1

Education Department Rolls Back Relief to Defrauded Corinthian Colleges Students

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: DECEMBER 20, 2017 || Contacts: Abby Shafroth (ashafroth@nclc.org) or Jan Kruse (jkruse@nclc.org); (617) 542-8010

(BOSTON) Today, the U.S. Department of Education announced that it was unveiling a supposedly “improved” process for student loan relief claims submitted by students cheated by predatory schools. The Department stated that the new process would “aid defrauded borrowers.” However, the only process change announced will specifically reduce aid to defrauded borrowers by ending the Department’s practice of providing full loan discharges to defrauded Corinthian students. Instead, it will use a complex new calculation to limit relief. The Department plans to impose these new limits on relief even to borrowers who submitted claims for relief months or years ago—during the period when the Department’s practice was to provide full discharges to defrauded Corinthian students. The limits will therefore be a harsh surprise for defrauded borrowers who have waited and waited, expecting full discharges.

Advocates at the National Consumer Law Center (NCLC) were disappointed by the announcement that the Department plans to change course to provide less relief to defrauded borrowers. They call on the Department to continue its prior practice of fully discharging student loans for defrauded borrowers.

“The Department of Education previously committed to providing Corinthian students covered by Department findings of unlawful school conduct with ‘every penny of debt relief [they] are entitled to.’ Based on that, the Department provided full discharges to nearly 25,000 former Corinthian students who applied for relief,” said Abby Shafroth, a staff attorney for the National Consumer Law Center’s Student Loan Borrower Assistance Project. “The Department cannot suddenly change the rules to provide less relief. It is especially shocking and disheartening that Betsy DeVos would apply new rules to borrowers who applied long ago when the Department was providing full relief to their classmates. Changing course now is unfair to defrauded borrowers who were misled first by Corinthian and now by the Department, and is likely to be challenged in court.”

Related NCLC Resources

Issue Brief: The Borrower Defense Rule protects students and taxpayers against fraud and abuse in higher education. (January 2017)

Comments of NCLC to the Department of Education Re: Borrower Defense Rule Delay and Intent to Establish Negotiated Rulemaking Committee (July 12, 2017)

Comments of NCLC and 16 other legal aid groups to the Department of Education re: Proposed regulations on borrower defenses and use of forced arbitration by schools in the Direct Loan Program, and proposed amendments to closed school and false certification discharge regulations. (August 1, 2016)

Ensuring Educational Integrity: 10 steps to improve state oversight of for-profit schools. (June 2014)

Making the Numbers Count: Why proprietary school data doesn’t add up, and what can be done about it. (June 2005)

Further Information on school-related cancellation of federal student loan debt.




Banking Lobbyists Back FCC Petition to Shield Companies from Penalties for Text Messaging Consumers

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: DECEMBER 19, 2017 || CONTACTS: Margot Saunders (msaunders@nclc.org); Jan Kruse (jkruse@nclc.org) or (617) 542-8010

Robocallers want a “whoops” defense when they ignore consumers’ pleas to stop

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Outcome Health has petitioned the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to allow companies to avoid liability for continuing to send unwanted text messages to consumers even after they have repeatedly asked for the texts to stop. Under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), companies can be held liable in court for such abusive and invasive practices, but Outcome Health’s petition asks that companies claiming that the messages were sent as a result of “an undetected and inadvertent technical error” should be shielded from liability. Allowing this petition would send a message that callers and texters can continue to bombard consumers with unwanted and illegal robocalls and texts without consequence.

The American Bankers Association, the Consumer Bankers Association, and the Financial Services Roundtable recently filed comments in support of Outcome Health’s petition. If the petition is granted, any company using automated text technology could simply claim an error occurred and it would then be shielded from the TCPA penalties for continuing to text consumers after they’ve revoked consent and asked for the texts to stop.

“This is an outrageous effort to allow businesses to circumvent a key consumer protection law. It would open the floodgates for robocallers to call and text a person repeatedly despite requests to stop. And it would seriously undermine the only federal law designed to protect consumers from unwanted calls and texts,” said Margot Saunders, senior counsel at the National Consumer Law Center.

Outcome Health’s petition erroneously argues that its request is grounded in a limited exception established in a 2012 FCC decision (Soundbite), which allowed a confirmation text message to be sent immediately after a consumer revoked consent to receive text messages. However, if the FCC approves Outcome Health’s request, it would shield unlimited text messages sent after a person revokes consent—no matter how many times the consumer asks that the texts stop, and no matter how long after consent is revoked—whenever the texting company claims that the problem was caused by a technical error.

“The TCPA does not allow an exemption from liability for calls or texts that are otherwise illegal under the law simply because the caller claims a mistake,” Saunders added. “Callers need to have robust systems in place to record and implement consumers’ requests to stop texting them. Moreover, the FCC is not in a position to take evidence and evaluate the veracity of the claims made in these petitions.”

Both Outcome Health and the banking trade groups argue that exemptions are needed because of “frivolous lawsuits” and “TCPA-driven trial lawyer abuse.” Yet data shows the TCPA is grossly under-used by consumers and their attorneys. Combined data from the FTC and FCC complaint databases shows while nearly 4 million complaints about robocalls and text messages were filed in 2016, in the same year just 4,860 lawsuits were filed under the TCPA.

Comments urging the FCC to reject Outcome Health’s request for this get-out-of-jail free card were submitted by the National Consumer Law Center, on behalf of its low-income clients, and Consumer Action, Consumer Federation of America, National Association of Consumer Advocates, Public Citizen, Public Knowledge, and U.S. PIRG. Consumers Union also submitted comments opposing Outcome Health’s petition.




Debt Collection Rulemaking at the CFPB

Fair Debt Collection

Fair Debt Collection

The leading treatise on the FDCPA, the statute that dramatically alters how collection agencies, debt buyers and attorneys collect consumer debts.

Subscribe Now!

The CFPB’s Debt Collection Rule

In Dec. 2020, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau disappointed advocates with the second of its two-part final debt collection rule, impacting 68 million American consumers. The rules made some improvements for consumers but they do not go far enough to provide needed consumer protections on key issues.

 

Debt Collection Rule Resources

Archive+

Comments & Testimony

Archive+

Issue Briefs and Reports

Archive+

Press Releases

Archive+

Letters

  • Letter to CFPB Acting Director Uejio re: Additional Modifications to Debt Collection Rule to Better Protect Consumers, Mar. 3, 2021
  • Letter to CFPB Acting Director Uejio re: Non-Regulatory Actions Needed on Debt Collection, Feb. 1, 2021
  • Group letter to CFPB urging improved language access protections in upcoming debt collection rulemaking, Nov. 30, 2020

Archive+

Fact Sheets

CFPB Debt Collection Rulemaking Archive




U.S. House Financial Services Committee Votes to Reduce Credit Bureau Consumer Protections

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: DECEMBER 13, 2017 || Contacts: Chi Chi Wu (cwu@nclc.org) or Jan Kruse (jkruse@nclc.org); (617) 542-8010

H.R. 435 Reduces Consumer Control over Personal Data collected by Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion

Boston – Today, the Financial Services Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives voted to approve a bill that strips some of the few privacy rights that consumers have in deciding whether their information is sent to credit bureaus like Equifax.

“Given the angst that members of Congress expressed at the Equifax Congressional hearings over the lack of control consumers have when it comes to the credit bureaus, it is ironic that the House Financial Services Committee has just passed a bill that will actually reduce consumers’ ability to have a say over their own data,” said National Consumer Law Center staff attorney Chi Chi Wu. “They passed this bill despite the opposition of 40 consumer, civil rights, and other advocacy groups.”

H.R. 435 is touted as a way to help consumers with little or no credit history. But the bill tries to achieve this goal by nullifying state and federal privacy protections regarding reporting payment information about rental housing or utilities. The bill overrides state and federal laws that protect consumers, such as by requiring their consent prior to public housing authorities, private landlords, electric or gas companies, and other utilities sending information to credit bureaus.

Another problem is that reporting by gas and electric companies in particular may result in negative marks for millions of families – disproportionately low-income and families of color – who struggle with huge winter heating or summer cooling bills, but catch up in subsequent months. The bill also prevents states from protecting tenants from negative reporting by their landlords, such as by prohibiting negative marks on tenant screening or credit reports for tenants who withhold rental payments due to health or safety disputes.

H.R. 435 now goes to the full House of Representatives for a vote, which has not yet been scheduled. “We hope that members of Congress remember their outrage against Equifax from just a few months ago as they vote on a bill that only benefits the credit bureaus,” stated Wu.

Related links

HR 435: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/435

Huffington Post blog by National Consumer Law Center Staff Attorney Chi Chi Wu: “After the Equifax Data Breach, Why Did a U.S. House Committee Vote to Reduce Credit Bureau Consumer Protections?,” December 13, 2017: http://bit.ly/2AiqqUx

Consumer, civil rights, housing, privacy, and utility advocates’ letter to U.S. House opposing HR 435, December 8, 2017: https://www.nclc.org/images/pdf/legislation/letter-oppose-hr435-hfsc.pdf

 



Consumer Advocates File in Support of Acting CFPB Director Leandra English

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: DECEMBER 8, 2017 || Contact: Jan Kruse, jkruse@nclc.org or (617) 542-8010

Agency’s Independence Is Necessary to Its Mission, Groups Say

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB or Consumer Bureau) independence from external political influence is crucial to the agency’s mission of protecting consumers, 10 groups told a court today in an amicus brief filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

The groups are Public Citizen, Americans for Financial Reform, Center for Responsible Lending, Consumer Action, National Association of Consumer Advocates (NACA), National Consumer Law Center (NCLC), National Consumers League, National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA), Tzedek DC and U.S. Public Interest Research Group Education Fund (U.S. PIRG Education Fund).

In the case, Deputy CFPB Director Leandra English is seeking a preliminary injunction allowing her to serve as acting director of the CFPB while litigation over the lawful acting director – herself or U.S. Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney – proceeds. In their amicus filing, the groups explain that the public has a strong interest in English serving as the acting director while the court further considers the legal issues.

“If there is any doubt about why Congress protected the CFPB’s independence, look no further than the present,” said Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen. “Leandra English, an experienced CFPB senior official, has directed the agency to continue pursuing its important mission. Mick Mulvaney has shown that he neither supports the agency’s mission nor values its independence. In his short time at the CFPB, he has tried to freeze the agency’s work and to tie it to the White House’s political priorities.”

“This case involves more than the simple question of who gets what job. It’s about whether the Trump administration has to respect the plan Congress set up for an independent regulator that is shielded from the influence of Wall Street, so it can effectively protect the public interest,” said Lisa Donner, executive director of Americans for Financial Reform. “Mick Mulvaney plainly wants to subvert congressional intent. Leandra English is a professional who would continue the important, mandated work of protecting consumers in the financial services marketplace.”

“The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, as an independent agency, can’t be run by someone who takes orders from the payday lenders and from the president – that defeats its entire purpose. The consumer bureau, like the other financial regulatory agencies, is supposed to be insulated from daily political interference and influence. That makes Mulvaney unfit to head the agency, especially given his commitment to undermine the agency’s recent rule on payday and car title lending,” said Mike Calhoun, president of the Center for Responsible Lending. “The president should follow regular order and nominate a director who can gain support from both parties, not circumvent the confirmation process. It’s time to start calling the appointment of Mulvaney for what it really is: the beginning of an attempt, driven by the payday lenders, to eliminate the consumer agency.”

“Consumers rely on a strong, responsible, independent CFPB to alert them, protect them and hold corporations accountable for their actions,” said Linda Sherry, Consumer Action’s director of national priorities. “The bureau needs leaders, like Leandra English, who support its consumer protection mission, not those who seek to destroy it from within.”

“The CFPB was created because of the regulatory capture of the existing bank regulators and their complete failure to stop Wall Street banks’ predatory behavior that caused such enormous damage to American consumers and our economy,” said Ira Rheingold, executive director of NACA. “Allowing the foxes – in the guise of Mick Mulvaney – to run the consumer protection henhouse is something that should not happen without the full consent of the U.S. Senate.”

“Both consumers and law-abiding companies engaged in fair and honest competition benefit from having an independent enforcement agency like the consumer bureau that impartially ensures that everyone follows the same rules and creates a level playing field,” said National Consumer Law Center Director of Litigation Stuart Rossman. “American families need a tough ‘cop on the beat’ that is dedicated to protecting and preserving marketplace justice for all.”

“The National Consumers League believes it is clear where the public interest lies in this case. The CFPB is an independent federal consumer protection agency, and any new director of the Bureau must be nominated and approved by the Senate for this specific job before taking the reins at the CFPB. In the interim, the CFPB must be led by an acting director dedicated to the agency’s mission and its independence,” said Sally Greenberg, executive director of the National Consumers League.

“A major goal of the CFPB is to enforce the nation’s fair lending laws with financial institutions like payday lenders and auto dealers,” stated Lisa Rice, executive vice president of NFHA. “These are entities that had very little or no regulatory oversight before the passage of Dodd-Frank. Leandra English wants to make sure the markets are free from discrimination. When he was a congressman, Mick Mulvaney sponsored legislation to eliminate the bureau; now he wants to limit the agency’s authority to pursue those who break the law.”

“The CFPB’s independence is critical to its effectiveness in protecting our client community of low-income D.C. residents, who often face debt, credit and predatory lending crises, as well as unjust debt collection activities,” said Ariel Levinson-Waldman, president and director-counsel of Tzedek DC. “The bureau, to say the least, should not be run by a member of the president’s Cabinet. The court should act to ensure compliance with Congress’s intent in Dodd-Frank of having an independent CFPB.”

“The Dodd-Frank Act clearly anticipated the idea of a hostile administration hijacking the CFPB without the Senate confirmation of a qualified director,” said Ed Mierzwinski, the Consumer Program Director for U.S. PIRG Education Fund. “The court should grant the preliminary injunction and let the independent bureau go back to doing its only job, protecting consumers.”

The organizations’ amicus brief is here.




Congress Moves to Protect Predatory Payday Lenders’ Unaffordable 300% Loans

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: DECEMBER 1, 2017 || Contacts: Lauren Saunders lsaunders@nclc.org or (202) 595-7845; or Jan Kruse jkruse@nclc.org or (617) 542-8010)

Resolution Filed to Block Consumer Bureau’s Ability-to-Pay Rule

Washington – Today, a resolution was filed in the U.S. House of Representatives that would block new consumer protections adopted by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that would rein in predatory 300% annual percentage rate (APR) payday loans.

“Americans of all political persuasions should be outraged at the members of Congress who are trying to block modest protections for predatory 300% loans that put families into a debt trap,” said Lauren Saunders, associate director of the National Consumer Law Center. “Ordinary people, whether Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, support reform of 300% loans that prey on working families living paycheck to paycheck. The consumer watchdog’s rule adopts common-sense protections that responsible lenders already follow by considering the borrower’s ability to repay the loan. Congress should not side with predatory lenders over Americans.”

The resolution was filed by Rep. Dennis Ross (R-Fla.) and lists five co-sponsors: Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.), Tom Graves (R-Ga.), Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), Steve Stivers (R-Ohio) and Collin Peterson (D-Minn.).

“Families in Florida, Minnesota, Ohio and Texas pay billions of dollars in fees to payday lenders who put them into a cycle of debt they cannot escape, and Georgia families lose their cars to predatory auto title lenders. It is outrageous that legislators in these states would block common sense rules that lenders consider borrowers’ ability to repay their loans,” Saunders added. Research by the Center for Responsible Lending shows that payday and auto title loans drain $311 million a year from families in Florida, $200 million in Georgia, $10.6 million in Minnesota, $503 million in Ohio, and $1.7 billion in Texas.

The public overwhelmingly supports reform of the payday loan industry. 73% of Americans support requiring payday lenders to check a borrower’s ability to pay before lending money and over 70% of both Democrats and Republicans support the Consumer Bureau rule. In November 2016, 76%of South Dakota voters voted to adopt a 36% interest rate cap in that state, a higher percentage of the vote than President Trump received. Montana voters did the same in 2010, another conservative election year.

The Consumer Bureau’s rule primarily applies to loans of 45 days or less. The rule requires lenders to consider the borrower’s income, major debts and living expenses and make a reasonable determination that the borrower can afford to repay the loan. Lenders are also allowed to make up to six loans a year without considering ability to repay. The rule has exemptions for many credit union and community bank loans.

The resolution was filed under the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to block rules on a fast track schedule without the possibility of a filibuster. If the resolution passes, it would block the Consumer Bureau from ever adopting substantially similar rules in the future without congressional approval.

Read the CFPB press release and factsheet summarizing the rule on payday loans and the full CFPB rule on payday loans.

Learn more about NCLC’s body of work on high-cost short term loans.

 



House Education Bill Ends Key Student Protections that Will Lead to a Lifetime of Debt

Persis Yu, director of National Consumer Law Center’s Student Loan Borrower Assistance Project, issued the following statement.:

“The Higher Education Bill introduced today by House Republicans would make it more difficult and more expensive for millions of Americans to repay their student loans. It would also demolish safeguards that prevent low-quality schools from using abusive and predatory tactics to line their pockets with taxpayer dollars at the expense of students working to build a better life for their families.

“This bill would make it impossible for many low-income families to ever pay back their student loans by replacing the existing income-driven repayment plans with a much harsher plan. Under the Income Based Repayment plan outlined in the bill, it could take a low-income borrower with just $30,000 in student loan debt an incredible 138 years to repay their student loans. Borrowers should not have to take their student loan debt to the grave. Additionally, new minimum monthly payment amounts will push borrowers with the least income into default. Borrowers need real help paying their student loans; this bill severely misses the mark.”