UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580
Office of the Chairman
March 17, 1997
The Honorable Newt Gingrich
The Speaker of the House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
RE: Nineteenth Annual Report to Congress Pursuant to Section 815(a) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
Dear Mr. Speaker:
The Federal Trade Commission ("Commission") is required by Section 815(a) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA" or "Act"), 15 U.S.C. 1692-1695o, to submit a report to Congress each year summarizing the administrative and enforcement actions taken under the Act over the preceding twelve months. These actions are part of the Commission's ongoing effort to curtail abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices in the marketplace. Such practices have been known to cause various forms of consumer injury, including emotional distress and invasions of privacy, and can severely hamper consumers' ability to function effectively in the workplace. Although the Commission is vested with primary enforcement responsibility under the Act, overall enforcement responsibility is shared by other federal agencies. Additionally, consumers who believe they have been victims of statutory violations may seek relief in state or federal court.
This report makes a number of recommendations for changes in the FDCPA that the Commission believes will improve its clarity. It also presents an overview of the types of consumer complaints received by the Commission over the past year as well as a summary of the Commission's formal and informal enforcement initiatives. Finally, it outlines the activities and recommendations of the other federal agencies responsible for administering and enforcing the Act with regard to entities under their respective jurisdictions.
INTRODUCTION
Although the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act prohibits abusive, deceptive, and
otherwise improper collection practices, it permits reasonable collection efforts that
promote repayment of legitimate debts. Thus, the Commission's enforcement goal is to
ensure compliance with the Act without unreasonably impeding the collection process. The
Commission recognizes that the timely payment of debts is important to creditors and that
the debt collection industry offers useful assistance toward that end. The Commission also
appreciates the need to protect consumers from those few debt collectors who engage in
abusive and unfair collection practices.
Congress enacted the FDCPA in an effort to balance the debt collector's right to
recover just obligations with the consumer's right to protection from harassment, deceit,
invasions of privacy, interference with the employment relationship, and other abusive
collection tactics. Many members of the debt collection industry supported this
legislation when it was proposed, and most debt collectors now voluntarily conform their
practices to the standards the Act imposes. The Commission staff continues to work with
industry groups to clarify ambiguities in the law and to educate the industry and the
public regarding the Act's requirements.
CONSUMER COMPLAINTS
Consumer complaints are the Commission's primary source of information concerning
compliance with the Act; debt collection continues to be a principal subject of many of
the complaints received by the Commission. We also receive occasional contacts from debt
collectors who express concern about the practices of competitors. Debt collectors object
to the violative practices of others because such behavior may place them at a competitive
disadvantage, causing them to lose business to collectors who violate the law.
Most of the Commission's information about how debt collectors are complying with the
Act, however, comes from consumers. Some of the complaints we receive allege violations
involving substantial consumer injury and, therefore, are a source of immediate concern.
We continue to believe that the number of consumers who contact the Commission represents
a relatively small percentage of the total number of consumers who actually encounter
problems with debt collectors.(1) Experience indicates that
some consumers may not even be aware that the Commission enforces the Act.
Not all consumers who complain to the Commission about collection problems have experienced law violations. In some cases, for example, consumers complain that a debt collector
will not accept partial payments on the same installment terms that the original lender provided when the account was current. Although a collector's demand for accelerated payment or larger installments may, in these circumstances, be frustrating to the consumer, such a demand is not a violation of the Act. In other cases, it is unclear whether the conduct at issue violates the law. In these cases, we must review the evidence, which often includes copies of dunning notices, consumer and collector correspondence, contracts, warranties, or sales agreements. However, many consumers complain of conduct that, if accurately described, clearly violates the Act. Although consumer complaints tend to follow relatively consistent patterns, in any given year we may see an increase in complaints about a practice that has been mentioned infrequently in previous years.
In the past year, a few debt collectors apparently continued to abuse consumers over
the telephone in the course of their collection efforts. Profane or obscene language, as
well as racial and ethnic slurs, were employed. Consumers complained that collectors
called them at work even when the collectors knew that employers prohibited such calls or
otherwise had reason to know that employers objected to their workers receiving such calls
on the job. Consumers alleged that some collectors made repeated telephone calls within a
brief period, hung up abruptly and then called back immediately; some collectors also
called in the early morning or late evening. All of these practices clearly violate the
Act.
Another concern involves the use of false or misleading threats of what might happen if
a debt is not paid. These include threats to institute civil suit or criminal prosecution,
garnish salaries, seize property, cause job loss, have a consumer jailed, or damage or
ruin a consumer's credit rating. Some of these practices, such as those involving false
threats of the consequences of nonpayment, are specifically prohibited by the Act. Other
practices, such as the threat to cause a consumer's arrest, violate the Act only if the
collector does not have the legal authority or intent to accomplish the promised result.
We continue to receive complaints about unauthorized third party contacts. Some
collectors persist in telephoning uninvolved third parties without the consumer's consent.
Consumers' employers, relatives, children, neighbors, and friends have been contacted and
informed about consumers' debts. Such contacts typically embarrass or intimidate the
consumer and are a continuing aggravation to third parties. Contacts with consumers'
employers and co-workers about their alleged debts jeopardize continued employment and
prospects for promotion. Relationships between consumers and their families, friends, or
neighbors may also suffer from improper third party contacts. In some cases, collectors
reportedly have used misrepresentations as well as harassing and abusive tactics in their
communications with third parties. Unless authorized by the consumer or unless they fall
within one of the Act's exceptions, third party contacts for any purpose other than
obtaining information about the consumer's location violate the Act and are an invasion of
the consumer's privacy.
Some debt collectors continue to violate the Act by sending consumers collection
letters falsely representing the active involvement of an attorney in the collection
effort. Attorneys who are employees of debt collectors may not permissibly use
"attorney-at-law" stationery without disclosing the identity of their debt
collector-employer. Failure to disclose the nature of their employment in these
circumstances may falsely imply to the consumer that the debt collector has retained a
private attorney to pursue legal action. Additionally, some debt collectors send letters
to consumers under an attorney letterhead, signed by an attorney, when the attorney (1)
has little or no involvement with either the letters or the consumers to whom the letters
are sent and/or (2) has no intent to take legal or other action if the consumers' debts
are not paid. These letters often falsely represent or imply that the attorney signing
them has studied a given consumer's file and concluded that the consumer is a candidate
for legal action. Thus, they violate Sections 807(5) and (10) of the Act.
Consumers who dispute the amounts of their debts or who believe they do not owe the
debts in question complain that debt collectors fail to respond to their dispute letters,
fail to provide proper verification of their debts, and fail to cease collection upon
receipt of a written dispute letter as required by the Act. These failures frustrate some
of the Act's primary self-help provisions, which are designed to prevent debt collectors
from continuing to dun the wrong person, collecting amounts in excess of what is owed, or
attempting to collect debts that they are unable to verify.
The Commission continues to receive complaints against creditors collecting their own
debts. Some consumers allege that creditors often allude to the fact that creditors are
not generally covered by the FDCPA. In particular, complaints concerning medical and
hospital debts are becoming more evident. Some consumers allege that they never receive a
final statement from the medical service provider and their accounts are forwarded,
without further notice, to collection agencies which attempt to charge exorbitant
interest, late fees and other collection costs in addition to the original debt. Some of
these charges can exceed the debt itself. Insurance providers, in some cases, may never
have informed consumers that the consumer had not paid the whole amount due.
Finally, the Commission has received two relatively new types of complaints this year in gradually increasing amounts.
One concerns the collection of illegal surcharges in connection with the principal
debt, when the charges are not expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or
permitted by law. Even if surcharges or fees are permitted by law, some collectors may
misrepresent the amounts that can lawfully be collected. This often results in surcharges
far greater than those to which the debt collector is entitled.
The second area of concern involves the communication of credit information which is
known or should be known to be false. This can include information about which a dispute
has been received. Consumers are sensitive about the content of their credit reports. Many
believe that their credit reports are inaccurate because of inaccurate or disputed entries
submitted by debt collectors. As always, the Commission staff will monitor developments in
these areas.
THE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
The Commission's FDCPA enforcement program is diverse and consists of a number of
initiatives. Industry and consumer education efforts are an integral part of this program.
The Commission staff's continuing colloquy with industry members, attorneys, and other
interested parties has the effect of informing debt collectors of their responsibilities
under the Act. These informal education efforts alert debt collectors to potential
violations and encourage their voluntary compliance. In circumstances where debt
collectors choose not to remedy FDCPA violations on their own and the violations are too
serious or sweeping to handle informally, the Commission may choose to take formal
enforcement action. Formal enforcement action, depending upon the particular facts, may
result in litigation to compel compliance with the Act.
EDUCATION AND INFORMAL ENFORCEMENT
Industry and consumer education, information-sharing, and informal enforcement
activities are important aspects of the Commission's enforcement program. Commission
resources are more efficiently used by promoting voluntary compliance, when possible, and
reserving formal legal procedures, such as litigation, for more severe and injurious
violations of the Act.
Staff's ongoing participation in industry conferences and workshops has aided industry
members in gaining increased familiarity with the Act's requirements and the way in which
the Commission staff has interpreted them. We continue to maintain an informal
communications network with major trade associations, which provides a mechanism for the
exchange of information and ideas and a forum for discussions of potential problems that
arise in the course of the Commission's enforcement efforts. These contacts have proven a
useful resource for both the Commission staff and the industry. Difficulties that debt
collectors have in complying with the Act are a frequent topic in these discussions.
When staff becomes aware of problematic collection activities that do not appear to be
serious violations of the Act, the debt collector under scrutiny may be notified and
requested to conform the activities in question to the requirements of the Act. On
occasion, staff refers complaints to debt collectors for individual resolution and asks
that they report to the Commission on the disposition of the complaints. The Commission
believes that obtaining compliance with the Act in this manner is a cost-effective
enforcement tool that saves time and resources.
As we have stated in previous reports, Congress amended the Act in 1986 to remove the
exemption for attorneys. Previously, attorneys collecting debts on behalf of clients were
specifically exempted from the definition of "debt collector" in the Act.(2) By amending the Act to remove the exemption (Public Law
99-361), Congress brought within the scope of the Act attorneys who regularly collect
debts for third parties.(3)
Since the exemption was eliminated, however, courts differed on exactly how the Act
should address the various forms of debt collection in which attorneys engage. Some courts
held that attorneys engaged solely in collection litigation, i.e., the filing and
prosecuting of lawsuits, as opposed to more traditional debt collection activities such as
sending dunning letters and making telephone calls, are not covered by the Act.(4) These courts based their conclusions on the Act's
legislative history,(5) the Commission's Staff Commentary
on the Act(6) and the seemingly anomalous results produced
by requiring litigating attorneys to comply with some of the Act's requirements.(7) Others held that, no matter what sort of collection
activity attorneys conduct, the Act applies if they engage in it regularly, based upon the
literal language of the definition of "debt collector" in Section 803(6).(8)
Last year, the Commission reported to the Congress that the United States Supreme Court
resolved this dispute, affirming the Seventh Circuit, which held that the Act covers
attorneys and law firms engaged in litigation to collect debts.(9)
The Court held that lawyers who regularly collect debts through legal proceedings meet the
Act's definition of debt collector in Section 803(6) and that when Congress repealed the
attorney exemption, it did not carve out an exception for litigation-related collection
efforts. Additionally, it held that the plain language of the Act overrides contrary
postenactment statements by one of the repeal's sponsors, the Commission's Staff
Commentary on the Act and whatever anomalous results that could occur.(10)
The Commission staff continues to consider the implications of this decision on the
collection activities of attorneys in various stages of collection litigation. In its
interpretations, staff is attempting to clarify the FDCPA's application to these attorneys
in specific situations and routinely provides guidance as needed. It will continue to
disseminate pertinent information in this and other areas to the entire collection
industry as widely and as effectively as possible.
In 1996, the Congress amended Section 807(11) of the Act to clarify its meaning in
light of two conflicting appellate court decisions on the Section and in response to
Commission recommendations of the past several years. Before the amendment, Section
807(11) required a debt collector to "disclose clearly in all communications made to
collect a debt or to obtain information about a consumer, that the debt collector is
attempting to collect a debt and that any information obtained will be used for that
purpose." As noted in last year's report, however, two appellate courts had disagreed
on when and how often the disclosure must be made -- one holding that it need only be made
in the first debt collection communication(11) and another
holding that it must be made in all such communications.(12)
The amendment resolved the conflict. Section 807(11) now requires the above-noted
disclosure to be given only in the initial written communication with the consumer and, if
the initial communication is oral, in that initial oral communication. Subsequent
communications must disclose only that they are from a debt collector. The Congress also
excepted "formal pleadings made in connection with a legal action" from any
disclosure requirement whatsoever. This clarification will benefit both consumers and debt
collectors alike. The Commission staff will continue to provide guidance to the industry
on Section 807(11) as needed.
Consumers who file complaints with the Commission regarding debt collection practices
are always advised of the FDCPA's self-help remedies as well as the numerous other
protections afforded to them by the Act. For example, consumers are advised of their
rights under Section 809 of the Act to obtain verification of the debt from the debt
collector upon request and to have all collection activities stopped until verification is
obtained. Additionally, consumers are regularly told about Section 805 of the Act, which
provides that consumers may require the collector to stop communicating with them about
the debt if they request it in writing. Finally, Commission staff advises consumers of
their private right of action, which enables them to bring legal action against debt
collectors who violate the Act. If successful, consumers may recover actual damages plus
additional damages of up to one thousand dollars as well as court costs and attorneys'
fees.
An informed public that enforces its rights under the FDCPA operates as a powerful,
informal enforcement mechanism. Consumers who are victims of unlawful debt collection
activities can provide significant policing of the industry. By using the FDCPA's
self-help remedies, these consumers often further the goals of the Act in the process.
Accordingly, consumer education remains an integral part of the Commission's informal
enforcement effort.
STATE EXEMPTIONS FROM THE FDCPA
Section 817 of the FDCPA permits states to petition the Commission for an exemption
from the provisions of the Act.(13) Pursuant to Section
817, the Commission promulgated regulations shortly after the statute's enactment that
provide criteria and establish procedures whereby the Commission may exempt from the Act
any debt collection practice within a state.(14) To seek
an exemption under the Act, a state must petition the Commission for a determination that
under the laws of that state, any class of debt collection practices within that state is
subject to requirements that are substantially similar to, or provide greater protection
for consumers than, the requirements of the FDCPA. To obtain an exemption under the Act,
the petitioning state must provide documentation demonstrating that the state law provides
protections substantially similar to those of the FDCPA, and that the state has sufficient
resources to enforce its law.
No petitions for exemption were received by the Commission during 1996.
FORMAL ENFORCEMENT
Commission staff selects firms for further investigation when complaints from
consumers, state and local agencies, or from other industry members suggest a pattern of
law violations not amenable to voluntary compliance efforts. Case selection is based
primarily, although not exclusively, on the extent of possible consumer injury.
If the investigation reveals evidence of continuing FDCPA violations, staff contacts
the debt collector and attempts to negotiate a settlement before recommending that the
Commission issue a complaint. If a settlement is reached and the Commission accepts the
staff's recommendation to approve a proposed consent order, the Commission delivers the
proposed order and accompanying complaint to the Department of Justice, which files them
in the appropriate federal district court.(15) If the debt
collector will not agree to an appropriate settlement that remedies the violations
involved, the Commission requests that the Department of Justice file suit in federal
court on behalf of the Commission, usually seeking a civil penalty and injunctive relief
that prohibits the collector from continuing to violate the Act. On occasion, debt
collectors agree to an appropriate settlement only after suit has been brought.
The Commission staff is currently conducting several non-public investigations of debt
collection agencies to determine whether they are or have engaged in serious violations of
the Act. In addition, there have been significant developments in five pending Commission
enforcement actions.
During 1996, the Commission, through the Department of Justice, concluded its
litigation against National Financial Services (NFS), a Maryland debt collection
agency, its owner, and an attorney who helped devise and mail the collector's dunning
notices. The district court earlier found that defendants had violated the FDCPA when they
threatened to take legal action against consumers without intending to do so, and when
they implied in their collection letters that an attorney was significantly involved in
the process when, in fact, the attorney's involvement was minimal.(16)
The district court also found that defendants violated the FDCPA when they sent
collection letters that effectively failed to give consumers notice of their right to
require NFS to verify their alleged debts. Defendants violated this requirement of the
FDCPA by (1) providing the disclosure in a type size so small, and in ink so faint, that
the notice was virtually illegible, and (2) in including other deadlines for payment that
so overshadowed and contradicted the disclosure that it was rendered ineffective. The
court issued an injunction against the defendants prohibiting these and other violations
of the FDCPA.
In 1994, the Commission moved for the imposition of a substantial civil penalty against
the defendants based on their serious, persistent violations of the FDCPA. On July 20,
1995, the court assessed a civil penalty of $500,000 against the corporate defendant and
its owner and $50,000 against the attorney. Although defendants appealed the decision to
the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Fourth Circuit last year affirmed both the
injunction and the penalty.(17)
In another matter, the Department of Justice, on behalf of the Commission, filed
complaints in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California
against Trans-Continental Affiliates (TCA), a moderately large debt collector
headquartered in California, and two of its principals, for a number of egregious
violations of the Act, including illegal consumer contacts at work and at home,
harassment, false threats of legal action and misrepresentations that nonpayment of a debt
constitutes a criminal offense.(18) The Department of
Justice last year followed its complaints with a motion for partial summary judgment
against the corporation and the two principals seeking to enjoin them from committing the
violations alleged in the complaints and seeking liability for civil penalties. The court
granted the injunctive relief against all parties, including the principals, since the
United States had shown that the principals had authority to control TCA's unlawful
practices. While the court also granted the motion for penalties with respect to TCA, it
held that a determination of civil penalty liability with respect to the individuals would
require a trial because there was a disputed issue of fact concerning the role they played
in the law violations alleged. The trial is scheduled to begin in May 1997.
In G & L Financial Services, Inc. (G & L), the complaint, filed in
federal district court in New Jersey, alleged that company collectors were engaging in
abusive telephone contacts with consumers and that certain of the company's dunning
letters falsely suggested that the company was a law firm. The Commission and G & L
settled the matter in a consent judgment containing an injunction prohibiting the
practices, as well as all other violations of the FDCPA, and assessing a $10,000 civil
penalty.(19)
United Creditor's Alliance Corp. (UCA), a major nationwide debt collection
agency, agreed to pay $146,000 in civil penalties and to extensive injunctive relief in
settlement of Commission allegations that it had repeatedly violated the FDCPA. The
company was charged with calling consumers after hours, using profane and abusive
language, falsely threatening consumers with arrest, wage garnishment and other legal
action and engaging in a variety of other FDCPA violations when attempting to collect
debts from consumers. The settlement, filed in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, prohibits these practices, as well as all other FDCPA
violations, assesses the penalty noted above and requires that the debt collector disclose
consumers' cease communication rights on their dunning letters to consumers.(20)
Finally, the Commission is currently seeking to enforce a civil investigative demand
(CID) in its ongoing investigation of Lundgren and Associates, a law firm which the
Commission staff believes may have engaged in FDCPA violations in connection with the
collection of checks written on accounts without sufficient funds. Lundgren had resisted
our investigation on grounds that his debt collection activities were not covered by the
FDCPA because dishonored checks allegedly are not "debts" as defined in Section
803(5).(21) In 1996, the Commission issued a CID against
Lundgren for further information and documents related to the violations charged. Lundgren
filed a motion to quash the CID which the Commission denied. Despite the denial, the firm
failed to respond to the CID and the Commission filed an enforcement action in federal
district court in the Eastern District of California late last year. A hearing on the
matter was held in February of this year and Lundgren was ordered to comply.
LEGISLATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Commission recommends four amendments to, or clarifications of, the FDCPA as
permitted by Section 815 of the Act.
A. Section 809(a) -- Clarity of Notice
The Commission continues to recommend that Congress amend Section 809 to make explicit
the standard for clarity to be applied to the notice required by that Section. Section
809(a) of the Act requires debt collectors to send a written notice to each consumer
within five days after the consumer is first contacted, stating that if the consumer
disputes the debt in writing within thirty days after receipt of the notice, the collector
will obtain and mail verification of the debt to the consumer.
Some debt collectors print the notice required by Section 809(a) in a type size
considerably smaller than the other language in the dunning letter, or obscure the notice
by printing it on a non-contrasting background in a non-contrasting color. For example,
the use of light ink and tiny print on a white background was found to be a violation of
Section 809 in the National Financial Services case.(22)
Significantly, two courts of appeals have held that collection letters that use small
or otherwise obscured print in the notice required by Section 809(a) and at the same time
use much larger, prominent or bold-faced type in the text of the letter violate the Act. Miller
v. Payco-General American Credits, Inc., 943 F.2d 482 (4th Cir. 1991); Swanson v.
Southern Oregon Credit Services, Inc., 869 F.2d 1222 (9th Cir. 1989). The courts
reasoned that the payment demand in the text both contradicts and overshadows the required
notice.(23) Neither of the courts attempted to specify
what elements of presentation (e.g., the color and size of type, location in the
document) would constitute a clear disclosure to consumers of their dispute rights under
Section 809(a) of the Act.
The Commission recommends that Congress eliminate this problem by amending Section 809 explicitly to require a more conspicuous format for the notice by mandating that it be "clear and conspicuous." That standard could be defined as "readily noticeable, readable and comprehensible to the ordinary consumer." The definition could also reference various factors such as size, shade, contrast, prominence and location that would be considered in determining whether the notice meets the definition. As presently drafted, the provision does not explicitly specify any standard for the 809(a) notice. There are a number of decisions and orders that define the "clear and conspicuous" standard in a variety of contexts. See, e.g., California Suncare, Inc., File No. 942-3218 (1997) (consent); Figgie International, Inc., 107 F.T.C. 313, 401 (1986). (24) Proper application of such a standard in Section 809(a) would help ensure that the information in the required notice is effectively conveyed and eliminate dunning letters artfully designed to confuse their readers and frustrate the purposes of this provision of the FDCPA.
B. Section 809(b) -- Effect of Thirty-day Period
Section 809(b) of the FDCPA provides that if the consumer, within the thirty-day period
specified in Section 809(a), disputes the debt in writing, the collector must cease all
collection efforts until verification of the debt is obtained and mailed to the consumer.
Until recently, this provision has been consistently interpreted to mean that the
thirty-day period was simply a time within which the consumer must act to take advantage
of his or her right to require the collector to verify the debt before making further
collection efforts.(25) Furthermore, it was generally
understood that the intent of the Section was simply to "eliminate the recurring
problem of debt collectors dunning the wrong person or attempting to collect debts which
the consumer had already paid."(26)
Two federal courts of appeals decisions have strongly implied that the thirty-day
period is a firm grace period, making a demand for payment within the first thirty days
impermissible. Graziano v. Harrison, 950 F.2d 107, 111-13 (3d Cir. 1991); Swanson
v. Southern Oregon Credit Service, Inc., 869 F.2d 1222, 1226 (9th Cir. 1988).(27) The Commission considers this interpretation erroneous.
As reflected by opinion letters issued by the staff of the Commission and in the Staff
Commentary on the FDCPA,(28) a debt collector may (unless
or until the consumer disputes the debt) continue to make demands for payment or take
legal action within the thirty-day period, so long as the debt collector's activities do
not function to nullify, disparage or overshadow the disclosure of the consumer's dispute
rights under Section 809(a) or otherwise lead the consumer to believe that the disclosure
is meaningless. Nothing within the language of the statute indicates that Congress
intended an absolute bar to any appropriate collection activity or legal action within the
thirty-day period where the consumer has not disputed the debt. To the contrary, Section
809(b) simply provides a time frame within which the consumer may insist, by disputing the
debt in writing, that the collector verify the debt with the creditor before continuing
collection activity.
These decisions have interjected an element of uncertainty in the law by effectively
treating the thirty-day time frame set forth in Section 809 as a grace period
within which collection efforts are prohibited, rather than a dispute period within
which the consumer may insist that the collector verify the debt. The Commission therefore
recommends that Congress clarify the law by adding a provision expressly permitting
appropriate collection activity within the thirty-day period if the debt collector has not
received a letter from the consumer disputing the debt. The clarification should include a
caveat that the collection activity should not overshadow or be inconsistent with
the disclosure of the consumer's right to dispute the debt specified by Section 809(a).
C. Section 803(6) -- Litigation Attorney as "Debt Collector"
As previously stated, the Supreme Court has resolved the conflict in the federal courts
concerning whether attorneys in litigation to collect a debt are covered by the Act. The
Court has said that they are, in fact, covered like any other debt collector because they
fall within the plain language of the statute. The difficulties in applying the Act's
requirements to attorneys in litigation, however, and the anomalies that result, still
remain. For example, pretrial depositions can violate Section 805(b). Pleadings will still
trigger the Section 809 disclosure, which will not make sense in a litigation context.(29) If the consumer disputes the debt, the attorney/debt
collector could be required to stop the suit because Section 809(b) requires that
collection activity cease until after verification.
Because it still seems impractical and unnecessary to apply the FDCPA to the legal activities of litigation attorneys, and because ample due process protections exist in that context, the Commission continues to believe that Congress should intervene and make its intent in this area clear. The Commission, therefore, recommends that the Congress re-examine the definition of "debt collector" and state that an attorney who pursues alleged debtors solely through litigation (or similar "legal" practices) -- as opposed to one who collects debts through the sending of dunning letters or making calls directly to the consumer (or similar "collection" practices) -- is not covered by the statute.
D. Section 803(6)(F)(iii)
Section 803(6) of the FDCPA sets forth a number of specific exemptions from the law,
one of which is collection activity by a party that "concerns a debt which was not in
default at the time it was obtained by such person."(30)
The exemption was designed to avoid application of the FDCPA to mortgage servicing
companies, whose business is accepting and recording payments on current debts.(31) The theory behind the exemption was that the Act should
not apply to a business whose focus was the routine processing of remittances (as opposed
to the collection of delinquent accounts) simply because such business continued to work
an account after the account went into default.
The Commission staff has become aware, however, of a number of industry members that
acquire all of the accounts of their clients (hospitals or other service providers) at an
early stage when the accounts are current (sometimes called an "early out"
program) and then claim exemption from the FDCPA because each account constitutes a
"debt that was not in default when it was obtained" from the creditor. In fact,
collection of delinquent debts is the major focus of these businesses. Apart from the fact
that they acquire accounts prior to default, these businesses function in all respects
like typical debt collectors. Nevertheless, they can argue that they are exempt from the
FDCPA.
The Commission believes that Section 803(6)(F)(iii) was designed to exempt only
businesses whose collection of delinquent debts is secondary to their function of
servicing current accounts. However, the existing formulation of the exemption, which
focuses on the status of the individual debts at the time they are obtained by the third
party, allows collectors that obtain current debts that routinely go into default to
escape the coverage of the FDCPA. Therefore, the Commission recommends that Congress amend
this exemption so that its applicability will depend upon the nature of the overall
business conducted by the party to be exempted rather than the status of individual
obligations when the party obtained them. For example, the provision could be redrafted to
exempt an activity that "is incidental to a business whose principal purpose is the
servicing of current debts for others" or words to that effect. In this manner, the
mortgage servicer (who acts more like a creditor than a debt collector) would not be
covered even though it might continue to collect the small fraction of its accounts that
become delinquent, but the debt collector that primarily collects delinquent accounts
(regardless of whether they were current when obtained) would be unmistakably within the
scope of the FDCPA.
ADMINISTRATION, ENFORCEMENT AND LEGISLATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS BY OTHER
AGENCIES
Section 814 of the FDCPA places enforcement obligations upon eight other federal
agencies for those organizations whose activities lie within their jurisdiction. These
agencies are the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Reserve Board, the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of Thrift Supervision, the National
Credit Union Administration, the Department of Transportation, and the United States
Department of Agriculture. These agencies have provided the Commission with a description
of their activities during the past year. Almost all of the organizations regulated by
these agencies are creditors and, as such, fall outside the coverage of the Act. When
these agencies receive complaints about debt collection firms that are not under their
jurisdiction, they generally forward them to the Commission.
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency ("OCC") enforces compliance
with the FDCPA's provisions with respect to national banks. The OCC reports that its
examination of all national banks on a regular basis shows that there is a high level of
compliance with the Act.(32) No violations of the Act were
discovered as a result of the OCC examinations of national banks in 1996. The OCC also
resolves complaints against national banks. It resolved 800 complaints involving debt
collection practices or tactics. No violations of the Act were identified. It should be
noted that very few national banks engage in activities covered by the Act.
In the past year, the OCC continued to make available to all national banks copies of The
Comptroller's Handbook for Compliance, which explains the Act's provisions and details
instructions for determining compliance with the Act. The OCC also continued to provide
all national banks with copies of the Examiner's Guide to Consumer Compliance,
which similarly provides guidance as to compliance with the Act. The OCC's Compliance
Management Department also has a program of education and outreach to promote compliance
with the Act. During 1996, the Department's staff gave presentations at numerous seminars
and training sessions sponsored by national and state trade associations and responded to
questions and concerns regarding compliance with the FDCPA.
The Federal Reserve Board ("FRB") enforces compliance with the FDCPA's
provisions with respect to member banks of the Federal Reserve System other than national
banks. The FRB continues to enforce the Act, as it applies to state member banks, through
regular compliance examinations. The FRB encountered no significant problems enforcing the
Act in 1996, and considers compliance with the Act by state member banks to be
satisfactory. A review of the 1996 Consumer Affairs examination reports submitted to the
FRB by January 30, 1997, revealed no violations of the Act. In 1996, the FRB received
twenty complaints alleging violations of the Act. Nine of the complaints were against
state banks. None of the nine complaints were subject to the Act because state member
banks collected only their own debts.
The FRB continues to distribute to interested parties the pamphlet entitled The Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act and to provide training regarding compliance with the
Act in consumer compliance schools. During 1996, the FRB did not issue any policy
statements or comments about the Act.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC") enforces compliance with
the FDCPA's provisions with respect to banks (other than members of the Federal Reserve
System) whose deposits or accounts are insured by the FDIC. Examiners check for compliance
with the Act during the course of regular compliance examinations of approximately 6,392
insured banks that are supervised by the FDIC. Individual institutions are examined
generally once every two or three years with an interim evaluation at 12 or 18 months.
Examiners provide information concerning the Act to insured nonmember banks through the
compliance examination process and make themselves available for advice and guidance as to
the requirements of the Act.
Based upon a review of compliance examination reports in 1996, the FDIC found that none
of the 1,924 compliance examination reports completed in 1996 cited any violations of the
Act.(33) During 1996, the FDIC made no changes to its
FDCPA enforcement methods and did not issue any new or revised policy statements. The FDIC
encountered no significant problems with enforcement of the FDCPA this year. The FDIC's
Division of Compliance and Consumer Affairs received 84 complaints in 1996 concerning the
debt collection practices of twenty-six different insured state-chartered nonmember banks.
In all cases, the banks involved were engaged in collecting their own debts or had sold
their loans to another entity and were not acting as debt collectors under the Act.
Eighty-two of the complaints dealt with primary allegations of harassment, including calls
to the debtors' place of employment, contacts at unusual times, and communication with
third parties, and two involved threats of repossession.
The Office of Thrift Supervision ("OTS") enforces compliance with the FDCPA
with respect to institutions subject to certain provisions of the Home Owners Loan Act of
1933, the National Housing Act, and the Federal Home Loan Bank Act. The OTS employs highly
trained examiners who conducted 551 compliance examinations in 1996. No FDCPA violations
were cited. During 1996, the volume of complaints received regarding the Act was less than
one percent of all complaints received for the year.
The OTS's Compliance Activities Handbook provides examiners with information and
specific guidance to conduct thorough compliance examinations covering the FDCPA as well
as other statutes. The OTS provides its publication, Compliance: A Self-Assessment
Guide, to savings associations to help the associations assess their compliance
programs and develop or improve internal policies to ensure compliance with consumer
protection laws and regulations. This publication is being revised to address, among other
things, the reforms enacted in the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1996. Further, the OTS's two week Compliance I school includes discussion of the
FDCPA's requirements and instruction on how to examine for compliance with the Act.
The National Credit Union Administration ("NCUA") enforces compliance with the FDCPA's provisions with respect to federal credit unions. The NCUA has delegated the enforcement of the Act to six regional directors who supervise field examiners in conducting on-site examinations of credit unions under its jurisdiction. The NCUA's publication, Compliance: A Self-Assessment Guide, provides credit union officials with information about the requirements of the Act. The NCUA found no FDCPA violations in 1996 and received no complaints of federal credit unions violating provisions of the Act. In general, federal credit unions do not perform debt collection services for other credit unions or lenders.
The Department of Transportation ("DOT") enforces compliance with the FDCPA's
provisions with respect to air carriers subject to the Federal Aviation Act of 1958. DOT
states that it has not received any complaints or initiated any enforcement proceedings
concerning the conduct of collection agencies or other persons whose principal business is
to collect debts owed or due to any air carriers. Air carriers collect their own debts and
are thus outside the scope of the provisions of the Act.
The United States Department of Agriculture ("USDA") enforces compliance with
the FDCPA's provisions with respect to any activities subject to the Packers and
Stockyards Act. The USDA reports that it has encountered no fact situations that fall
within the statutory provisions of the Act. Therefore, the USDA makes no specific
observation, suggestion, or recommendation regarding enforcement of or compliance with the
Act.
CONCLUSION
The Commission believes that its efforts to monitor compliance and maintain a balanced
program of formal and informal enforcement of the FDCPA will continue to do much to reduce
consumer injury due to debt collection abuses as well as to encourage debt collectors
covered by the Act to use lawful debt collection methods.
By direction of the Commission.
Robert Pitofsky
Chairman
1. We cannot determine the extent to which abusive debt collection practices in general are represented by the complaints the Commission receives. Based on our enforcement experience, we know that many consumers never complain while others complain to the underlying creditor or to other enforcement agencies.
2. Public Law 95-109, former Section 803(6)(F).
3. H.R. Rep. No. 405, 99th Cong. 2d Sess. 3-6, reprinted in 1986 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 1752, 1753-57. "The purpose of the amendment was . . . to close a significant loophole, whereby attorneys engaging in traditional debt collection activities were able to avoid the FDCPA's precepts merely by virtue of the fact that they had, at some point, obtained a law degree." Firemen's Ins. Co. v. Keating, 753 F. Supp. 1137, 1142 (S.D.N.Y. 1990).
4. Green v. Hocking, 9 F.3d 18 (6th Cir. 1993); Fireman's Ins. Co. v. Keating, 753 F. Supp. 1137, 1142-43 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) (because a law firm initiating a legal proceeding to recover a debt cannot be deemed a "debt collector" as defined by the FDCPA, the venue provisions of the FDCPA are inapplicable); National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Hartel, 741 F. Supp. 1139, 1141 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) (law firm representing a plaintiff guarantor of notes executed by defendant investor in limited partnership is not a "debt collector" within the meaning of the FDCPA because it has engaged in activities only of a purely legal nature in seeking reimbursement for plaintiff).
5. See H.R. Rep. No. 99-405, 99th Cong. 1st Sess., 1-7, reprinted in 1986 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 1752, 1753-57 (reflects purpose of amending the FDCPA to delete provision exempting "any attorney-at-law collecting a debt as an attorney on behalf of and in the name of a client," designed to bring under the FDCPA's coverage attorneys engaging in activities traditionally carried on by debt collectors); 131 Cong. Rec. H 10534 (1985) (Rep. Annunzio, sponsor of Amendment, stated that "[t]he removal of the attorney exemption will not interfere with the practice of law by the Nation's attorneys. It will not prevent them from representing the interests of their clients."); 132 Cong. Rec. H 10031 (1986) (three months after enactment of Amendment, Rep. Annunzio stated that "[o]nly collection activities, not legal activities, are covered by the Act.... The Act applies to attorneys when they are collecting debts, not when they are performing tasks of a legal nature.... The Act only regulates the conduct of debt collectors, it does not prevent creditors, through their attorneys, from pursuing any legal remedies available to them.").
6. The Staff Commentary on the FDCPA states that an attorney whose activities are restricted to "legal" activities (e.g., the filing and prosecution of lawsuits) is not a "debt collector" under Section 803(6) of the FDCPA. Staff Commentary on the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, comments 803(6)-1 and 2 (53 Fed. Reg. 50097, 50102, Dec. 13, 1988).
7. Green v. Hocking, 9 F.3d 18, 21 (6th Cir. 1993).
8. "The term 'debt collector' means any person who uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in any business the principal purpose of which is the collection of any debts or who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another." Scott v. Jones, 964 F.2d 314 (4th Cir. 1992); Fox v. Citicorp Credit Services, 15 F.3d 1507, 1512-13 (9th Cir. 1994).
9. Heintz v. Jenkins, 115 S. Ct. 1489 (1995).
10. Id. The Seventh Circuit in Jenkins v. Heintz, 25 F.3d 536, 539 (7th Cir. 1994), stated that "[t]here may be abundant reasons why Congress should not regulate litigation aimed at collecting debts. But in drafting a broad statute, Congress entered all areas inhabited by debt collectors, even litigation."
11. Pressley v. Capital Credit and Collection Services, 760 F.2d 922 (9th Cir. 1985).
12. Pipiles v. Credit Bureau of Lockport, 886 F.2d 22 (2d Cir. 1989).
13. Section 817 provides:
The Commission shall by regulation exempt from the requirements of this title any class
of debt collection practices within any State if the Commission determines that under the
law of that State that class of debt collection practices is subject to requirements
substantially similar to those imposed by this title, and that there is adequate provision
for enforcement.
15 U.S.C. 1692o.
14. These regulations are codified at 16 C.F.R. Part 901 et seq.
15. Consent orders are for settlement purposes only and do not constitute an admission by the debt collector that it violated the law.
16. United States v. National Financial Services, 820 F. Supp. 228 (D. Md. 1993).
17. United States v. National Financial Services, 98 F.3d 131 (4th Cir. 1996).
18. United States v. Trans-Continental Affiliates, Civil No. C95-1627 MMC (C.D. Cal. filed May 15, 1995).
19. United States v. G & L Financial Services, Civil No. 96-2178 (D.N.J. entered June 15, 1996).
20. United States v. United Creditors' Alliance, Civil No. SACV 96-861 GTL (EEx) (C.D. Cal. entered September 23, 1996).
21. The United States District Court for the District of Arizona agreed with Lundgren in a private class action suit brought by Sharolyn Charles against Lundgren and Check Rite, Ltd. and dismissed the complaint. Plaintiff appealed to the Ninth Circuit where the appeal is still pending. The same issue is also awaiting resolution in the Seventh Circuit (Bass v. Stolper, No. 95C 0470 (W.D. Wis.), appeal pending, No. 96-2113 (7th Cir.). Last year, the Commission filed briefs amicus curiae with both courts arguing, among other things, that the plain language of the Act covers efforts by third parties to collect debts arising from dishonored checks given by consumers in payment for goods and services.
22. United States v. National Financial Services, Inc., 98 F.3d 131 (4th Cir. 1996) aff'g 820 F. Supp. 228 (D. Md. 1993).
23. Miller, 943 F.2d at 484; Swanson, 869 F.2d at 1225-26. Both the format and the substance of the letter were held to "overshadow" the notice required by Section 809(a) in each case.
24. See also European Body Concepts, Inc., Docket No. C-3590 (June 23, 1995), Eggland's Best, Inc., Docket No. C-3520 (Aug. 15, 1994), and Nutri/System, Inc., Docket No. C-3474 (Dec. 22, 1993).
25. "If the consumer disputes the validity of the debt within 30 days, the debt collector must cease collection until he sends the consumer verification." S. Rep. No. 382, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 4, reprinted in 1977 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 1695, 1699. A similar statement appears at page 8 of the Senate Report (1977 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News at 1702).
26. Id.
27. The Graziano court also held that a threat to take any action within ten days would violate Section 807(5), as well as Section 809, because it would be a threat to take an "action that cannot legally be taken." 950 F.2d at 113.
28. 53 Fed. Reg. 50097, 50109; comment 809(b)-1 (Dec. 13, 1988).
29. Formal pleadings were specifically excepted from any disclosure requirements in the amendment to Section 807(11).
30. 15 U.S.C. 1692a(6)(F)(iii).
31. The principal Senate Report on the final version of the FDCPA states that the intent was to exempt "persons who service debts for others" from its coverage. S. Rep. No. 382, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 7, reprinted in 1977 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 1695, 1701.
32. The OCC revised its compliance program to include examinations of all national banking companies every 24 or 36 months depending on the size and complexity of the bank.
33. Only thirteen (13) insured state-chartered nonmember banks supervised by the FDIC were identified as debt collectors subject to the Act.