If you’re facing a Citibank credit card claim, you may have a variety of defenses.
Interest Rate Questions and Citibank Violation of Truth in Lending Regulations An investigation said. The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) has reviewed the credit card account management activities of Citibank, N.A. and has identified the following law violations: (1) violations of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), as implemented in Regulation Z, by failing to reevaluate and reduce the annual percentage rates (APRs) for certain consumer credit card accounts consistent with the requirements of section 1026.59(a) of Regulation Z; and (2) violations of TILA, as implemented in Regulation Z, by failing to have reasonable written policies and procedures in place to conduct the APR reevaluations consistent with the requirements of section 1026.59(b) of Regulation Z. The Bureau issues this Consent Order.
If you have an older loan and the interest rate was increased, the amount sought by Citibank may be inaccurate and the claim can be contested.
Discovery If you have a loan potentially subject to the above investigation, request specific documents regarding review of your account. Don’t be surprised if the Citibank attorney just gives you the account statements, but you may be allowed “discovery,” disclosure of pertinent material and documents.
Hardship Maintain open and clear communication with Citibank or their counsel. Explain and document any hardship and you may be able to secure a reduction in the claim or reasonable repayment options.
Arbitration The Citibank Cardholder Agreement provides that either party may request arbitration. Arbitration is frequently more flexible than court, and potentially more favorable to the consumer.
If you’ve ever been bombarded with robocalls offering fake car warranties and extended coverage, you’re not alone. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently imposed a historic $300 million fine on an international network of companies responsible for a vast auto warranty scam.
Making over five billion illegal robocalls to more than 500 million phone numbers in just three months, these scammers violated federal statutes, FCC regulations, and spoofing laws. They employed deceptive tactics, using fake caller IDs to mislead consumers and trick them into answering. This article dives into the details of the violation and offers actionable advice to protect yourself from such deceptive calls.
The Unprecedented FCC Penalty for Auto Warranty Scammers
The FCC’s enforcement action against the auto warranty robocall scheme resulted in a record-breaking $300 million fine. This international network of companies executed a complex scheme to make over five billion illegal robocalls within a three-month period in 2021. Their violations included making pre-recorded voice calls without consent, calling numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry, and failing to provide an opt-out call-back number.
Moreover, they employed deceptive spoofing tactics using more than a million different caller IDs to hide their true identities and deceive victims.
The Deceptive Car Warranty Scam and Violations
Operating under various company names like Sumco Panama, Virtual Telecom, and more, this network of scammers peddled vehicle service contracts under the guise of selling auto warranties. Despite bans against making telemarketing calls, central players Roy M. Cox and Aaron Michael Jones continued their deceptive practices.
Their illegal robocalls promised car owners extended warranties and interest rate reduction programs, among other false claims. The FCC’s investigation found these calls to be part of a larger scheme to gain access to personal and financial information.
FCC’s Efforts to Stop the Robocall Menace
To combat the flood of illegal car warranty robocalls, the FCC took decisive action. They directed U.S.-based voice service providers to stop carrying traffic associated with specific members of the network, leading to a 99% reduction in these scam calls.
The FCC collaborated with the Ohio Attorney General’s Office, which filed a lawsuit against individuals involved in the operation under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The FCC’s successful partnership with state authorities aims to protect American consumers from fraudulent robocall campaigns.
Taking a Stand: Confronting Car Warranty Scammers
Amidst the barrage of car warranty robocalls, one person decided to take action. They recorded their interactions with the scammers and posted a video titled “Messing with the Car Warranty Scammers – 2021Compilation” on YouTube. The video garnered 3.7K views, exposing the extent of the issue.
The individual challenged the scammers’ deceptive tactics, highlighting that the calls were selling fake warranty coverage. Despite not qualifying for the scam, they confronted the callers, turning the tables on the relentless robocalls and inspiring others to stand up against such scams.
Protecting Yourself from Deceptive Robocalls
While the FCC’s enforcement actions are crucial, it’s essential to take steps to protect yourself from deceptive robocalls.
Be cautious when receiving unsolicited calls, especially if they promise deals that seem too good to be true.
Hang up if you suspect a robocall, and never share personal or financial information over the phone unless you’re sure about the caller’s identity.
Register your phone numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry to reduce unwanted telemarketing calls.
Report any suspicious robocalls to the FCC and your state’s Attorney General’s Office.
Seeking Justice and Putting an End to Robocall Scams
The FCC’s record-breaking fine sends a strong message to scammers involved in illegal robocall operations. However, stopping these deceptive calls entirely requires collective action from consumers, law enforcement agencies, and legal professionals.
If you’ve been affected by auto warranty robocall scams or any other deceptive telemarketing practices, our law firm is here to help.
Contact us today at (973) 598-1980 for a free consultation, and together, we can seek justice, put an end to robocall scams, and protect consumers from falling victim to these pernicious schemes. Let’s take a stand against fraudulent robocalls and safeguard the integrity of U.S. communications networks.
Sources:
FCC Slams Record Penalty on Transnational Auto Warranty Robocalling Operation | TheDoNotCallList
FCC Imposes Record Fine on Transnational Illegal Robocalling Operation | FCC
FCC Fines Illegal Robocalling Company Record $300 MILLION After Making More Than Five Billion Calls To More Than 500 Million Phone Numbers In Three Months | NYbreaking
CFPB Takes Action Against Phoenix Financial Services for Illegal Medical Debt Collection and Credit Reporting Practices
Debt collector attempted to collect on disputed debts using unlawful collection letters and misrepresentations
SHARE & PRINT
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) took action against medical debt collector Phoenix Financial Services (Phoenix) for numerous debt collection and credit reporting violations. In at least thousands of cases, Phoenix continued to attempt to collect on a debt that was not substantiated after a consumer disputed the validity of the debt. Today’s order requires Phoenix to pay redress to affected consumers, and pay a $1.675 million penalty to the CFPB’s victims relief fund.
“With medical debt looming over so many American families, we are taking action against companies seeking to illegally profit off patients,” said CFPB Director Rohit Chopra. “Given widespread inaccuracies in medical billing and credit reporting, the CFPB will be working to ensure that patients are not coerced into paying debts that they do not owe.”
Phoenix is a third-party debt collector with its principal place of business in Indianapolis, Indiana. Phoenix collects primarily past-due medical debts, and furnishes information about consumers to consumer reporting companies. Between January 2017 and December 2020, Phoenix received approximately 54.4 million accounts with allegedly outstanding and owed debts from its clients for collection.
In a report published last year, the CFPB found that 43 million consumers had medical bills on their credit reports and that, all together, American families owed around $88 billion in medical bills. Medical debt affects people’s ability to access affordable credit, find quality housing, or even obtain a job. One of the findings from the CFPB’s research is that many consumers report that the medical tradelines on their credit reports are not accurate. When inaccurate or false information is furnished to consumer reporting companies, it can be a form of coercing patients and their families into paying medical bills and debts they do not owe.
The CFPB’s investigation found that Phoenix sent collection letters to consumers who had disputed the validity or accuracy of their purported debts, even though Phoenix had not obtained substantiation for the debts. Debt collectors are required to have a reasonable basis for asserting that a consumer owes a purported debt if a dispute is submitted.
Phoenix’s sending of unlawful debt collection letters risked harming consumers by pressuring or inducing them to pay debts they did not owe. In addition to sending the debt collection letters, Phoenix also furnished debt information to consumer reporting companies. Phoenix’s failure to conduct reasonable investigations of disputes likely resulted in many inaccuracies remaining on consumers’ credit reports, and harmed consumers in a number of ways, such as making credit more expensive or inaccessible.
Enforcement Action
Under the Consumer Financial Protection Act, the CFPB has the authority to take action against institutions violating federal consumer financial protection laws, including the Fair Credit Reporting Act and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The CFPB found Phoenix violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act and its implementing Regulation V by not conducting reasonable investigations of consumer disputes or having reasonable written policies and procedures regarding the accuracy and integrity of the information it furnished to consumer reporting companies. Phoenix also violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by using false and deceptive means to collect debts, and by not ceasing collection of a debt upon notification by the consumer of a disputed debt collection claim.
The CFPB’s complaint alleges that the defendants violated the Telemarketing Sales Rule by collecting illegal fees and deceiving consumers about being charged upfront fees. Consumers seeking debt relief help from the attorneys in this case were given two contracts, one for debt settlement services and the other for bankruptcy-related services. The CFPB alleges that consumers who signed up sought services only for debt relief and not bankruptcy. The contract given to consumers related to bankruptcy was a ruse to disguise illegal upfront fees.
First you want a company in business long enough to generate reviews. Then you want mostly good reviews.
2. Interim Check
If you retained a company, check to see if progress has been made in 3 or 6 months. By then creditors should have been contacted and some arrangements made for resolution. Otherwise, you could find after say 2 years that little progress has been made.
3. Clarify Long-Term Contracts
One worries that you could enter into a long-term agreement and find that little has been done during that period and the consumer is without recourse.
References
Singletary, M. (2011, June 16) Debt Consolidation Companies: 6 Red Flags. Retrieved from https://www.pbs.org/wnet/tavissmiley/a-wealth-of-knowledge/debt-consolidation-companies-6-red-flags/
NA (2010, July) Debt Relief Services & the Telemarketing Sales Rule: A Guide for Business. Retrieved from https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/debt-relief-services-telemarketing-sales-rule-guide-business
Shannon. (2012, April 25) How To Find A Reputable Debt Consolidation Company. Retrieved from https://blog.readyforzero.com/how-to-find-a-reputable-debt-consolidation-company/#.V0W69Pkwjbh
Friedberg, B. (ND). Compare Reviews for Debt Consolidation Companies. Retrieved from https://www.consumeraffairs.com/debt_counsel/
N.A. (ND) Pay off credit card balances and save. Retrieved from: https://www.sofi.com/personal-loan-credit-card-consolidation/
N.A. (ND) Personal Loans. Retrieved from: https://www.avant.com/personal-loans/
N.A. (ND) Personal Loans Through Prosper. Retrieved from: https://www.prosper.com/trusted/personal-loans
N.A (ND) Personal Loans. Retrieved from: https://www.lendingclub.com/loans/personal-loans-pd-1
Keywords and phrases
is debt consolidation bad for credit
disadvantages of debt consolidation
debt consolidation pros and cons
is debt consolidation a good idea
debt consolidation programs
debt consolidation companies
