Prelude: In 2010, the Federal Trade Commission released a study entitled “Repairing A Broken System: Protecting Consumers in Debt Collection Litigation and Arbitration.” What follows is part two of a report on their latest repair efforts. In a February blog post, I explored the Federal Trade Commission’s press release equating a potential defense (the expiration of a limitations period) with a legal right. I’m headed back to that same press release to consider another questionable call from the FTC’s efforts to “repair a broken system.” So today, here is Chapter Two: “How to Confuse People Into Believing You Are Furnishing Negative Credit Information Concerning Them.”…
Posts published in May 2012
As reported today in the Consumer Law and Policy Blog, University of Utah Law Professor Christopher L. Peterson joined the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as a Senior Counsel for Enforcement Strategy. Although Professor Peterson and I do not see eye to eye on many issues, over the past decade his scholarly works have impacted consumer financial services law. If you ever have the opportunity to hear Chris speak on consumer financial services law, do so. You might not like what you hear, but he knows how to make his point in a way that captures your attention.
Sending verification in response to a consumer’s written demand for verification under 15 U.S.C. § 1692g, which also contains a cease and desist demand, does not violate § 1692c under a holding from the Western District of New York in Marino v. HoganWillig, PLLC, 11-cv-453 (W.D. NY April 24, 2012). The Court refused to read § 1692c(c) to prohibit sending a consumer § 1692g(b) validation because it would place a debt collector “into a frozen state where it could not seek to collect the debt because compliance with Section 1692g(b) would violate Section 1692c(c).” The court cited the unpublished opinion in Recker…