sends a final bill, after insurance payment, that clearly states what is still owed.

That proposal in October of 2019 is set to be introduced into the Idaho Legislature soon.

For VanderSloot, the cause became personal when he learned that one of his employees was having her wages garnished for a medical debt. Per an article in the Idaho Post Register, “Medical Recovery Services sued to collect a debt from a Melaleuca employee that had ballooned from an original $294 bill to more than $5,000 with costs and legal fees.”

[article_ad]

Other details of VanderSloot’s proposal: Collection agency legal fees would be capped at $350 for uncontested actions and $750 for contested ones.

The proposed legislation is still a work in progress, but seems similar to legislation proposed in New Jersey.

insideARM is actively tracking both proposals as they make their way through various edits, amendments, and additions.