Nevada SB248, which regulates the collection of certain medical debt in the state, becomes effective July 1. The bill, introduced in March 2021, was rushed through the Legislature before it went out of session on June 1. The result is that SB248 is a broken piece of legislation bound to cause harm to medical consumers, the medical collections industry, and health care providers.
Posts published by “Donald Maurice”
Donald Maurice provides counsel to the financial services industry, successfully litigating matters in the state and federal courts in individual and class actions. He has successfully argued before the Third, Fourth and Eighth Circuit U.S. Courts of Appeals, and has represented the financial services industry before several courts including as counsel for amicus curiae before the United States Supreme Court. He counsels clients in regulatory actions before the CFPB, and other federal and state regulators and in the development and testing of debt collection compliance systems. Don is peer-rated AV by Martindale-Hubbell, the worldwide guide to lawyers. In addition to being a frequent speaker and author on consumer financial services law, he serves as outside counsel to RMA International, on the governing Board of Regents of the American College of Consumer Financial Services Lawyers and on the Governing Committee of the Conference on Consumer Finance Law. From 2014 to 2017, he chaired the ABA's Bankruptcy and Debt Collection Subcommittee. For more information, see https://mauricewutscher.com/attorneys/donald-maurice/
The federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act can no longer apply to devices that do not “us[e] a random or sequential number generator,” according to an April 1 decision from the U.S. Supreme Court.
In 2006 the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe designated each Jan. 28 as Data Protection Day, known outside of Europe as Data Privacy Day. It marks the day in 1981 that Convention 108 of the Council of Europe became open for signature.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau increased the maximum civil penalty it can impose within its jurisdiction after Jan. 15, 2021. The increases are required by federal law, which requires agencies to adjust for inflation each civil monetary penalty within an agency’s jurisdiction by Jan. 15.
On Jan. 19, a federal court in Pennsylvania dismissed a complaint against a debt buyer which alleged violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act stemming from an alleged failure to be licensed under the Pennsylvania Consumer Discount Company Act.
Managing against unforeseen risks can be a difficult task. But sometimes you can get a hint of potential trouble ahead. In the past few months there have been at least four cases that could cause substantial disruption to debt buyers, creditors and their service providers alike. Here they are:
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has prevailed against a challenge to its authority in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the wake of last summer’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
During what was an extraordinary and difficult year, there was an abundance of activity at the state and federal levels and a good deal of it was driven by the present COVID-19 pandemic. Here is my take on some of the most significant regulatory activities from the past year in consumer debt collection that will continue to impact both consumers and creditors in the years to come.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has released its final rule for the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The release of the rule promises to bring substantial changes in consumer debt collection practices.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau released its Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) on Oct. 22, seeking comment on 46 questions in nine categories surrounding consumer access to financial information under section 1033 of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act (12 U.S.C. § 5533).
The FTC will soon propose changes it says are designed to align several existing rules under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act with the Dodd-Frank Act. The impacted rules cover only “motor vehicle dealers” being persons “predominantly engaged in the sale and servicing of motor vehicles, the leasing and servicing of motor vehicles, or both.”
The U.S. Supreme Court recently decided that a fix was needed to the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act. But its decision in Barr v. American Assn. of Political Consultants, Inc. provides no TCPA relief for legitimate businesses that use technology to communicate with their customers.