I’m thrilled to announce that Bedard Law Group is the new sponsor for the Compliance Digest. Bedard Law Group, P.C. – Compliance Support – Defense Litigation – Nationwide Complaint Management – Turnkey Speech Analytics. And Our New BLG360 Program – Your Low Monthly Retainer Compliance Solution. Visit www.bedardlawgroup.com, email John H. Bedard, Jr., or call (678) 253-1871.
Every week, AccountsRecovery.net brings you the most important news in the industry. But, with compliance-related articles, context is king. That’s why the brightest and most knowledgable compliance experts are sought to offer their perspectives and insights into the most important news of the day. Read on to hear what the experts have to say this week.
Courts Can Ignore FCC TCPA Rulings: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Friday rejected the premise that federal courts must defer to the Federal Communications Commission related to orders under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. More details here.
WHAT THIS MEANS, FROM BRENDAN LITTLE OF LIPPES MATHIAS: While plaintiff’s lawsuit seeking damages for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) due to illegal facsimiles was pending, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) issued an order excluding online facsimiles from the purview of the TCPA. As a result of the FCC’s Order, the district court decertified the class and granted summary judgment, in part, to the defendant holding that pursuant to the Hobbs Act, the FCC’s order concerning online facsimiles was final and binding on the district court. The Ninth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed finding that that the Hobbs Act does not preclude the district court from independently assessing an administrative agency’s interpretation of the statute at issue. “The District Court is not bound by the FCC’s interpretation of the TCPA. The District Court should interpret the statute as courts traditionally do under the ordinary principles of statutory interpretation, affording appropriate respect to the agency’s interpretation.”
THE COMPLIANCE DIGEST IS SPONSORED BY:
Judge Grants MSJ in FDCPA Case Over Issue with Payment Arrangement
Let’s go to the videotape. A Magistrate judge in Florida has granted a defendant’s motion for summary judgment in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case over whether the plaintiff authorized a one-time withdrawal from her bank account or a series of withdrawals. More details here.
WHAT THIS MEANS, FROM DALE GOLDEN OF MARTIN GOLDEN LYONS WATTS MORGAN: While the ruling in favor of the defendant appears to be correct, it nonetheless emphasizes the importance of confirming the precise details of a payment plan with the debtor before ending a call. The Magistrate Judge ultimately determine from the call recording that the plaintiff agreed to a payment plan. And that seems clear from the recording in which the plaintiff acknowledged an upcoming withdrawal of $150 from her account. The disagreement was whether she agreed to more than a single payment. Defendant argued she agreed to a monthly payment plan, while plaintiff claimed “she was wanting to make a one-time payment” and argued in response to the MSJ that defendant’s rep “did not meaningfully clarify to Plaintiff that she was agreeing to make monthly payments.” Although the defendant ultimately prevailed, litigating a case through summary judgment isn’t cheap. This was a good win for the defendant. And the recording provides a training tool going forward to emphasis the need to confirm—in clear terms—the agreement that was reached, before ending the call.
CFPB Budget Can’t Be Cut As Part of Budget Bill, Parliamentarian Rules
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has lived, again, to fight another day. This time thanks to the Senate’s procedural referee. More details here.
CFPB Budget Back in Senate Crosshairs
Senate Republicans are taking another swing at scaling back the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s funding, marking the latest round in a long-running battle over the agency’s independence. More details here.
WHAT THIS MEANS, FROM LESLIE BENDER OF EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND: Over the strenuous objections of Sen. Elizabeth Warren [D-Mass.], the ranking member of the Senate’s Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, on July 1, the Senate voted narrowly to, among other things, slash the CFPB’s budget by cutting its funding cap from the Federal Reserve. Consumer groups insist that the CFPB rollback has already cost Americans $18 billion to date. Since January, the CFPB has cut its workforce by an estimated ninety percent while abandoning or rolling back settlements and lawsuits against financial institutions, and has weakened regulations the CFPB designed to protect consumers, Congress’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (“OBBBA”), now before the House, proposes to reduce the CFPB’s budget by cutting its funding cap from the Federal Reserve. Although the Senate parliamentarian had originally questioned whether the OBBBA method could curtail the CFPB’s budget, the Senate narrowly approved the OBBBA on July 1, sending the proposed slashing of the CFPB’s budget to the House for consideration. By a razor’s edge margin, 215-214, the House had previously passed a prior version of a budget package that approved a 70% CFPB budget cut and in so doing directed that funds from the CFPB’s Civil Penalty Fund designed to compensate harmed consumers should be transferred to the Treasury’s general fund after victims are compensated, not used by the CFPB for consumer education and similar outreach programs. While the White House is pushing the House to pass the OBBBA by July 4, 2025, it is not clear whether that aggressive deadline will be met. Meanwhile, in other CFPB related news, the court battles continue over whether “intervenors” will be able to save two sets of final regulations the CFPB launched before the Administration change – the Section 1033 Open Banking rules and the regulation banning the credit reporting of medical debt.
Judge Reduces Fee Award by 50% in FDCPA Case
After six years of litigation, a District Court judge in Pennsylvania has awarded a plaintiff more than $62,000 in fees and costs, well below the $150,000 that was being sought after filing a class action lawsuit accusing the defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. More details here.
WHAT THIS MEANS, FROM BROOKE CONKLE OF TROUTMAN PEPPER LOCKE: In its reduction of the plaintiff’s requested attorneys’ fees award, the Court undertook a painstakingly thorough analysis of the plaintiff’s attorneys’ billing records. The Court did not find that the attorneys’ time entries were vague or that they overbilled, dismissing claims that the attorneys engaged in “non-stop meter running,” but instead focused on the success of the plaintiff’s claims. While “success” is relative, the Court noted that the plaintiff succeeded on her individual claims, yet her putative class claims had limited success. This, under the Court’s analysis, warranted a 60% reduction in the fee award.
Judge Awards Plaintiffs $20k in Damages in FDCPA Case Over Improper Garnishment
Another cautionary tale in what happens if you deny you did anything wrong and then don’t show up to defend yourself … A District Court judge in Washington has awarded the plaintiffs in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case nearly $20,000 in damages after improperly garnishing $1,300 from the plaintiffs’ bank account. On top of that, the plaintiffs have also filed a motion for $23,000 in attorney fees, although they do not express much optimism in their motion at the likelihood of collecting on that amount. More details here.
WHAT THIS MEANS, FROM JESSICA KLANDER OF BASSFORD REMELE: Because the agency failed to appear at the evidentiary hearing, the court found violations of both the FDCPA and Washington Collection Agency Act related to the improper garnishment of $1,296.74, ultimately awarding the plaintiffs over $20,000 in damages, including emotional distress and treble damages. The court also awarded the consumers’ attorney’s fees, which will be added to the judgment once the attorneys file their petition for fees. The court appeared most concerned with the agency’s refusal to return the funds after a written request and its continued possession of the money even after litigation began. This case underscores the importance of promptly assessing any lawsuit, determining your exposure, and developing a defense strategy early. Courts do not look favorably on parties who fail to engage in the process—if the case is no longer defensible, pursuing settlement is far better than ignoring the problem. The ruling also reinforces that courts take wrongful garnishment seriously, viewing it as a significant risk to consumers. If you garnish, you must have a solid legal basis, and if an error is discovered, owning it quickly can help limit further liability.
I’m thrilled to announce that Bedard Law Group is the new sponsor for the Compliance Digest. Bedard Law Group, P.C. – Compliance Support – Defense Litigation – Nationwide Complaint Management – Turnkey Speech Analytics. And Our New BLG360 Program – Your Low Monthly Retainer Compliance Solution. Visit www.bedardlawgroup.com, email John H. Bedard, Jr., or call (678) 253-1871.
