Mar 8, 2018 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Navient Corporation, Navient Solutions, LLC and Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc. – Class Action Seeks Statutory Damages and Injunctive Relief to Stop Debt Collection Calls in Alleged Violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
On March 7, 2018, a class action lawsuit was filed in United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, by Plaintiff Bria Adkins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, against Navient Corporation, Navient Solutions, LLC, and Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc. The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief and statutory damages for the alleged Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) violations committed by the Navient and Pioneer Credit Recovery defendants.
The TCPA, according to the complaint, regulates and restricts the use of automatic telephone equipment; protects consumers from unwanted calls that are made with autodialers and/or prerecorded messages; and prohibits any person from calling a cellular telephone number using an automatic telephone dialing system or prerecorded message without the recipient’s prior express consent.
Further, the complaint states that Navient Solutions was the servicer of an educational loan for the Plaintiff’s mother. The Plaintiff’s mother’s loan was placed with Pioneer Credit Recovery for collection, after the Plaintiff’s mother defaulted on the loan. Pioneer Credit Recovery, allegedly, used the Internet to identify third-party acquaintances, friends, and relatives of the Plaintiff’s mother, and in April 2017, Pioneer Credit Recovery started a telephone campaign to collect the Plaintiff’s mother’s debt. The Plaintiff was one of the third-parties Pioneer Credit Recovery identified and contacted Plaintiff’s cell phone on at least two occasions via an automated telephone dialing system.
The class action lawsuit against Navient and Pioneer Credit Recovery seeks statutory damages of $500 for every call, including SMS messages, placed or transmitted, as well as treble, or triple, damages of $1,500 for every call, including SMS messages, placed knowingly and/or willfully in violation of the TCPA.
Have You Received Unsolicited, Unwanted or Harassing Telemarketing Calls or Autodial, Automated or Prerecorded “Robocalls” or Text Messages to Your Cellular Telephone from Telemarketers, Banks or Credit Card, Mortgage, Student Loan or Other Companies Without Your Prior Express Consent?
Have You Received Debt Collection Robocalls On Your Cellular Telephone Where You Requested Not to Receive, or Opted-Out from Receiving, Automated Debt Collection Calls?
Have You Received “Junk Fax” Advertisements That You Did Not Consent to Receive?
If so, you may have grounds to bring a private right of action, or lawsuit, under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act to try and recover statutory damages of between $500 and $1,500 for each TCPA violation. If you would like to speak privately with an attorney at no cost or obligation to you about your potential legal rights or claims, please contact Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected], complete the form above on the right or send an e-mail to [email protected].
Mar 7, 2018 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Upwards of 243,000 Harmed Consumers Who Were Assessed Transaction Fees Exceeding What Bancorp Bank Disclosed to Receive Approximately $1.3 million in Restitution
On March 7, 2018, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) announced a settlement with The Bancorp Bank, Wilmington, Delaware, relating to unfair and deceptive practices in violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (Section 5). Further, the FDIC found that the bank violated the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, the Truth in Savings Act, and the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act.
As part of the settlement, The Bancorp Bank stipulated to the issuance of an Order for Restitution and Order to Pay Civil Money Penalty. The Order for Restitution requires the bank to prepare a comprehensive restitution plan, and to pay restitution of nearly $1.3 million to approximately 243,000 harmed consumers who were assessed transaction fees exceeding what the bank disclosed. The Order for Restitution also requires The Bancorp Bank, its institution-affiliated parties, and its successors and assigns to fully comply with Section 5. The Order to Pay requires the bank to pay a civil money penalty of $2.0 million. According to the FDIC, consumers who are eligible for relief under the settlement are not required to take any action to receive compensation.
The Bancorp Bank Overcharged Transaction Fees for Certain Point-of-Sale, Signature-Based Transactions on Certain Stored-Value Cards, Including the Bank’s Excella Visa Prepaid Debit Card
The Bancorp Bank issues prepaid cards on behalf of numerous non-bank entities. The FDIC determined that the bank violated Section 5 by overcharging transaction fees for certain point-of-sale, signature-based transactions (i.e., transactions not requiring a personal identification number or PIN) on certain stored-value cards, including the bank’s Excella Visa Prepaid Debit Card. As the issuing bank for these various prepaid cards, The Bancorp Bank was responsible for ensuring that these programs were operating in compliance with all applicable laws.
The Bancorp Bank Restitution Plan
According to the Order for Restitution’s “Restitution Plan”:
Within thirty (30) days from the effective date of [the] ORDER, the Bank shall prepare a comprehensive restitution plan . . . for all past and present holders of Excella Cards (“Excella Consumers”) and Non-Excella Cards (“Non-Excella Consumers”) who from December 3, 2010 through November 8, 2014 were assessed transaction fees for PINless transactions that exceeded the amount of the fee the Bank disclosed to Excella Consumers and Non-Excella Consumers for such transaction (“Excess Transaction Fees”) and who are therefore entitled to reimbursement (“Eligible Consumers”). The Bank shall submit the Restitution Plan to the Regional Director of the FDIC’s New York Regional Office (“FDIC Regional Director”) for his review, comment, and non-objection prior to implementation of any actions still to be performed under the Restitution Plan.
The Restitution Plan shall distinguish between Eligible Consumers to whom reimbursement has already been made (“Previously Reimbursed Eligible Consumers”) and those who are entitled to reimbursement, including consumers who were mailed reimbursement checks that have not been cashed, (“Unreimbursed Eligible Consumers”) and shall: (a) identify all Eligible Consumers; (b) specify the methodology for calculating the amount of restitution for each Eligible Consumer; (c) describe the process for providing restitution to all of the Eligible Consumers for Excess Transaction Fees assessed by the Bank, including the manner in which restitution was or will be paid and the time frames for such payments; (d) describe, for cash restitution made by United States Postal Service first class mail to Previously Reimbursed Eligible Consumers, (i) the Bank’s processes for prior and future attempts to locate those Eligible Consumers whose payments were or may be returned to the Bank as undeliverable, which shall be consistent with the standards set forth in Paragraph 7 of this ORDER; and (ii) the Bank’s processes for prior and future attempts to contact Eligible Consumers whose reimbursement checks remain uncashed thirty (30) days after the reimbursement checks were mailed shall be consistent with the standards set forth in Paragraph 7 of this ORDER; and (e) provide for payment of restitution to all Unreimbursed Eligible Consumers within ninety (90) days of receipt of non-objection to the plan from the FDIC Regional Director as required in Paragraph 3 of this ORDER.
. . .
The Bank shall fully implement the Restitution Plan, including making payments or providing credits to all of the Eligible Consumers, within ninety (90) days of receipt of nonobjection from the FDIC Regional Director. Any required restitution shall be made by credits to the Excella Card Accounts and Non-Excella Card Accounts of Eligible Consumers. If, as of the date that restitution is made, an Eligible Consumer’s Excella Card Account and/or Non-Excella Card Account has been closed, charged off, sold, or otherwise transferred, the amount of restitution to which the Eligible Consumer is entitled shall be made by bank or certified check (“Restitution Check”) mailed to the holder of the Account as provided below. Restitution provided by the Bank under this ORDER shall not limit consumers’ rights in any way.
Source: FDIC.gov
Mar 5, 2018 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Build A Dream’s Alleged Telemarketing Calls in Violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
On February 16, 2018, a class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) was filed against “construction lender” Build A Dream, Inc. in United States District Court, Central District of California, “seeking damages and other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant, [Build A Dream, Inc.] . . . in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff’s home telephone in violation of the [TCPA] . . . and related regulations, specifically the National Do-Not-Call provisions, thereby invading Plaintiff’s privacy.”
According to the complaint, “[b]eginning as early as January of 2015, and continuing on through 2017, [Build A Dream] contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff’s home telephone number . . . in an attempt to solicit Plaintiff to purchase [Build A Dream’s] services.”
In July 2003, the Plaintiff’s home telephone number was added to the National Do Not Call Registry, and Build A Dream, allegedly, contacted or attempted to contact the Plaintiff from the following Build A Dream-related telephone numbers: (626) 238-0582, (626) 238-0317, (626) 238-1583, (626) 238-1033, (626) 238-0289, (626) 238-0272, (626) 238-0527, (626) 427-2291, (626) 427-9644, (626) 427-0246, and (626) 427-0229.
Further, the class action complaint alleges that Build A Dream’s telephone calls to the Plaintiff were “not for emergency purposes” and “were an attempt to promote or sell [Build A Dream’s] services.” The Plaintiff “did not have an established business relationship with [Build A Dream] during the time of the solicitation calls from [Build A Dream],” and Build A Dream “continued to call Plaintiff,” despite the Plaintiff having “expressly asked [Build A Dream] to stop calling in one of [Build A Dream’s] earlier phone calls.”
Among other relief, the class action seeks statutory damages of $500 for each TCPA violation, as well as triple, or treble, damages of $1,500 for each knowing or willful TCPA violation.
Have You Received Unsolicited, Unwanted or Harassing Telemarketing Calls or Autodial, Automated or Prerecorded “Robocalls” or Text Messages to Your Cellular Telephone from Telemarketers, Banks or Credit Card, Mortgage, Student Loan or Other Companies Without Your Prior Express Consent?
Have You Received Debt Collection Robocalls On Your Cellular Telephone Where You Requested Not to Receive, or Opted-Out from Receiving, Automated Debt Collection Calls?
Have You Received “Junk Fax” Advertisements That You Did Not Consent to Receive?
If so, you may have grounds to bring a private right of action, or lawsuit, under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act to try and recover statutory damages of between $500 and $1,500 for each TCPA violation. If you would like to speak privately with an attorney at no cost or obligation to you about your potential legal rights or claims, please contact Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected], complete the form above on the right or send an e-mail to [email protected].
Mar 4, 2018 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
PayPal Settles FTC Charges Regarding Venmo’s Failure to Disclose Information to Consumers About the Ability to Transfer Funds and Misleading Consumers About the Extent to Which Consumers Could Control the Privacy of Their Transactions
The Federal Trade Commission announced that it has reached a settlement with PayPal, Inc. over allegations that PayPal told users of its Venmo peer-to-peer payment service that money credited to their Venmo balances could be transferred to external bank accounts without adequately disclosing that the transactions were still subject to review and that funds could be frozen or removed.
The FTC’s complaint also charges Venmo with misleading consumers about the extent to which they could control the privacy of their transactions. Additionally, PayPal-operated Venmo, “a payment and social networking application and website that allows consumers to make peer-to-peer payments and to share information regarding such payments through a social network feed,” allegedly, misrepresented the extent to which consumers’ financial accounts were protected by “bank grade security systems” and violated the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act’s Safeguards and Privacy Rules.
Venmo Allegedly Aware of Consumer Confusion, “User Frustration,” and Financial Loss
According to the FTC’s complaint (In the Matter of PayPal, Inc.):
Many thousands of consumers have complained to Venmo about the delays or loss of funds from their Venmo balance when they tried to transfer funds to their bank accounts. News articles from several media outlets since at least 2015 have highlighted the harm to consumers, which is sometimes in the thousands of dollars. Many consumers have reported suffering significant financial hardship due to not being able to transfer funds, including the inability to pay rent or bills with funds they expected to transfer out of Venmo. Other consumers have relied on the notifications indicating a sender paid them and supplied event tickets or other valuable items to the sender in exchange for funds, and consequently incurred a financial loss when Venmo removed the funds from their balance. In numerous instances, consumers who have attempted to contact Venmo have been unable to reach a representative or have not been provided with an explanation for or resolution to the problem with their account.
Internal company emails also have demonstrated that at least as early as mid-2015 Venmo was aware of “user frustration” and confusion experienced by consumers whose accounts were frozen or who suffered financial loss when transactions were reversed. Nevertheless, Venmo has continued representing, without qualification, that once money is credited to consumers’ Venmo accounts, consumers can transfer the money to their bank accounts.
Venmo Allegedly Failed to Disclose that Consumer Funds Could Be Frozen or Removed Based on the Results of Venmo’s Review of the Underlying Transaction
According to the FTC’s complaint, Venmo sent its users notifications that money had been credited to their Venmo balances and was available for transfer to an external bank account. The FTC, however, says that Venmo failed to disclose that these funds could be frozen or removed based on the results of Venmo’s review of the underlying transaction. As a result, consumers complained that, at times, Venmo delayed the withdrawal of funds or reversed the underlying transactions after initially notifying them that the funds were available.
Venmo Allegedly Misled Consumers About the Extent of Transaction Privacy
The FTC also alleges that Venmo misled consumers about the extent to which they could keep transactions private. By default, some information about transactions between users is displayed on Venmo’s social news feed. Venmo offers privacy settings that enable consumers to limit who can view such transactions, but Venmo misled consumers about how those settings work.
According to the complaint, a Venmo consumer who limits their “default audience” for “future transactions” has not ensured that their transactions will remain private, unless they also change a second setting. Unless the consumer changes both settings, certain transactions may still be shared publicly. Also, unless that second setting is changed, where a consumer has specifically chosen to keep a particular transaction private, the other participant in the transaction can override the consumer’s privacy choices and retroactively make a private transaction public. According to the complaint, Venmo, at times, misrepresented what steps were necessary to keep transactions private and, in any case, failed to adequately disclose these facts to consumers.
Venmo Allegedly Misrepresented the Extent of Security Provided to Consumer Financial Accounts & Violated Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act’s Safeguards and Privacy Rules
The FTC also alleges that, until at least March 2015, Venmo misrepresented the extent of security it provided to consumer financial accounts, claiming that it utilized “bank-grade security systems.” The FTC alleges, however, that through at least August 2014, Venmo did not have a written information security program. Until at least March 2015, Venmo failed to notify users when their password or e-mail address had been changed, or when a new device had been added to their account. As a result, unauthorized users were able to withdraw funds from consumer accounts – without Venmo notifying consumers. In addition, Venmo lacked adequate customer support to respond to consumer complaints about these incidents.
Additionally, the FTC alleges that Venmo violated the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act’s Safeguards Rule, which requires financial institutions to implement safeguards to protect the security, confidentiality, and integrity of customer information, and Privacy Rule, which requires financial institutions to deliver privacy notices to customers.
As part of the proposed settlement with the FTC, Venmo is prohibited from misrepresenting any material restrictions on the use of its service, the extent of control provided by any privacy settings, and the extent to which Venmo implements or adheres to a particular level of security. Venmo is also required to make certain disclosures to consumers about its transaction and privacy practices, in addition to being prohibited from violating the Privacy and Safeguards Rules. Consistent with several past cases involving violations of Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act Rules, Venmo is required to obtain biennial third-party assessments of its compliance with these rules for 10 years.
For additional information, please see In the Matter of PayPal, Inc.
Source: FTC.gov
Mar 3, 2018 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Class Action Against University of Phoenix and Apollo Education Group for Alleged Unsolicited, Prerecorded Telemarketing Messages on Behalf of The University of Phoenix
On February 28, 2018, a class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) and Illinois Automatic Telephone Dialers Act (“IATDA”) was filed in United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, against The University of Phoenix, Inc. and The Apollo Education Group, Inc. for damages, declaratory and injunctive relief. The class action lawsuit was filed by Plaintiff Terrance Williams, an Illinois resident, to “. . . redress Defendants’ [i.e., The University of Phoenix and its “parent company,” The Apollo Education Group] unlawful conduct in autodialing [Plaintiff’s] cellular telephone number without his consent to deliver unsolicited, prerecorded telemarketing messages on behalf of ‘The University of Phoenix’.”
According to the TCPA class action complaint, in 2017, University of Phoenix and/or Apollo Education Group called the Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number and delivered an “unsolicited advertisement” to encourage Plaintiff to “purchase” educational “services.” When the Plaintiff answered some calls placed by University of Phoenix and/or Apollo Education Group, there was a “period of silence followed by an automated click at which point the call would sometimes connect to a human.”
The Plaintiff, allegedly, also received prerecorded messages which advertised or promoted University of Phoenix’s and/or Apollo Education Group’s educational services. “The pre-recorded messages played or left on Plaintiff’s cellular phone and/or voice mail did not comply with 47 CFR § 64.1200(b)(3) because none of the prerecorded messages contained language identifying the ability of Plaintiff to opt-out of future prerecorded messages.”
The Plaintiff, allegedly, never provided his cell phone number or prior express written consent to permit telemarketing messages to his cellular phone through the use of an automatic telephone dialing system and predictive dialer, as these terms are defined, respectively, by the TCPA and the FCC. “Plaintiff never consented to receiving a ‘telephone solicitation’ calls from Defendants and never expressly consented (in writing or otherwise) to allow Defendants to call his cellular telephone number with an ‘automatic telephone dialing system’ or ‘artificial or prerecorded voice.’”
The class action against University of Phoenix and Apollo Education Group seeks, among other things, statutory damages of at least $500 and up to $1,500 for each TCPA or IATDA violation.
Have You Received Unsolicited, Unwanted or Harassing Autodial, Automated or Prerecorded “Robocalls” or Text Messages to Your Cellular Telephone from Telemarketers, Banks or Credit Card, Mortgage, Student Loan or Other Companies on Your Cell Phone Without Your Prior Express Consent?
Have You Received Debt Collection Robocalls On Your Cellular Telephone Where You Requested Not to Receive, or Opted-Out from Receiving, Automated Debt Collection Calls?
Have You Received “Junk Fax” Advertisements That You Did Not Consent to Receive?
If so, you may have grounds to bring a private right of action, or lawsuit, under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act to try and recover statutory damages of between $500 and $1,500 for each TCPA violation. If you would like to speak privately with an attorney at no cost or obligation to you about your potential legal rights or claims, please contact Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected], complete the form above on the right or send an e-mail to [email protected].
Feb 28, 2018 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Loandepot.com, LLC – Alleged Telephone Consumer Protection Act Violations
On February 27, 2018, a Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action complaint was filed in United States District Court, Central District of California, against Loandepot.com, LLC. The lawsuit alleges that beginning in April 2017, Loandepot.com, “a marketer and seller of loans and related products,” placed multiple telephone calls to the Plaintiff’s cell phone soliciting Loandepot.com’s business. Defendant Loandepot.com, allegedly, attempted to contact the Plaintiff’s cellular telephone from telephone number (813) 330-3850, among others.
The calls Plaintiff received were, allegedly, not for emergency purposes; were placed to a telephone number assigned to a cellular service for which the Plaintiff incurs a charge for incoming calls; and for which Loandepot.com did not possess Plaintiff’s prior express consent to receive such calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice on Plaintiff’s cellular telephone, pursuant to, respectively, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1) and 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A).
The Plaintiff, Miguel Napoles, brought the class action individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated in the United States who, within the past four years, received any solicitation/telemarketing telephone calls from Loandepot.com to a cellular telephone made through the use of any automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice without having previously consented to receiving such calls. The class action seeks statutory damages of $500 for each and every TCPA violation and triple, or treble, damages of $1,500 for each and every knowing or willful TCPA violation.
Have You Received Unsolicited, Unwanted or Harassing Autodial, Automated or Prerecorded “Robocalls” or Text Messages to Your Cellular Telephone from Telemarketers, Banks or Credit Card, Mortgage, Student Loan or Other Companies on Your Cell Phone Without Your Prior Express Consent?
Have You Received Debt Collection Robocalls On Your Cellular Telephone Where You Requested Not to Receive, or Opted-Out from Receiving, Automated Debt Collection Calls?
Have You Received “Junk Fax” Advertisements That You Did Not Consent to Receive?
If so, you may have grounds to bring a private right of action, or lawsuit, under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act to try and recover statutory damages of between $500 and $1,500 for each TCPA violation. If you would like to speak privately with an attorney at no cost or obligation to you about your potential legal rights or claims, please contact Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected], complete the form above on the right or send an e-mail to [email protected].
