Rights Protect | Rights Protection Law Group, PLLC

The California Invasion of Privacy Act

Rights Protect — Wed, 23 Apr 2025 05:31:06 +0000

The California Invasion of Privacy Act

Would most consumers know if a person, telemarketer, debt collector, creditor, or any type of business recorded a phone conversation between the consumer and the other person and/or business, without the consumer’s permission? Likely not, without having discovered that during or after the call, or having been told that later in the call or after the call.

A consumer may have heard the automated or oral warning from a company that, “This call may be monitored or recorded for quality assurance purposes.” If a consumer has heard this after the consumer had already started speaking with a company, or if the consumer did not hear it but found out later that their conversation was recorded without their consent, the consumer may be entitled to compensation.

Under the California Invasion of Privacy Act, California Penal Code Section 630, et seq. (“CIPA”), such practices are illegal, and the consumer could be entitled to thousands of dollars for each telephone call that has been unlawfully recorded, as unlawful call recording invades a person’s right to privacy.

Not all companies in and outside of California comply with the CIPA’s provisions. Some companies audio-record a person’s telephone conversations with them without the person’s knowledge or consent. Some other companies do not inform a person that a call is recorded and that everything that the person has said has been recorded until towards the end of a lengthy conversation.

Pursuant to the California Invasion of Privacy Act, consent from all parties is required before recording a phone call. Some other states, like Massachusetts, have similar provisions to that of the CIPA in their state’s own respective call recording law(s). Not all states have these requirements, however, so the law(s) in regard to the recording of phone calls are different depending on the state.

Even if the consumer does not have actual damages, for example the loss of money, as a result of a one-sided phone recording where someone is recording the consumer without their express consent, the consumer could still have statutory damages that the consumer is entitled to pursuant to the CIPA.

A consumer is entitled to file a lawsuit against any business that is violating their rights under the CIPA, and to seek damages from the business pursuant to the CIPA. The consumer can receive compensation via statutory damages of up to $5,000.00 per illegally recorded phone call, and up to three times their actual damages (out of pocket damages, and so forth).

While the consumer has the right to certain protections in their telephone communications – whether the consumer is talking on a cell phone or on a landline – the standards are different depending on the type of telephone that is being used by the consumer.

If a landline is being used by the individual, there has to then be a reasonable expectation of privacy in the communication before there can be a violation of the CIPA for the call having been recorded without the individual’s knowledge or consent.

To determine if there was a required ‘confidential communication’ in the phone call, a court will often try to examine what the content was of the information that was disclosed, and what the surrounding circumstances were.

In regard to situations where an individual person is using a cell phone, the CIPA imposes strict liability. So, the content of the communication does not have to be of a private nature.

There is no requirement that there had to have been a ‘confidential communication’ in the phone call, such as when an individual is talking on a landline. If the business records the audio of a cell phone conversation without the consumer’s knowledge or consent, it is a violation of the law, even if the business did not know that the consumer was talking on their cell phone.

As mentioned, the person harmed is entitled pursuant to the CIPA to statutory damages of $5,000.00 for each and every unlawfully recorded call; so, per call. The CIPA only applies to people who are within the state of California at the time of the call(s).

Businesses outside of California who are audio-recording people in California must still comply with the requirements of the CIPA when making the call(s) to, or receiving call(s) from, a person who is within California at the time that the call(s) occurs. A business’s ignorance of the CIPA would not be an excuse to violating the law.

The statute of limitations period for a person to sue a company that has violated that person’s rights under the CIPA is one year. This means that a consumer has one year from when that company violated their rights to sue them. There is an argument for an equitable tolling of the statute of limitations period if the consumer was not aware that their call had been secretly audio-recorded without their permission and express consent.

It can be hard to determine whether a company is recording a consumer illegally, if they will not disclose that fact to the consumer. A strategy that a person can take to determine this is to ask the company at the beginning of the call whether or not the call is or will be recorded. Some companies will turn off call recording on a respective call if they are asked to do so. Other companies might refuse to turn off call recording on a respective call if they are asked to do so.

Some companies will try to make the argument that if a person continues to remain on a call, even after the company discloses that the call is being recorded later on in the call, then that would amount to implied consent from the person for the call to be recorded.

Some consumers will argue that a refusal by a company to turn off call recording during a call with a person is something that could make the company liable for damages under the CIPA. People are always free to leave the conversation if the company will not stop recording the call, and to then sue the company for not telling the person that the call would be recorded before they started recording the call.

Some companies will hide language in written contracts that states that if the contract is signed then the company obtains consent from the consumer for the company to record all future calls between the company and the consumer.

Consumers should watch out for such language in contracts. However, there is also the argument to be made that if that type of language is hidden within a standard form contract, or in the terms and conditions of a contract or website, then such a provision is unconscionable, which would make it unenforceable.

If a consumer was within California when the consumer spoke on the phone with a company or another person, and if the consumer believes that the consumer’s call was recorded illegally, without the consumer’s express consent, then as mentioned, the consumer can sue the company for statutory and actual damages. A consumer can give the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, their respective state’s Attorney General’s Office, and/or a law firm a call if the consumer needs assistance. No one should be illegally recorded without their consent.

The post The California Invasion of Privacy Act first appeared on Rights Protection Law Group, PLLC.

Has BC Services, Inc. Been Sued for Alleged Unlawful Debt Collection Practices in Violation of the FDCPA? – Colorado

Rights Protect — Wed, 23 Apr 2025 05:31:05 +0000

Yes. BC Services, Inc. (“BC Services”) is a debt collector that was sued in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado in the Colorado Springs Division for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). The FDCPA is a federal statute that prohibits debt collectors from engaging in certain actions during the debt collection process. The docket number for this case is Case No. 1:11-cv-01353-PAB-BNB.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant called her in order to collect on an alleged medical debt that she owed. She alleged that in this phone call, the defendant threatened to take legal action against the plaintiff and garnish her wages if she did not make arrangements to pay her debt. The plaintiff alleged she set up payment arrangements as a result of the defendant’s threat. The plaintiff alleged that because the defendant did not have the ability to acquire a judgment or garnish her wages, the defendant acted in violation of the FDCPA by threatening to take action that they could not legally take.

In another federal lawsuit from the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, BC Services was also sued for allegedly violating the FDCPA. The docket number for this case is Case No. 1:11-cv-02964-RBJ.

In this case, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant served her with notice of a lawsuit in relation to an alleged debt. According to the plaintiff, allegedly after she received the notice of a lawsuit, she called the defendant in order to make payment arrangements. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant told her that it would garnish her wages unless she could commit to paying a $150 monthly payment as well as a $200 upfront payment. She alleged that even though she let the defendant know that she could not afford this payment plan, she still agreed to it due to the threats that the defendant had made. The plaintiff then alleged that she checked her finances and confirmed that she could not afford the monthly payment so she made another call to the defendant in which they allowed her to enter into a less expensive payment plan ($75 upfront payment and $75 per month).

The plaintiff alleged that after that phone call, the defendant sent her a letter which informed her that it would charge her card for the original $200 upfront payment amount. She alleged that she called the defendant to notify them of this error and that the defendant verified the updated $75 payment amount, confirming that the higher amount would not be charged. The plaintiff then alleged that a few days later, a charge for $200 was declined on her card. She alleged that she called the defendant after seeing this failed transaction and that once again, the defendant confirmed her $75 per month payment agreement.

The plaintiff alleged that the next month she received correspondence from the defendant which stated that it would charge her an amount higher than the agreed upon $75. She alleged that upon calling the defendant, it stated that her payment plan was $150 and not $75 like it had confirmed before. Furthermore, the plaintiff alleged that when she asked the defendant to provide a written statement of the $75 agreement, it informed her that it does not use written agreements. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant then told her that it would get rid of the $150 plan and only have the $75 plan on her record.

She alleged that the defendant’s behavior could be seen as offensive to reasonable consumers. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant falsely represented the amount of the debt, unlawfully threatened to garnish her wages, and used deceptive means to collect the debt, among other actions, and in doing so, violated the laws set forth in the FDCPA.

In the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, another federal lawsuit was filed against BC Services for alleged violations of the FDCPA. The docket number for this case is Case No. 1:14-cv-00315-CMA-BNB.

The plaintiff in this case alleged that she incurred an alleged debt that she disputed and after she defaulted on the debt, the debt was assigned to BC Services for collection purposes. She then alleged that the defendant filed a lawsuit against her which resulted in a default judgment against the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant served a writ of garnishment on her employer which asked them to withhold part of her wages for a specified amount of time.

Afterwards, the plaintiff alleged that she contacted the defendant in order to set up a payment arrangement but that the defendant informed her that she could not make an arrangement while the writ was effective. The plaintiff also alleged that the defendant told her that it could not stop the writ so she had to wait until the writ expired to create a payment arrangement. The plaintiff alleged that these claims by the defendant were false.

The plaintiff alleged that after the effective period of the writ ended, her employer continued to pay a portion of her wages to the defendant and that the defendant was aware of the fact that it was receiving her wages even after the writ had expired. She then alleged that she contacted the defendant to inform it of the illegal garnishment and to set up a payment arrangement for the debt. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant did not allow her to create a payment plan and instead, notified her that it had reinstated the garnishment and had sent a new writ to her employer. The plaintiff alleged that these statements were false.

The plaintiff alleged that many of the defendant’s actions constituted violations of the FDCPA. Specifically, among other actions, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant used false representations in connection with the writ and the garnishment of her wages, used unfair or unconscionable means by continuing to receive payments after the expiration of the writ, and also used unfair or unconscionable means by refusing to let her enter a payment plan for the debt.

What constitutes a violation of a consumer’s rights during the debt collection process?

The FDCPA is a federal statute that was enacted to promote fair debt collection, to eliminate unlawful collection practices, and to provide legal protection to consumers against debt collectors. The FDCPA covers consumer debts like credit card debt, student loans, auto loans, and mortgages.

The FDCPA prohibits certain behaviors during the debt collection process. For example, when collecting a debt from a consumer, a debt collector cannot use abusive language, threaten to take action that cannot be taken, or act unconscionably, amongst other things. Additionally, debt collectors are restricted by the hours during which they can call a consumer — they can only communicate with consumers between 8 a.m. and 9 p.m. — and they must cease their calls to a consumer if the individual asks them to stop calling. Furthermore, in most states, and unless a debt collector is a debt collection law firm, a debt collector cannot threaten to sue a consumer; as they do not have the present right to do so. In these cases, the right to sue remains with the original or current creditor.

If a debt collector has violated a consumer’s rights under the FDCPA, the consumer can sue them for damages. The consumer could be entitled to statutory damages of up to $1,000, as well as actual damages including, but not limited to harm or loss that resulted from a debt collector’s actions.

The post Has BC Services, Inc. Been Sued for Alleged Unlawful Debt Collection Practices in Violation of the FDCPA? – Colorado first appeared on Rights Protection Law Group, PLLC.

Overview of Repossession Law, Including in New Hampshire Repossession Law

Rights Protect — Tue, 15 Apr 2025 03:47:31 +0000

Overview of Repossession Law, Including in New Hampshire Repossession Law

When a vehicle is purchased, there are a multitude of documents to be signed to legalize the transaction between the buyer and the seller. If the vehicle’s purchase is financed by a consumer through the usage of an auto loan lender, all signed documents regarding financing exist to protect the rights of both the consumer and the lender. Different states have different requirements as to the terms and conditions that must be specified in the contracts that are signed at the time of the sale.

One document that must be signed prior to any finalized sale is that of the Security Agreement. This is a legally binding contract that can give the loan-issuing bank the right to repossess your vehicle, should you fall behind on payments. A Retail Sales Installment Contract is a document which outlines the specific terms under which the transaction is taking place.

All repossessions performed by third-party companies that regularly repossess vehicles must be in line with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq. (“FDCPA”), which protects consumers against abusive debt collection measures.

In general, when or if a repossession does occur, there are strict laws and regulations that the lender and repossession company that they hired must abide by for the repossession to be considered lawful. The repossession company must keep the peace, and must not commit what is called a breach of the peace. There should be no yelling, chaos, usage of physical violence, or verbal threats of any sort. If the local police become involved by the repossession company, and threaten to arrest the individual for failure to comply with the repossession company’s requests, or try to assist the repossession company in repossessing the vehicle, then this would be considered a breach of the peace, and it could also be considered a civil rights violation by the officers involved. Breaching the peace would be considered grounds for a lawsuit regarding a wrongful repossession.

As mentioned, most states have their own laws in place to protect both the consumer and the lending institution. These include what the creditors and repossession agencies are allowed and not allowed to do regarding the repossession of a vehicle when it is being used as collateral for an auto loan.

A Consumer’s Repossession Rights in New Hampshire

Before A Repossession May Occur

Does a right to repossession exist?

The right to repossess exists in the State of New Hampshire.

How long is it until the loan is considered in default?

Ten days past the agreed-upon payment date is when New Hampshire considers a borrower’s loan as in default.

Has the State implemented a Right to Cure?

New Hampshire is one of several states that allows the Right to Cure prior to repossession. Simply stated, this gives the borrower the right to catch up on missed payments prior to their vehicle being repossessed. A notice must be sent by the lender to the borrower with the amount that must be paid to cure the default on the loan, and avoid repossession.

Is there State-specific legislation to protect consumers?

The State of New Hampshire relies heavily on the due diligence of the creditor. Legislation holds that reasonable attempts should be made to contact the borrower regarding a defaulted loan and the borrower’s right to cure prior to repossession. All attempts to contact the borrower and collect on a debt owed must be in line with the FDCPA, and also the New Hampshire Unfair, Deceptive or Unreasonable Collection Practices Act, N.H. Rev. Stat. § 358-C, et seq. (“RSA 358-C”), both of which are consumer protection statutes.

New Hampshire protects the rights of the consumer via the Unfair, Deceptive or Unreasonable Collection Practices Act. That statute works in conjunction with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to ensure that consumers are not being harassed or otherwise threatened when they are contacted by debt collectors.

Repossessions in New Hampshire

Is prior notice needed to repossess?

New Hampshire is one of many states that does not require the creditor or repossession company to notify the consumer of the impending repossession, in terms of where and when the repossession will occur. If efforts have been made to contact the consumer regarding their right to cure and the loan has not been paid for at least ten days, the vehicle may legally be repossessed without prior notice to the consumer.

Is trespassing allowed? How is trespassing defined?

State law in New Hampshire allows repossession companies to go onto a consumer’s property to repossess a vehicle. However, agents are not permitted in fenced yards or locked garages without the consent of the homeowner. They are also not allowed into a borrower’s home without the borrower’s consent and they must leave the property if asked to do so.

Repossessions can occur outside of the homeowner’s property, such as at a grocery store or a mall, without notice. However, the repossession cannot occur as a result of a trick by the repossession company to get the consumer to go to an outside location – going there must have been of the consumer’s own free will.

Is video recording a repossession or an attempt to repossess legal?

The State of New Hampshire is a two-party consent state, meaning both parties in a recorded segment must have given consent to be recorded for the recording to be considered legal. However, if the cameras are located in a place where a reasonable amount of privacy would not be expected and a sign is posted regarding the recording, then recording under those circumstances would be considered lawful.

Homeowners would be within their rights to put up exterior surveillance cameras to record a repossession, as long as there is notice posted somewhere conspicuous that recording is taking place. The reasonable expectation of privacy is not expected for the entrants on a homeowner’s private property, so the recording would be permissible in a court of law, should the need arise. Borrowers might want to exercise their rights of video surveillance in the event of a repossession in New Hampshire, to ensure that any violations of the law at the time of the event are captured.

Post-Repossession in New Hampshire

Regarding Post-Repossession Notices:

How quickly must the post-repossession notice be sent to the borrower?

An exact timeframe is not specified by the State of New Hampshire. However, post-repossession notices must be sent within a reasonable amount of time after the repossession occurs and with a reasonable amount of advanced notice of the impending sale of the vehicle.

What details must the post-repossession notice include?

The notice of the upcoming sale at an auction must contain the auction date, time, and location of the sale of the vehicle, and a description of the vehicle.

Does the borrower have the option for the redemption of the vehicle prior to the sale?

The borrower has up to the very moment prior to the auctioneer deeming that the vehicle is “sold” to pay off the balance owed plus legal costs to redeem ownership of the vehicle.

State requirements for the sale of the vehicle – “Commercially Reasonable”:

The sale of the vehicle in New Hampshire must be considered commercially reasonable. The term “commercially reasonable” encompasses the following:

The sale cannot take place too hurriedly or be too delayed in regard to the date of repossession; and
The auction must be well-advertised and well-attended to be considered commercially reasonable and lawful; and
The final sale price must be considered fair in comparison to the balance owed on the loan and the market value of the vehicle.

What are the terms and conditions of a deficiency owed or of a surplus from the sale?

Whatever the vehicle sells for, subtracted by the balance owed on the loan, is a deficiency that must be paid by the buyer. For example, if the vehicle sells for $5,000.00 and the buyer still owed $7,500.00, the deficiency to be paid by the buyer would be $2,500.00. If this deficiency is not paid, the creditor can sue the borrower in court for the balance owed. On the other hand, if the car sells for more than the value of what is owed on the loan, that surplus amount must be returned to the borrower.

What to Do if You Suspect Your Rights Have Been Compromised

Due to the fact that lenders do not require a court order to repossess a vehicle in New Hampshire, this often leads to some lenders and/or their repossession agents trying to skirt the laws set forth to protect consumers. When illegal activity occurs, the borrower has the potential option of suing the lending institution, and/or repossession company for any infringement(s) upon their rights.

If a consumer wants to sue regarding unfair debt collection practices, they may do so under the New Hampshire state law, the Unfair, Deceptive or Unreasonable Collection Practices Act for the greater of actual damages or $200, and for your attorney’s fees and costs paid. They also have the option to sue under the FDCPA for actual damages and attorneys fees and costs, and also statutory damages of up to $1,000.00.

Scenarios that May Constitute an Unlawful Repossession, Include but Are Not Limited To:

A Breach of the Peace; and
Personal property and real property of the consumer being damaged by repossession company; and
Police involvement to persuade borrower to give up their vehicle; and
Security Agreement not signed; and
Notices after repossession and intent to sell not having been sent or having missing or inaccurate information; and
Repossessing the wrong vehicle.

What Consumers May Be Entitled to in the Case of a Wrongful Repossession

Damages of up to $1,000.00 in statutory damages plus your legal fees and costs paid, pursuant to the FDCPA; and
In New Hampshire, your attorney’s fees and costs paid, plus the greater of actual damages or $200 pursuant to the Unfair, Deceptive or Unreasonable Collection Practices Act; and
Annulment of deficiency owed or of the entire remaining balance of loan amount, in addition to 10% of the vehicle’s sale price at auction if the vehicle was sold.

A consumer may contact the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; their respective state’s Attorney General’s Office; and a law firm, if they believe they are the victim of a wrongful repossession. No one should have their rights violated.

The post Overview of Repossession Law, Including in New Hampshire Repossession Law first appeared on Rights Protection Law Group, PLLC.

Did the CFPB Pursue Citibank for Alleged Deceptive Collection Practices?

Rights Protect — Tue, 15 Apr 2025 03:47:31 +0000

In 2018, Citibank reached a settlement with the Consumer Protection Financial Bureau (“CFPB”) regarding the company’s alleged failure to review and potentially decrease its annual percentage rate(s) (“APR”) for a portion of its customers’ credit cards. The CFPB found Citibank to be in alleged violation of the federal Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601-1667f, as amended. As stated by this federal law, banks are required to conduct reviews every six months to decide whether or not its customers are able to receive reduced APRs, as determined by various market conditions and credit risk. The company claimed that around 90 percent of its account holders’ interest rates were fairly evaluated, but they allegedly still sent out refunds totaling up to $335 million dollars, to about 1.75 million customers. They allegedly estimated that individuals would receive around $190.00 each by the end of the year. Citibank allegedly was not fined any additional penalties by the CFPB since it reported the issue quickly and accordingly.

Creditors such as banks, and credit card companies, cannot robocall your cell phone with an automated telephone dialing machine, with the capability for predictive dialing, after you have told them to stop calling, whether you owe them money or not. If you are continuing to get such harassing and unwanted phone calls, then the company bothering you could very well be in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq. (“TCPA”). Businesses that are found to be in violation of consumers’ rights, could be found liable for $500.00-$1,500.00 per violative call; so for every call that they have made to the consumer after the consumer has told them to stop calling. This includes situations where they are calling the wrong consumer. People have, in numerous states in America, a right to privacy that is recognized by the courts. Congress enacted the TCPA, a federal statute, in order to try to help protect those rights. While people may be in default on a debt, and owe a creditor money, that does not mean that a creditor is allowed to collect from them in an illegal manner. Creditors should always utilize lawful means in order to try to collect on a debt.

Others Matters Involving Citibank and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

In 2015, Citibank was involved in a case with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The CFPB allegedly found that Citibank used illegal practices regarding its add-on products for credit cards and hurt its customers in the process. More specifically, the company was allegedly said to have used deceptive marketing tactics for five of its debt protection products (“AccountCare”, “Balance Protector”, “Credit Protector”, “Payment Safeguard”, and “Credit Protection”) and other products (“IdentityMonitor”, “Citi Credit Monitoring Services”, “PrivacyGuard” and “Watch-Guard Preferred”). Its debt protection products allegedly were marketed as being able to either cancel or defer a customer’s payment if they happened to be affected by certain hardships, and its other products related to account security and monitoring. It was found that nearly 7 million card and account holders were negatively impacted by Citibank’s actions.

Regarding its alleged practices of deceptive marketing, the CFPB allegedly determined that Citibank used deception during enrollment via telemarketers, websites, and retailers, and also during calls in which enrolled customers wanted to cancel their services. The CFPB allegedly found that the company’s violations included the following alleged actions:

The CFPB concluded that during telemarketing calls, the callers allegedly either misrepresented or did not give information to customers about the cost and fees of the products and services they were advertising. It was said that Citibank allegedly provided a number of scripts to telemarketers that promoted a free trial period of 30 days, where in reality, customers that signed up for this membership were still charged during that initial period. In some other cases, the company allegedly did not reveal to customers that if they did not cancel their membership, they would be charged after the 30-day period ended. The bank also allegedly told other customers that the fee could be evaded if they paid off their balance by the due date where in reality, customers actually had to pay their full balances by the end of their next billing cycle (which was alleged to be a sooner date in some cases).
The CFPB concluded that Citibank allegedly falsely represented the beneficial capabilities of some of its credit-monitoring products. The bank allegedly said that these products had fraud alert services that would alert account holders of suspicious activity and purchases. However, these products allegedly did not actually alert consumers of individual transactions and only provided notifications for any changes in a customer’s credit file. Furthermore, it allegedly was determined that Citibank also allegedly gave consumers false information about credit score calculation benefits. It was believed that the company alleged that a customer’s credit score would be reported by major credit reporting companies but that the scores were actually calculated by a third-party company.
The CFPB concluded that via its subsidiary, Citicorp Credit Services, Citibank allegedly engaged in illegal enrollment actions. The company allegedly was said to have asked leading questions that led to customers complying to billing authorizations for certain products. In some cases, customers who did not give explicit approval or those who gave inconclusive responses were all allegedly enrolled in product memberships and charged accordingly.
The CFPB concluded that Citibank allegedly either misrepresented or left out information regarding benefit eligibility even after customers revealed information that would render them unable to receive certain coverages. In these cases, it was observed that Citibank allegedly did not notify these customers and instead, still enrolled them in the products they were signing up for.

In addition to alleged deceptive marketing, the CFPB found that Citibank allegedly engaged in unfair billing practices. Federal law states that most of the time, customers have to give authorization for banks or vendors to access their credit information in order to provide various add-on products. Allegedly, in many cases, it was found that although Citibank billed its customers for the add-on products of credit monitoring, and credit report retrieval, it did not have the necessary authorization to provide these services. On other occasions, possibly due to issues of missing information, either Citibank or its vendors allegedly were not able to successfully deliver these services to the customer. Thus, the CFPB determined that starting from 2000 (if not earlier) to 2013, Citibank carried out the following alleged acts that affect around 2.2 million account holders:

The bank allegedly billed customers who either did not give authorization or who were not able to partake in the benefits. It allegedly still continued to charge these individuals even though they were not receiving any services.
Customers who believed that they were under the services of the add-on product allegedly may have been only partially monitored, if at all.

Additionally, the CFPB found that Citibank allegedly used deceptive collection practices, where in order for payments to be applied on the account the day of, Citibank offered its customers the option to pay by phone for some of its credit card accounts. However, this form of payment came with a

$14.95 fee that Citibank allegedly mislabeled as a processing fee. The fee was allegedly actually for expedited payments in order for the money to be posted on the account the same day. Citibank allegedly did not tell customers the true purpose of the fee nor allegedly did it reveal any no-cost payments for them, so that many times, customers allegedly were charged these fees even though they did not need to make these rushed payments.

Given the alleged violations mentioned previously, the CFPB ordered Citibank to carry out the following actions:

Citibank was told to provide a total of $700 million dollars in payment to around 8.8 million of its customers. Of the total amount, $479 million dollars was given to the 4.8 million customers that were allegedly affected by the alleged deceptive marketing. $196 million dollars was paid to the 2.2 million accounts who were signed up for and allegedly charged add-on products even though the stated services were not provided in full. $23.8 million dollars was funded to the 1.8 million customers who were allegedly charged same-day payment fees.
Citibank was told to reimburse customers who may have allegedly been negatively affected by its actions. Account holders would not have to take any action to receive their refunds. Citibank would initiate these reimbursements.
Citibank was told to end their alleged deceptive billing practices for customers who were allegedly not being given the benefits they were charged for.
Citibank was told to stop marketing its add-on products until it submitted a plan of compliance to the CFPB.
Citibank was told to pay a $35 million disciplinary payment to the CFPB’s Civil Penalty Fund.

In late 2017, the Consumer Protection Financial Bureau found that Citibank allegedly committed violations regarding student loan services that allegedly negatively affected its customers. It was stated that the allegedly bank misled, omitted, and/or gave false information to its borrowers and charged erroneous fees to some accounts. Citibank has been a private student loan servicer for a number of years already and as such, they manage payments and provide customer support. It is also their duty to supply their borrowers with account statements and tax information, as well as to monitor enrollment status and give possible deferments to payments. More specifically, for the student loan accounts that Citibank was in charge of, the CFPB found that the company committed the following alleged wrongful actions:

They allegedly misled customers regarding possible benefits to tax deduction. By law, qualifying borrowers are able to reduce their student loan interest on select education loans by up to

$2,500 annually. However, Citibank allegedly had information on their website and account holders’ statements that implied their borrowers did not pay the interest or were not able to receive this tax deduction. Thus, allegedly many customers did not attempt to use this benefit, even if they may have qualified for interest reductions.

Many times, students that are still currently in school are qualified to receive deferments on loan payments until six months after their graduation date (when they are not in school anymore). However, Citibank was found to have canceled these postponements for select borrowers due to incorrect enrollment information. As a result of this, customers were charged late fees for payments that they did not have to make. Citibank then added incorrect amounts of interest to the loan payments and did not repay these falsely charged fees.
For customers who were categorized as “mixed-status borrowers” (those who had many loans with Citi), they often had loans in both repayment status and deferment status. Payments were not required for deferred loans, though customers had the ability to pay them if they wished to do so. However, Citibank allegedly often charged the minimum amount due for mixed-status borrowers as more than they should have been.
At the time of application of these student loans, a large number of customers co-signed with another individual in order to guarantee the loan. Some of these consumers then asked for their co-signers to be written off from the contracts of some or all of their loans. After Citibank received applications to release the co-signers, they would make a decision based on credit information of the borrower. Allegedly, if they happened to deny an application, Citibank (under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq.) allegedly was found to have not provided their customers with the full information as to why.

As a result of these alleged violations, the CFPB required Citibank to engage in the following remediation actions:

Citibank was ordered to repay $3.75 million to affected customers who allegedly were wrongly charged interest/late fees, who paid allegedly overstated account charges, and/or those who allegedly did not receive appropriate notices due to flawed service(s).
Citibank was ordered to change the ways in which it conducted its services. More specifically, the CFPB asked for Citibank to supply accurate student loan payment information, create a policy that would get rid of allegedly wrongly charged interest/late fees, and to provide more in-depth information to those who were not able to release their co-signers from their loans.
Citibank was ordered to pay $2.75 million to the CFPB’s Civil Penalty Fund.

Citibank and Cases Involving Other Organizations

In May of 2016, Citibank was ordered by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to pay a penalty of $425 million regarding alleged attempted manipulation and misreporting of currency-valuation benchmarks. Out of the total settlement amount, it was reported that the

charge of $250 million was due to issues with the U.S. Dollar International Swaps and Derivatives Association Fix (USD ISDAFIX), a measure of value of interest rates calculated in dollars. The other $175 million encompassed charges due to alleged manipulations by Citigroup Global Markets Japan of the yen LIBOR and euroyen TIBOR in multiple months of 2010. The CFTC ordered Citibank to stop its alleged violations of the Commodity Exchange Act and to create new policies that would maintain obedience to and the integrity of standards like the USD ISDAFIX.

In January of 2018, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) announced that Citibank was fined $70 million dollars due to their alleged failure to follow a consent order regarding their policies against money laundering. In 2012, Citibank’s policies relating to the Bank Secrecy Act (BCA) and its anti-laundering complying program were found to have alleged deficiencies and the company was asked to fix them. The OCC found that Citibank allegedly did not take the necessary steps to correct and improve their compliance issues as directed by the 2012 order. The OCC also said that the company allegedly often incompletely identified high risk customers and did not file suspicious activity reports on time.

Also in 2018, Citibank was alleged to have manipulated one of the most important global interest rate measures in the world, LIBOR. Based on a selection of prominent currencies, LIBOR determines the price that banks pay each other and affects more than trillions of dollars of global loans like those for mortgages and consumer products. Citibank settled this issue with 42 U.S. states and agreed to pay a fine of around $100 million dollars. The settlement documented that a number of the company’s employees allegedly either hid or wrongfully reported their interbank loan payments via email and messages. It also asserts that by allegedly fixing the interest rate, the company made profits of millions of dollars from various non-profit and governmental groups.

In September of 2018, it was announced that Citigroup would be fined $5 million dollars due to alleged uses of “robo signatures” for proofs of claim. The U.S. Department of Justice found that the bank allegedly “robo-signed” many of these documents for bankruptcy cases regarding a large amount of Macy’s credit card accounts. It was found that, between the years of 2012 and 2015, allegedly these proofs were filed by third-party individuals who either did not read the contents of the documents or did not have enough knowledge to understand the contents and were employed by Department Stores National Bank, a subsidiary entity. The penalty of $5 million dollars was to be split between those allegedly affected by these actions, with each cardholder collecting around $70 dollars.

Also, in September of 2018, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) found that Citigroup allegedly misled its dark pool users and charged the company a payment of around $17 million dollars. The SEC claimed that Citigroup’s investors made payments in the belief that their trading activity was not being interfered with by other high-frequency traders. However, it was alleged that Citigroup allegedly allowed high-frequency trading parties to gain entrance to Citi Match, a trading arena that was marketed as being free from computer-based traders. The SEC found that Citigroup allegedly did not tell its customers that these high-frequency traders were, in fact, also trading in Citi Match and that it allegedly did not notify its investors that it had routed their trades to other venues outside of Citi Match. While the company did not admit or deny these allegations, it chose to settle and paid the penalty as set out by the SEC.

This October of 2018, Citibank Europe (based in Dublin) was fined by the Central Bank of Ireland for allegedly violating its lending codes/codes of practice. It was alleged that senior managers of the company received credit card services and loans without completing the correct authorization steps. After an ensuing investigation, the Central Bank determined that the company allegedly did not have code-compliant policies or processes for an interval of almost three years. The Central Bank said that Citibank Europe committed actions of alleged inaccurate reporting since many of the company’s supervisors allegedly could not accurately monitor the firm’s transactions with employees and related parties. However, the investigation did determine that there was no evidence suggesting that related parties of the company were given better terms for loans than unrelated parties. Citibank Europe was still fined €1.33 million euros for its alleged code breaches.

In November of 2018, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) found Citibank to allegedly be in violation of conduct when dealing with their American Depositary Receipts (ADRs). ADRs are negotiable securities traded in U.S. markets that represent the number of shares in a foreign company. The SEC allegedly discovered evidence that Citibank allegedly improperly supplied these securities to brokers in numerous premature transactions and that the existing number of shares allegedly could not support the ADRs that were provided. These actions then allegedly caused an inflation of the quantity of foreign securities, short selling, and dividend arbitrage. While Citibank did not admit to or deny these allegations, the company agreed to pay a fine of over $38 million dollars. The total amount was broken up as $20.9 million dollars for the alleged disgorgement of illegally acquired gains, $4.2 million dollars for prejudgment interest, and $13.5 million dollars as a penalty.

A number of lawsuits against Citibank have been filed. Citibank is a creditor for many consumers. Some individuals have filed suit against different creditors – such as banks – citing alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). These individuals allege claim(s) that creditors have harassed them with phone calls to their cell phone, without the consumer’s express consent. Some consumers allege that creditors have called them numerous times with automatic telephone dialing machine systems, also known as robo-calling them. Many creditors will leave unwanted pre-recorded messages if they do not reach the consumer on the phone. Many consumers allege that they have asked the employees and agents of creditors multiple times to stop these unwanted calls, but that they continue to receive them. Sometimes, the creditor is calling the wrong person’s cell phone number, but the calls continue.

If a consumer is receiving harassing phone calls from a creditor, after the consumer told the creditor and/or its agent(s) to stop calling, the consumer should contact the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, their respective state’s Attorney General’s Office, and a law firm for help. If a creditor keeps robo-calling a consumer, after the consumer has told it to stop calling, it could owe the consumer $500-$1,500 dollars per call if it has been using an automated telephone dialing machine with the capability for predictive dialing. No one should ever be getting harassing, unwanted phone calls, whether they owe money to a creditor or not.

The post Did the CFPB Pursue Citibank for Alleged Deceptive Collection Practices? first appeared on Rights Protection Law Group, PLLC.

Has Asset Recovery Associates Been Sued for Alleged Unlawful Debt Collection Practices in Violation of the FDCPA?

Rights Protect — Tue, 15 Apr 2025 03:47:31 +0000

Yes. Asset Recovery Associates (“ARA”) is a debt collector that was sued in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona for allegedly violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), a federal statute that protects consumers from unlawful debt collection practices. ARA’s employees were also sued in this case for the same alleged violations. The docket number for this case is Case No. 2:11-cv-00541-ROS.

The plaintiff alleged that he allegedly owed a debt to a creditor that was transferred to the defendant ARA. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant called him in order to collect the alleged debt which related to a car repossession from the year 2000. The plaintiff alleged that he disputed the debt, saying that the debt was not his and that he did not have a car in the year 2000. He alleged that the defendant(s) informed him that they would take legal action against him if he did not pay the debt even though the statute of limitations period for the debt had already expired. The plaintiff alleged that ARA requested for the plaintiff to set up a payment arrangement with the company’s attorney. He also alleged that the defendant(s) threatened to garnish his wages. Additionally, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant(s) made threatening remarks about his employment history and social security number as well as conducted an inquiry into his credit report without his consent.

The plaintiff alleged that the following actions, amongst others, of the defendants were in violation of the FDCPA: using profane and abusive language; misrepresenting the character, amount, or legal status of the debt; and threatening to take action that they cannot legally take.

ARA and the company’s employees were also sued in the United States District Court for the Central District of California in the Western Division for alleged violations of the FDCPA and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Practices Act (“RFDCPA”). The docket number for this case is Case No. 2:12-cv-09470-JC.

In this case, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant attempted to collect an alleged debt from her that the plaintiff believed to have been paid off in 1997. She alleged that the defendant called her phone, pretended to be an old friend, and failed to inform her that the call was in relation to a debt. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant also told her that a judgment was going out against her on that day and urged her to pay the debt. The plaintiff alleged that by saying this, she was led to believe that the defendant had obtained a judgment against her or that the defendant would file a lawsuit against her if she did not pay the debt. The plaintiff alleged that to her knowledge, ARA did not file suit or obtain a judgment against her, and that they are unable to do so because the statute of limitations period for the debt had already expired.

The plaintiff alleged that ARA and its employees used false or deceptive representations in connection with the debt collection, misrepresented the debt, used false means to collect the debt, and also used unfair or unconscionable means. The plaintiff alleged that these actions constituted violations of the FDCPA.

In another case, ARA was sued in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in the San Francisco Division for alleged violations of the FDCPA, RFDCPA, and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The docket number for this case is Case No. 4:19-cv-03685-PJH.

The plaintiff in this case alleged that she began to receive calls to her phone in regard to an alleged credit card debt. She alleged that the defendant left her a voicemail in which it informed her of the amount of the alleged debt and threatened to freeze her credit if she did not pay off the debt. The plaintiff alleged that she was confused about the call because the last payment made on the debt was in 2001. The plaintiff also alleged that she had never given her cell phone number to the defendant.

Afterwards, the plaintiff alleged that she received another call from the representative who left her the voicemail message, and that he reiterated what he said in the message. The plaintiff alleged that he then transferred her to another employee who spoke to her in a rude and threatening way. The plaintiff alleged that she asked for a written statement but that the employee refused to send one because he claimed they had already sent a previous one. Additionally, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant threatened to sue her if she did not pay off the alleged debt. Allegedly, the plaintiff then requested for the defendant to stop calling her.

The plaintiff alleged that despite her request, the defendant continued to call her and that in many of the calls, she had to wait for a period of time before being connected to a representative. The plaintiff alleged that the calls being placed to her phone came from an automated telephone dialing system.

The plaintiff alleged that amongst other actions, the defendant violated the FDCPA by repeatedly placing calls to her phone even after she asked it to stop, by engaging in abusive and harassing behavior, and by threatening to sue the plaintiff even though it did not have the right to do so.

In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida in the Ft. Myers Division, ARA was also sued for alleged violations of the FDCPA. The docket number for this case is Case No. 2:10-cv-00514-CEH-SPC.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant placed multiple calls to her phone every day for almost four weeks in order to collect an alleged debt. She alleged that the defendant called her from a registered number as well as a blocked number. She alleged that in these calls, the defendant never identified itself, nor did it inform her that the calls were coming from a debt collector. The plaintiff also alleged that the defendant threatened to garnish her wages and place a lien on her property if she did not make an immediate payment. Additionally, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant falsely represented that it worked with the attorney general’s office.

According to the plaintiff, the defendant allegedly violated the FDCPA by repeatedly calling her phone, engaging in false and deceptive practices, using harassing or abusive behavior, and failing to inform her of their identity as a debt collector, amongst other actions.

What constitutes a violation of a consumer’s rights during the debt collection process?

The post Has Asset Recovery Associates Been Sued for Alleged Unlawful Debt Collection Practices in Violation of the FDCPA? first appeared on Rights Protection Law Group, PLLC.

Was F.H. Cann and Associates, Inc. Sued for Allegedly Committing Unlawful Debt Collection in Violation of the FDCPA?

Rights Protect — Tue, 15 Apr 2025 03:47:30 +0000

Was F.H. Cann and Associates, Inc. Sued for Allegedly Committing Unlawful Debt Collection in Violation of the FDCPA?

Yes. In the U.S. District for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, a federal class action lawsuit was filed against F.H. Cann and Associates, Inc. (“F.H. Cann and Associates”) – which is a debt collector – for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). The docket number for the case was Case No. 2:17-cv-00496.

The Plaintiff alleged that F.H. Cann and Associates sent out collection notices that display that F.H. Cann and Associates violated the Plaintiff’s rights under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff alleged that F.H. Cann and Associates sent her a collection notice where within it F.H. Cann and Associates demanded that Plaintiff pay F.H. Cann and Associates approximately more than $600 in “collection costs”.

The Plaintiff alleged that this action by F.H. Cann and Associates would be prohibited pursuant to Wisconsin law, even if the fee was separately negotiated. The Plaintiff alleged that F.H. Cann and Associates was engaged in an unfair and unconscionable method of debt collection in violation of the FDCPA, and that F.H. Cann and Associates used false representation or deceptive means to attempt to collect the debt.

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act is a law that regulates the actions of debt collectors.

The Plaintiff alleged that upon her information and belief, the approximately $602.60 that F.H. Cann. and Associates was trying to collect from Plaintiff in collection costs as a fee far exceeded both the actual costs that F.H. Cann and Associates incurred for collection costs from Plaintiff, and the average cost that F.H. Cann and Associates generally incurred for similar attempts to secure payments or information from other borrowers.

The Plaintiff alleged that all that F.H. Cann and Associates had done up to the point in time that the lawsuit was filed against F.H. Cann and Associates by Plaintiff and her counsel was to mail computer-generated form letters to Plaintiff, and to possibly place some telephone calls to Plaintiff.

What is the FDCPA and Who Does it Protect Consumers Against?

If a debt collector is violating a consumer’s rights under the FDCPA, said consumer can sue the debt collector for damages. If a consumer is successful in court against a debt collection agency it could entitle the consumer to statutory damages of up to $1,000.00. The consumer can also receive actual damages to compensate them for any harm or loss that they have suffered as a result of the debt collector’s actions, and the debt collection company could also have to pay for the consumer’s legal fees and costs.

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) is a federal statute, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq. It was enacted by The United States Congress in 1978. There were multiple Congressional findings and declared purposes that led to why Congress enacted the statute.

Congress noticed that there was a lot of evidence displaying the use of abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices by many debt collectors, and that this contributed to a great number of personal bankruptcies, to marital instability, to the loss of jobs, and also to invasions of individual privacy.

Congress wanted to stop this. It stated that the existing laws and procedures to redress those injuries – from before Congress created the FDCPA – were not adequate to protect consumers, so Congress needed to enact something better than what it currently had. That is why it created the FDCPA.

Congress also stated that it felt that there were other things that debt collectors could do to collect debts rather than misrepresenting things and doing abusive things in the course of debt collection.

Congress stated that the purposes of the FDCPA is to eliminate abusive debt collection practices by debt collectors; to ensure that debt collectors who do not commit illegal practices are not competitively disadvantaged; and to promote consistent State action to protect consumers from being victimized by abusive debt collection acts by debt collectors.

When a Debt Collector Cannot Try to Contact A Person In An Attempt to Collect A Debt

A debt collector cannot call a consumer before 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m.

A debt collector cannot call a consumer after the consumer has told them to stop calling the consumer and that the calls harass and/or annoy the consumer.

A debt collector cannot call a consumer if the debt collector has already made seven calls to the consumer in any rolling seven-day period of time.

A debt collector cannot call a consumer at the consumer’s workplace if the consumer has told the debt collector that continued calls to the consumer’s workplace inconvenience the consumer, and/or are prohibited by the consumer’s employer.

A debt collector cannot call a consumer at times and/or time periods when the consumer has already told them that the calls would inconvenience the consumer.

A debt collector cannot contact a consumer via a method of contact – whether it be via phone, email, text message, or fax, etc. – that the consumer has already told the debt collector is unwanted.

What A Consumer Can Do if A Debt Collector is Violating Their Rights

No one should be getting harassed, lied to, or treated in an unfair or deceptive manner by a debt collector. If a debt collector is violating a consumer’s rights under the FDCPA, the consumer can sue them for damages. If a consumer is successful in court, the consumer could be entitled to statutory damages of up to $1,000.00. The consumer could also receive actual damages to compensate the consumer for any harm or loss that the consumer suffered as a result of the debt collector’s actions. The debt collector could also have to pay for the consumer’s legal fees and costs.

The post Was F.H. Cann and Associates, Inc. Sued for Allegedly Committing Unlawful Debt Collection in Violation of the FDCPA? first appeared on Rights Protection Law Group, PLLC.

Has BC Services, Inc. Been Sued for Alleged Unlawful Debt Collection Practices in Violation of the FDCPA?

Rights Protect — Fri, 04 Apr 2025 13:16:00 +0000

Yes. BC Services, Inc. (“BC Services”) was sued in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado for allegedly violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), a federal statute that limits the actions of debt collectors during the debt collection process. The docket number for this case is Case No. 1:12-cv-01183-MEH. The plaintiff allegedly incurred a medical debt that the defendant attempted to collect. The plaintiff alleged that she disputed the validity of the debt. The plaintiff alleged that she received a demand letter from the defendant that contained the amount of her alleged debt but failed to contain the name of the original creditor. After she received this letter, the plaintiff alleged that she began to receive collection calls from the defendant who left a number of recorded messages on her home phone. The plaintiff alleged that because her answering service was not secure, the voicemails left by the defendant could be heard by anyone who called to retrieve messages. The plaintiff also alleged that the defendant contacted her children, which she believed was done to embarrass or to harass her. The plaintiff then alleged that the defendant sent her husband the same letter that they had originally sent her, which would cause an unsophisticated consumer to be confused as to who actually owed the debt. Additionally, she alleged that she was then sent a letter from the defendant’s lawyer who demanded payment from her and told her that she should contact a bank or another entity for a loan. The plaintiff alleged that in the lawyer’s letter, it stated that the defendant would take legal action against the plaintiff if she did not pay the alleged debt and that she could owe more than the original amount. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant filed a lawsuit against her in which they claimed that they were the assignee of the debt yet in previous letters they had claimed that the debt was placed with them. Furthermore, the plaintiff alleged that in the lawsuit, the defendant sought to recover a higher amount than previously stated. The plaintiff also alleged that she had a phone call with an employee of the defendant before the lawsuit occurred. She alleged that in this phone call, the employee gave her two different numbers for the amount that she owed and threatened to garnish her wages if she did not pay the debt. The plaintiff alleged that during this collection process, the defendant violated the FDCPA on multiple counts. She alleged that the defendant acted unlawfully by failing to disclose the name of the debt’s original creditor, contacting a third party for reasons other than locating the debtor, harassing or abusing the consumer, attempting to collect an amount greater than the original debt owed, and threatening to take action that they legally cannot take. Another federal lawsuit was filed against BC Services for alleged violations of the FDCPA and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. The docket number for this case is Case No. 2:16-cv-00561-JAD-PAL. In this case, the plaintiff allegedly owed a debt to a creditor but filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and discharged the alleged debt. The plaintiff alleged that after she was granted the discharge, the defendant attempted to collect a discharged debt. She alleged that the defendant called her cell phone and told her that she had to pay for the debt. The plaintiff then alleged that she informed the defendant that the debt was discharged, to which the defendant stated that she must still pay the debt or face garnishment of her wages. The plaintiff alleged that because she was unaware of her rights and because the defendant made numerous threats and calls to her phone, she made arrangements to repay the debt even though she believed that the debt was discharged. The plaintiff alleged that after she had paid a sum of money to the defendant, she learned that the defendant did not have the right to collect on a discharged debt. Afterwards, the plaintiff alleged that she asked the defendant to refund the money but that she did not receive any money back. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s actions during the collection of a discharged debt were unlawful and violated the FDCPA. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s use of deceptive and misleading behavior, false representations, and unfair means; the misrepresentation of the amount of debt that was owed; and the attempt to collect an amount that was not authorized by the debt’s creation agreement all constituted violations of the FDCPA. BC Services was also sued for alleged violations of the FDCPA in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in the Palm Beach Division. The docket number for this case is Case No. 9:15-cv-81188-KAM. The plaintiff alleged that she had agreed to the purchase of a medical device and that she paid off the total amount of the device in whole. The plaintiff alleged that she then received a collection notice from the defendant which claimed that the plaintiff still owed money on her purchase. She alleged that she provided the defendant with proof of payment via fax and that she verified that the fax was received. Afterwards, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant continued to contact her in order to collect the alleged debt. The plaintiff alleged that she sent the defendant multiple faxes which all contained her proof of payment but that the defendant continued to mail her collection letters for the balance that she had already paid off. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant acted in violation of the FDCPA by attempting to collect a debt that was already paid off in whole, by representing themselves as an entity other than their true identity, and by failing to follow the verification requirements laid out by the FDCPA. What constitutes a violation of a consumer’s rights during the debt collection process? The FDCPA is a federal statute that was enacted to promote fair debt collection, to eliminate unlawful collection practices, and to provide legal protection to consumers against debt collectors. The FDCPA covers consumer debts like credit card debt, student loans, auto loans, and mortgages. The FDCPA prohibits certain behaviors during the debt collection process. For example, when collecting a debt from a consumer, a debt collector cannot use abusive language, threaten to take action that cannot be taken, or act unconscionably, amongst other things. Additionally, debt collectors are restricted by the hours during which they can call a consumer — they can only communicate with consumers between 8 a.m. and 9 p.m — and they must cease their calls to a consumer if the individual asks them to stop calling. Furthermore, in most states, and unless a debt collector is a debt collection law firm, a debt collector cannot threaten to sue a consumer; as they do not have the present right to do so. In these cases, the right to sue remains with the original or current creditor. If a debt collector has violated a consumer’s rights under the FDCPA, the consumer can sue them for damages. The consumer could be entitled to statutory damages of up to $1,000, as well as actual damages including, but not limited to harm or loss that resulted from a debt collector’s actions.

The post Has BC Services, Inc. Been Sued for Alleged Unlawful Debt Collection Practices in Violation of the FDCPA? first appeared on Rights Protection Law Group, PLLC.

The California Identity Theft Act

Rights Protect — Fri, 04 Apr 2025 13:15:59 +0000

The California Identity Theft Act Identity theft is the unauthorized use of another person’s personal identifying information to obtain credit, goods, services, money, or property from that person. If that has happened to a consumer, where someone has used the consumer’s identifying information without the consumer’s authorization in order to obtain credit, goods, services, money, or property and the consumer did not use or possess the credit, goods, services, money, or property obtained by identity theft, and the consumer filed a police report in this regard, then the consumer is considered a victim of identity theft pursuant to California state law. California has an identity theft law, commonly referred to as the California Identity Theft Act, Cal. Civil Code § 1798.92 et seq. (“CITA”). It provides individual consumers with an opportunity to sue companies that wrongly pursue them for debts that are not theirs because the consumer was a victim of identity theft. California’s Identity Theft Act allows people to sue those companies who make a mistaken claim against them; where the person is the victim of identity theft. If a company wrongfully makes a claim against a victim of identity theft, the victim can sue the business in order to receive a declaration that the victim is not obligated on the claim; an injunction to stop attempts to collect by the business; actual damages; attorney fees and costs; and a possible civil penalty of up to $30,000.00 in statutory damages to be paid to the victim. In California, if a consumer is the victim of identity theft, the consumer can pursue getting a court order to have the consumer’s name entered into the California Identity Theft Registry. The California Identity Theft Registry is a database of identity theft victims that was established by the California Department of Justice. It helps victims of identity theft to clear their names. Once the consumer is entered in that registry, the consumer will get notification of the consumer’s status in the Registry. The consumer can present that notice if the consumer is ever questioned in the future about the debt that the consumer knows is not theirs. Additionally, the consumer can request that this notification of the consumer’s status in the Registry be provided to prospective employers or others. It can help the consumer to resolve and clear up mistaken and damaging information. In California, any act of identity theft is a criminal act. However, as mentioned, in California, a person who is a victim of identity theft can also have a private right of action against a person or a business that wrongfully pursues them to collect on a debt. As mentioned, in California, pursuant to the CITA, a person can sue a business or an individual person (also referred to in the CITA as a “claimant”) that claims that the person owes the business or other person monetary funds or an interest in property in connection with a transaction procured through identity theft. A person who is a victim of identity theft can do this in order to establish that they are a victim of identity theft in connection with, for example, a business’s claim against that person. If the claimant has already sued the person to try to recover on its claim against the person, then the person who is a victim of identity theft can file a cross-complaint in court, to establish that they are in fact a victim of identity theft in connection with the claimant’s claim. The statute of limitations (the amount of time that the consumer has to file a lawsuit) is four years from the date that the victim of identity theft knew, or in the exercise of reasonable due diligence, should have known of the existence of facts that would have let them know that they had the opportunity to sue the business for illegal conduct. In order to attain the aforementioned $30,000.00 in statutory damages, a victim of identity theft would have to prove by clear and convincing evidence that:

30 days before a lawsuit or cross complaint in an existing lawsuit was filed by the victim of identity theft, they provided written notice to the claimant at the address that was designated by the claimant for complaints related to credit reporting issues that a situation of identity theft might exist. The victim of identity theft would also have to explain in that notice the basis for that belief that a situation of identity theft might exist.
The claimant failed to diligently investigate the victim’s notification of a possible identity theft having occurred.
The claimant continued to pursue its claim against the victim of identity theft after the claimant was presented with facts that were later held to entitle the victim to a judgment pursuant to the CITA.

Credit card companies, other creditors, or other businesses that can be deemed a claimant often fail to investigate when a victim of identity theft files a claim with them regarding identity theft. The businesses will continue asking the victim to pay up or will just refer the debt to a debt collector, who will telephone and often harass the victim, demanding payment from the victim. Creditors often do not respond to a victim of identity theft’s claims, because they sometimes believe that many consumers just claim that identity theft occurred so that they can try to avoid legitimate debts. So, they may be skeptical in regard to a consumer’s claims. This is why the CITA is important. It forces creditors and debt collectors to investigate claims of fraudulent accounts. If someone who has committed identity theft against a consumer is convicted criminally for identity theft, a creditor such as credit card company, for example, should write off the debt. Providing a copy of the criminal case’s docket report to the creditor, showing the thief’s conviction, can help convince a creditor to write off the debt. Some creditors and debt collectors state that they require an FTC Identity Theft Affidavit in order for them to substantiate identity theft claims. These can be found on identitytheft.gov, the United States federal government’s website in regard to the subject of identity theft. Creditors and debt collectors often want to examine a consumer’s signature, a consumer’s driver’s license, and a consumer’s social security card in order to make their own determination on whether identity theft occurred or not. Providing five or six authentic signatures to the creditor or debt collector from various documents that a consumer has signed can help these companies compare a consumer’s signature with any other signatures that the consumer claims have been forged. In the end, if a creditor, debt collector, person, or other business does not want to stop asserting that a consumer owes it funds, and actively tries to sue the consumer or to take other means to collect from the consumer, and the consumer knows that the consumer is a victim of identity theft and has taken the required aforementioned steps required by the CITA, then pursuant to the CITA if the consumer is successful in court the consumer is then entitled to recover attorney’s fees, costs, an order that the debt be forgiven, actual damages, and also a recovery of up to $30,000.00 in statutory damages. A consumer can give the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, their respective state’s Attorney General’s Office, and/or a law firm a call if the consumer needs assistance. No one should have their notifications and claims to creditors and debt collectors in regard to being victims of identity theft wrongfully ignored or dismissed.

The post The California Identity Theft Act first appeared on Rights Protection Law Group, PLLC.

Has Transworld Systems Been Sued for Alleged Unlawful Debt Collection Practices in Violation of the FDCPA?

Rights Protect — Tue, 01 Apr 2025 17:39:01 +0000

Yes. Transworld Systems (“Transworld”), a known debt collector, was sued in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in the Eastern Division for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). The FDCPA is a federal law that provides legal protection for consumers against unlawful debt collection actions. The docket number for this case is Case No. 1:18-cv-05181.

The plaintiff allegedly incurred a debt from a creditor that was assigned to Transworld for collection purposes. She alleged that the defendant made a call to her cellphone in order to collect the alleged debt and that she failed to answer this call. The plaintiff alleged that in the following days, the defendant called her numerous times in relation to the alleged debt, sometimes multiple times on the same day, from a variety of numbers that all belonged to the defendant.

Afterwards, the plaintiff alleged that she called the defendant in order to notify them that their actions of calling her repeatedly, hanging up the phone after she answered, and not responding after she answered qualified as harassment. The plaintiff also alleged that she wanted verification of the alleged debt and that she had requested that the defendant cease telephone contact with her. However, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s employee told her that they would continue with the collection activities. The plaintiff alleged that in the few days following that call, the defendant continued to place many calls to her phone and continued to hang up on the plaintiff or to fail to respond to her answer.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s actions violated the FDCPA because they engaged in practices that resulted in harassment or abuse, they caused her cell phone to ring repeatedly, and they failed to validate her debt, amongst other actions.

Transworld was also sued in the United States District Court for the Central District of California for alleged violations of the FDCPA and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The docket number for this case is Case No. 2:11-cv-06148-SS.

In this case, the plaintiff alleged that Transworld sent a letter to his mother in relation to an alleged debt that the plaintiff owed. Allegedly, the plaintiff’s mother’s name was added to the letter which made it seem like she also owed the alleged debt. The plaintiff alleged that he neither lived with his mother nor used her mailing address as his own. He also alleged that the plaintiff did not send him a letter to his own address.

Afterwards, the plaintiff alleged that his legal counsel asked the defendant for verification of the alleged debt. The plaintiff alleged that after the defendant failed to respond to this letter, his counsel sent a second letter that the defendant also did not respond to.

According to the plaintiff, by sending a letter about the alleged debt to this mother, the defendant allegedly communicated with a third party for a purpose unrelated to obtaining information about the plaintiff’s location, provided their own identity to a third party without the information being requested, and disclosed the existence of an alleged debt to a third party. The plaintiff alleged that these actions constitute violations of the FDCPA.

In another case, a federal lawsuit was filed against Transworld for alleged violations of the FDCPA and the Arkansas Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. This case occurred in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. The docket number for this case is Case No. 3:18-cv-00192-DPM.

The plaintiff in this case alleged that he co-signed a student loan for a third party in June 2007 and that the last payment made on the loan was paid in June 2011. The plaintiff alleged that in June 2016, a lawsuit was filed against him for the student loan and that the case was dismissed without prejudice in September 2016.

Afterwards, the plaintiff alleged that in December 2017, Transworld sent a collection letter to the plaintiff in regards to the alleged loan debt. The plaintiff alleged that this letter failed to inform him that the statute of limitations period had expired for the debt and that making a payment on the debt would revive the statute of limitations. The plaintiff alleged that his legal counsel then sent a letter to the defendant which both disputed the debt and informed the defendant that all communications should be sent to said counsel. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant provided his counsel with a validation letter and various other documents.

The plaintiff also alleged that a few months later, the defendant directly sent him a letter that included three debt settlement options. The plaintiff alleged that this letter also failed to mention the expiration of the statute of limitations. He alleged that these letters caused him to be worried and scared at the possibility of being sued again.

According to the plaintiff, the defendant allegedly violated the FDCPA by communicating with him even though they knew he was represented by an attorney, by falsely representing the character of his debt, and by using false or deceptive means to collect the alleged debt.

A federal lawsuit was also filed against Transworld for alleged violations of the FDCPA in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in the Western Division. The docket number for this case is Case No. 3:09-cv-50067.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant called the plaintiff a number of times from a registered phone number as well as from unknown, private, and blocked numbers. The plaintiff also alleged that on many calls, the defendant would hang up on the plaintiff after they answered the phone. Additionally, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant threatened to sue the plaintiff and garnish the plaintiff’s wages; allegedly, neither had occurred.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant violated the FDCPA by causing a cell phone to ring continuously, by engaging in harassing conduct, and by making false or misleading statements, amongst other actions.

What constitutes a violation of a consumer’s rights during the debt collection process?

The post Has Transworld Systems Been Sued for Alleged Unlawful Debt Collection Practices in Violation of the FDCPA? first appeared on Rights Protection Law Group, PLLC.

Has Portfolio Recovery Associates Been Sued for Alleged Unlawful Debt Collection Practices in Violation of the FDCPA?

Rights Protect — Mon, 26 Aug 2024 23:01:54 +0000

Yes. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC (“PRA”) is a known debt collector and they were sued in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California in the Sacramento Division. The lawsuit claimed that PRA allegedly violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), a federal statute that limits the actions of debt collectors, as well as the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“RFDCPA”). The docket number for this case is Case No. 2:09-cv-02744-JAM-CMK.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant placed continuous calls to her phone in order to collect payment for an alleged debt. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant did not inform her that the calls were coming from a debt collector and that the defendant would often hang up the calls. Additionally, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant never sent her a letter to validate the alleged debt. According to the plaintiff, the actions of the defendant allegedly violated the FDCPA because they engaged in harassing conduct, failed to identify themselves as a debt collector, failed to send a validation letter, and used unconscionable collection means, amongst other actions.

In another case, PRA was sued in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama for alleged violations of the FDCPA and RFDCPA. The docket number for this case is Case No. 1:14-cv-00166-WS-M.

In this case, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant was attempting to collect an alleged credit card debt. She alleged that the defendant filed a lawsuit against her in which they claimed that she owed a defaulted amount and demanded payment for the balance. The plaintiff alleged that she denied the allegations. Afterwards, the plaintiff alleged that she received legal aid from a volunteer lawyers program and was assigned an attorney for her case. She alleged that after her trial, her attorney informed her that the defendant dismissed the case against her with prejudice.

The plaintiff alleged that after the dismissal, the defendant made a call to her in order to collect the debt from the same lawsuit. The plaintiff alleged that after she reminded the defendant of the dismissal, the defendant still tried to collect the debt from her. She alleged that the defendant was aware that she owed no money and that she was also represented by legal counsel. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant violated the FDCPA by claiming they had the right to seek payment on a dismissed debt as this constituted a use of false or misleading representations. She also alleged that they also violated the FDCPA by contacting her directly after possessing knowledge that she was being represented by an attorney.

PRA was also sued for alleged violations of both the FDCPA and RFDCPA in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The docket number for this case is Case No. 2:15-cv-04202-PLA.

The plaintiff in this case alleged that the defendant attempted to collect an alleged debt related to a furniture store. He alleged that the defendant called him in order to collect on the alleged balance in which they claimed that the plaintiff missed an installment payment. The plaintiff alleged that in actuality he had already paid-off the debt five months prior to the collection call. The plaintiff alleged that despite disputing the debt, the defendant still reported the debt, causing it to show up on his credit report. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant used false or deceptive means to collect a debt and falsely represented the debt itself by attempting to collect on an already paid-off debt as well as communicated false personal credit information by reporting the alleged debt to credit reporting agencies. The plaintiff alleged that these actions were in violation of the FDCPA.

Another federal lawsuit was filed against PRA in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky in the Lexington Division for alleged violations of the FDCPA. The docket number for this case is Case No. 5:12-cv-00004-JMH.

In this case, the plaintiff allegedly received a collection letter from the defendant for an alleged debt owed to a bank. The plaintiff alleged that he disputed the debt and asked the defendant to validate the debt. Afterwards, he alleged that the defendant provided documentation which showed that another individual owed a credit card debt to the same bank. The plaintiff then alleged that the defendant did not provide paperwork to show that the plaintiff was responsible for the other individual’s debt. Additionally, the plaintiff alleged that the overdue balance indicated by the defendant’s documentation was much less than the amount they attempted to collect from him.

The plaintiff then alleged that a few days later, the defendant sent another collection letter to the plaintiff for the same alleged debt. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant also called his home phone many times, sometimes up to four times a day, in order to demand payment for the debt. The plaintiff alleged that he had asked the defendant to stop calling his phone but that despite this request, the defendant still called him continuously.

The plaintiff alleged that the actions of the defendant violated the FDCPA because they acted in a harassing or abusive way, used false and misleading representations, falsely represented the character of the debt, and used unfair and unconscionable collection means, among other actions.

Another federal lawsuit was filed against PRA for alleged violations of the FDCPA and RFDCPA in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California in the Fresno Division. The docket number for this case is Case No. 1:09-cv-01738-LJO-GSA.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant made a numerous amount of calls to his cellphone in order to collect on an alleged debt. He alleged that he sent a cease and desist letter to the defendant in order to request for the calls to be stopped. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant continued to call him even after it had received the cease and desist letter. The plaintiff also alleged that the defendant did not provide validation for the debt and that it threatened to display the debt on his credit report. The plaintiff alleged that by repeatedly calling his phone in a harassing manner, calling after the plaintiff asked it to cease communication, and failing to provide validation, the defendant acted in a way that was in violation of the FDCPA.

What constitutes a violation of a consumer’s rights during the debt collection process?

The post Has Portfolio Recovery Associates Been Sued for Alleged Unlawful Debt Collection Practices in Violation of the FDCPA? first appeared on Rights Protection Law Group, PLLC.