New Developments in the Receivables Management World

Share Post

As the second part in my CRCP series, I learned an extraordinary amount of knowledge from this webinar presented by Attorneys Narita, Rosenkoetter, and Woodford, three extremely knowledgeable consumer financial service attorneys, and am pleased to distill down the multitudinous updates in consumer protection litigation and legislation from around the country during this unprecedented year of 2020. All three gentlemen bring a wealth of information on regulatory and compliance issues that arise from consumer protection statutes and are nationally recognized leaders in consumer financial services litigation.

Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)

2020 has seen decisions in three major circuit courts regarding what defines a robo-call, how that data is stored, and who has access to that data. The new circuit court rulings involve making the definition of an ATDS (auto telephone dialing system) more specific, adding additional consumer protection. Key factors in all cases include that phone numbers must be produced by a random number generator, numbers must be stored by equipment, ensuring that there is no human intervention. 

Contractual Consent

Echoing Reyes v. Lincoln, 2020 sees a decision on Medley v. DISH, reiterating that a consumer under a contract is allowed to be contacted regarding any outstanding debts. “Common law contract principles do not allow unilateral revocation of consent when given as consideration in a bargained-for agreement.” 

As You were: Passive Debt Buyers can be Debt Collectors

Giving credence to what most of us have been doing for years, the decision in McAdory v. M.N.S. and Associates out of the Ninth Circuit Court states decided under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) that the receivables management world are indeed debt collectors.

Time-Barred Accounts

The Manuel v. Merchants and Professional Bureau decision regarding a debt collection letter to resolve an out of statute debt was implied to be enforceable, urgent, or would bring additional possible litigation held. The language in this case from the collection agency’s letter was decided by the court to be threatening. The takeaway here is that collection letters must be worded correctly. At Tag Process, this is something we excel at: effective communication for maximum customer satisfaction and compliance.

Already in 2020, five district courts out of Illinois all ruled in various forms that any debt payment portal must include a statute of limitations disclosure as to the nature of the debt as decided in Wheeler v. Midland Funding, just as letters must. In the 7th District of Illinois, the debtor must be warned what a partial payment would mean regarding the debt on any online portal as well. 

The long and the short of it is that there is legal precedent for courts to cite decisions that have held requiring debtors to be made aware that the debt is out of statute, no matter the means of communication, even though the FDCPA itself does not address this.

Interest Accrual: Changing Balances

In Salinas v. R.A. Rogers, the courts decided that the use of hypothetical language and conditional statements regarding a debt increasing due to interest held as a “truism.” Thus, any letter is in fact stating true facts that “in the event there is interest or other charges accruing on your account, the amount due may be greater than the amount shown above after the date of this notice.” Pettaway v. National Recovery Systems also echoed this ruling. Combining these industry wins and the decision in Ricci v. Sentry Credit, depending on the jurisdiction, validation notices should more easily track with statutes with communication regarding debt does not have to be written. 

Prevention before Prosecution 

Be careful with your envelopes! In Cagayat v. United Collection Bureau, “collection bureau” could be seen through the glassine window and contested as violating the FDCPA. Earlier this year, the decision held in the 6th Circuit of the U.S. Appeals Court against the creditor.

In Bryan v. Credit Control, the creditor must be clearly mentioned in the letter: give debtors all the possible creditors (department store and the crediting bank, for instance) to avoid any debtor arguments over confusion.

In Florida, the Supreme Court is hearing arguments in the Ham v. Portfolio Recovery Associates case. While this case will only affect Florida, having precedent could change elsewhere how attorney fees are paid out to plaintiffs in consumer debt litigation.

Nationwide Consumer Privacy Legislation Updates

After the CCPA (California Consumer Privacy Act), many other states began to bring legislation to the Congress floor to establish thresholds on, at the most basic level, what businesses can do with consumer data. Specifically, there is legislation across the country to establish state laws surrounding the civil penalties for violation, the monetary caps and definitions of a business, options for consumers to opt-out, whether private right of action will be a part of the legislation, established security criteria requirements, and Attorney General involvement. Keep up to date with the development of the bills that affect you with our interactive table.

State Bill State Bill State Bill
AZ HB2729 MD HB249 RI SB2430
AZ SB1614 MD HB784 SC H.4812
CT SB134 MN HB3936 UT SB249
FL HB963 MN HF3096 VA HB473
HI SB2451 MS SB2548 WA SB6281
IL HB5603 NE LB746
IL SB2330 NH HB1680
IL  SB3299 NJ SB269

CCPA 2.0

A group of Californians is already working to pass the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020 which expands the CCPA’s definition of what is “sensitive” personal information, the right to correction, data retention requirements, expanded definitions of breach liability, and what specific third-party requirements are in maintaining consumer privacy. Anyone in California will be staying tuned to how this legislation will affect their business.

Wrapping Up

I want to thank everyone involved in creating a great learning experience. I’m eager to do more research into these bills and cases to continue to grow my knowledge base in ensuring compliance in my work. Lots of information to sort and keep track of. That’s why I do what I do: I ensure compliance so you don’t have to.

Let me know how I can help you today!

Share Post

You May Also Like…

– Eric Logvin
Law Office of James R. Vaughan, P.C.

“Dave and TAG Process Service have been the primary process server vendor at our collection law firm for 10+ years. At Dave's leadership, TAG has essentially solved every issue we've thrown at them. This includes security, compliance, programming, reporting, APIs, and of course... getting the serves completed. Dave is honest, efficient, hardworking, and goes out of his way to solve problems. That mentality has been infused into TAG's staff by Dave, and it shows. I highly recommend Dave as an positive, experienced entrepreneur and also have the highest recommendation for TAG Process Service as a vendor for your law firm.”

See more recommendations

– Harvey Moore
The Moore Law Group

“Dave and his team provide us with competent process service. Although we have only been working with his company for approximately two years, he has met all of our requirements including security and reporting. He is open to new ideas and processes.”

See more recommendations

– Mark Kirkorsky
Mark A. Kirkorsky, PC

“Dave and Tag have proven to be a tremendous resource for our law firm. They are complete professionals and go out of their way to accommodate us. We know that we can always count on Dave and his staff to get the job done. We have worked with a number of process service companies over the years, but there is none better than TAG! They have our highest recommendation.”

See more recommendations

– Ruth Crosby
Hammerman & Hultgren, PC

“We have been using Dave and his team at Tag for a few years now. They have been great to work with. I love that we an import our documents and information. we have saved a forest in paper by now. Dave, Keep up the good work.”

See more recommendations

– Joseph Pezzuto II
Square Two Financial Corp.

“I have known Dave Rolf and his company Tag Process Service since 2010. He and his company have an excellent reputation as being Arizona's premiere process service provider. I have had several former employees work for Dave and they have always commented to me that his business is really well run as he is very committed to his staff and customers while providing superb work. I would recommend Dave and his staff to anyone who wants a company that provides "small-town" customer service and response time while implementing all the latest technology, compliance and supply-chain processes that larger companies utilize to ensure excellent client satisfaction and top service results.”

See more recommendations

– William Kelhoffer
Blatt, Hasenmiller, Leibsker, & Moore, LLC

“I've worked with Dave for several years. He has all the qualities you're looking for in a person to do business with. He is honest, hardworking, and will do everything in his power to meet and exceed your expectations. Dave and his team's customer service, integrity, and reputation are second to none.”

See more recommendations

– Bill Kastin
Snell & Wilmer, LLP

“Dave Rolf and Tag are phenomenal at everything that they do. Tag is an excellently run organization and its due almost entirely to Dave's leadership and management style. The organization is flexible, accommodating and able to handle its client's needs without much fuss or red tape. I wish more companies were run like Tag and continue to be thoroughly impressed with Dave.”

See more recommendations

Copyright ©2020 - Tag Process Service, Inc. - All rights reserved