FDIC Guidelines to State Chartered Banks on Debt Collections 3-11-2004

                          Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices by State-Chartered Banks

FIL-26-2004 March 11, 2004

In FIL-57-2002, issued May 30, 2002, the FDIC informed state nonmember banks that these prohibitions apply to their activities, and that the FDIC would issue guidance about how institutions could avoid engaging in practices that might be viewed as unfair or deceptive. In its corresponding release, the Federal Reserve Board indicated that it would work with the FDIC to prepare additional guidance for state member banks on this subject. The attached guidance fulfills these commitments.

Specifically, the guidance explains:

• the standards used to assess whether an act or practice is unfair or deceptive;
• the interplay between the FTC Act and other consumer protection statutes; and
• guidelines for managing risks related to unfair and deceptive practices.

Although most insured banks adhere to high levels of professional conduct, managers of all banks must remain vigilant against possible unfair or deceptive acts or practices to protect consumers and to minimize their own risk.

For more information about the guidance, please contact April P. Breslaw, Section Chief (202- 898-6609); Deirdre Foley, Senior Policy Analyst (202-898-6612); or Mira N. Marshall, Senior Policy Analyst (202-898-3912), in the Division of Supervision and Consumer Protection.

For your reference, FDIC Financial Institution Letters (FILs) may be accessed from the FDIC’s Web site at www.fdic.gov/news/news/financial/2004/index.html.

Michael J. Zamorski

Director

Division of Supervision and Consumer Protection

Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices by State-Chartered Banks
March 11, 2004    http://www.fdic.gov/news/news/financial/2004/fil2604a.html

Purpose

The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the “Board” and the “FDIC,” or collectively, the “Agencies”) are issuing this statement to outline the standards that will be considered by the Agencies as they carry out their responsibility to enforce the prohibitions against unfair or deceptive trade practices found in section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”) as they apply to acts and practices of state-chartered banks. The Agencies will apply these standards when weighing the need to take supervisory and enforcement actions and when seeking to ensure that unfair or deceptive practices do not recur.

This statement also contains a section on managing risks relating to unfair or deceptive acts or practices, which includes best practices as well as general guidance on measures that state-chartered banks can take to avoid engaging in such acts or practices.

Although the majority of insured banks adhere to a high level of professional conduct, banks must remain vigilant against possible unfair or deceptive acts or practices both to protect consumers and to minimize their own risks.

Coordination of Enforcement Efforts

Section 5(a) of the FTC Act prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce,” and applies to all persons engaged in commerce, including banks. The Agencies each have affirmed their authority under section 8 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to take appropriate action when unfair or deceptive acts or practices are discovered.

A number of agencies have authority to combat unfair or deceptive acts or practices. For example, the FTC has broad authority to enforce the requirements of section 5 of the FTC Act against many non-bank entities. In addition, state authorities have primary responsibility for enforcing state statutes against unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The Agencies intend to work with these other regulators as appropriate in investigating and responding to allegations of unfair or deceptive acts or practices that involve state banks and other entities supervised by the Agencies.

Standards for Determining What is Unfair or Deceptive

The FTC Act prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices. Congress drafted this provision broadly in order to provide sufficient flexibility in the law to address changes in the market and unfair or deceptive practices that may emerge.

An act or practice may be found to be unfair where it “causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers which is not reasonably avoidable by consumers themselves and not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition.” A representation, omission, or practice is deceptive if it is likely to mislead a consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances and is likely to affect a consumer’s conduct or decision regarding a product or service.

The standards for unfairness and deception are independent of each other. While a specific act or practice may be both unfair and deceptive, an act or practice is prohibited by the FTC Act if it is either unfair or deceptive. Whether an act or practice is unfair or deceptive will in each instance depend upon a careful analysis of the facts and circumstances. In analyzing a particular act or practice, the Agencies will be guided by the body of law and official interpretations for defining unfair or deceptive acts or practices developed by the courts and the FTC. The Agencies will also consider factually similar cases brought by the FTC and other agencies to ensure that these standards are applied consistently.

Unfair Acts or Practices

Assessing whether an act or practice is unfair

An act or practice is unfair where it (1) causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers, (2) cannot be reasonably avoided by consumers, and (3) is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition. Public policy may also be considered in the analysis of whether a particular act or practice is unfair. Each of these elements is discussed further below.

• The act or practice must cause or be likely to cause substantial injury to consumers.

To be unfair, an act or practice must cause or be likely to cause substantial injury to consumers. Substantial injury usually involves monetary harm. An act or practice that causes a small amount of harm to a large number of people may be deemed to cause substantial injury. An injury may be substantial if it raises a significant risk of concrete harm. Trivial or merely speculative harms are typically insufficient for a finding of substantial injury. Emotional impact and other more subjective types of harm will not ordinarily make a practice unfair.

• Consumers must not reasonably be able to avoid the injury.

A practice is not considered unfair if consumers may reasonably avoid injury. Consumers cannot reasonably avoid injury from an act or practice if it interferes with their ability to effectively make decisions. Withholding material price information until after the consumer has committed to purchase the product or service would be an example of preventing a consumer from making an informed decision. A practice may also be unfair where consumers are subject to undue influence or are coerced into purchasing unwanted products or services.

The Agencies will not second-guess the wisdom of particular consumer decisions. Instead, the Agencies will consider whether a bank's behavior unreasonably creates or takes advantage of an obstacle to the free exercise of consumer decision-making.

• The injury must not be outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition.

To be unfair, the act or practice must be injurious in its net effects —that is, the injury must not be outweighed by any offsetting consumer or competitive benefits that are also produced by the act or practice. Offsetting benefits may include lower prices or a wider availability of products and services.

Costs that would be incurred for remedies or measures to prevent the injury are also taken into account in determining whether an act or practice is unfair. These costs may include the costs to the bank in taking preventive measures and the costs to society as a whole of any increased burden and similar matters.

• Public policy may be considered.

Public policy, as established by statute, regulation, or judicial decisions may be considered with all other evidence in determining whether an act or practice is unfair. For example, the fact that a particular lending practice violates a state law or a banking regulation may be considered as evidence in determining whether the act or practice is unfair. Conversely, the fact that a particular practice is affirmatively allowed by statute may be considered as evidence that the practice is not unfair. Public policy considerations by themselves, however, will not serve as the primary basis for determining that an act or practice is unfair.

Deceptive Acts and Practices

Assessing whether an act or practice is deceptive

A three-part test is used to determine whether a representation, omission, or practice is “deceptive.” First, the representation, omission, or practice must mislead or be likely to mislead the consumer. Second, the consumer’s interpretation of the representation, omission, or practice must be reasonable under the circumstances. Lastly, the misleading representation, omission, or practice must be material. Each of these elements is discussed below in greater detail.

• There must be a representation, omission, or practice that misleads or is likely to mislead the consumer.

An act or practice may be found to be deceptive if there is a representation, omission, or practice that misleads or is likely to mislead the consumer. Deception is not limited to situations in which a consumer has already been misled. Instead, an act or practice may be found to be deceptive if it is likely to mislead consumers. A representation may be in the form of express or implied claims or promises and may be written or oral. Omission of information may be deceptive if disclosure of the omitted information is necessary to prevent a consumer from being misled.

In determining whether an individual statement, representation, or omission is misleading, the statement, representation, or omission will not be evaluated in isolation. The Agencies will evaluate it in the context of the entire advertisement, transaction, or course of dealing to determine whether it constitutes deception. Acts or practices that have the potential to be deceptive include: making misleading cost or price claims; using bait-and-switch techniques; offering to provide a product or service that is not in fact available; omitting material limitations or conditions from an offer; selling a product unfit for the purposes for which it is sold; and failing to provide promised services.

• The act or practice must be considered from the perspective of the reasonable consumer.

In determining whether an act or practice is misleading, the consumer’s interpretation of or reaction to the representation, omission, or practice must be reasonable under the circumstances. The test is whether the consumer’s expectations or interpretation are reasonable in light of the claims made. When representations or marketing practices are targeted to a specific audience, such as the elderly or the financially unsophisticated, the standard is based upon the effects of the act or practice on a reasonable member of that group.

If a representation conveys two or more meanings to reasonable consumers and one meaning is misleading, the representation may be deceptive. Moreover, a consumer's interpretation or reaction may indicate that an act or practice is deceptive under the circumstances, even if the consumer’s interpretation is not shared by a majority of the consumers in the relevant class, so long as a significant minority of such consumers is misled.

In evaluating whether a representation, omission or practice is deceptive, the Agencies will look at the entire advertisement, transaction, or course of dealing to determine how a reasonable consumer would respond. Written disclosures may be insufficient to correct a misleading statement or representation, particularly where the consumer is directed away from qualifying limitations in the text or is counseled that reading the disclosures is unnecessary. Likewise, oral disclosures or fine print may be insufficient to cure a misleading headline or prominent written representation.

• The representation, omission, or practice must be material.

A representation, omission, or practice is material if it is likely to affect a consumer’s decision regarding a product or service. In general, information about costs, benefits, or restrictions on the use or availability of a product or service is material. When express claims are made with respect to a financial product or service, the claims will be presumed to be material. Similarly, the materiality of an implied claim will be presumed when it is demonstrated that the institution intended that the consumer draw certain conclusions based upon the claim.

Claims made with the knowledge that they are false will also be presumed to be material. Omissions will be presumed to be material when the financial institution knew or should have known that the consumer needed the omitted information to evaluate the product or service.

COMPLAINTS

Complaints should be mailed to the appropriate agency with copies of all relevant documents. Original documents or currency should not be sent. Addresses for the federal agencies are:

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
Division of Consumer and Community Affairs
20th & Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20551

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Office of Consumer Affairs
550 Seventeenth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20429

Office of Thrift Supervision
Consumer Affairs
1700 G Street, NW
Washington, DC 20552

National Credit Union Administration
1775 Duke Street
Alexandria, Virginia 22314-3428

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
Customer Assistance Group
1301 McKinney Street
Suite 3710
Houston, TX 77010

Federal Trade Commission
Bureau of Consumer Protection
Office of Credit Practices
Washington, DC 20580

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act prohibits unfair, deceptive, and abusive practices related to the collection of consumer debts. Although this statute does not by its terms apply to banks that collect their own debts, failure to adhere to the standards set by this Act may support a claim of unfair or deceptive practices in violation of the FTC Act. Moreover, banks that either affirmatively or through lack of oversight, permit a third-party debt collector acting on their behalf to engage in deception, harassment, or threats in the collection of monies due may be exposed to liability for approving or assisting in an unfair or deceptive act or practice.

OCC 

http://www.occ.treas.gov/ftp/advisory/2002-3.doc

·        Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) prohibits unfair, deceptive, and abusive practices related to collection of consumer debts. Although the bank itself may not be subject to the FDCPA when a third party collects debts on its behalf, it nevertheless faces reputation risk – and potential legal risk for approving or assisting in an unfair or deceptive act or practice in violation of the FTC Act – if the third party violates the FDCPA by engaging in deception, harassment, or threats in the collection of the bank’s loans.

FIL-26-2004 Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices Under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act