Telemarketing.Sales.Rule.Amendments.August.10.2010.16.CFR Part.310

Document Sample
Telemarketing.Sales.Rule.Amendments.August.10.2010.16.CFR Part.310 Powered By Docstoc
					                                                                                                                                   Tuesday,
                                                                                                                                   August 10, 2010




                                                                                                                                   Part III

                                                                                                                                   Federal Trade
                                                                                                                                   Commission
                                                                                                                                   16 CFR Part 310
                                                                                                                                   Telemarketing Sales Rule; Final Rule
sroberts on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES




                                        VerDate Mar<15>2010   16:17 Aug 09, 2010   Jkt 220001   PO 00000   Frm 00001   Fmt 4717   Sfmt 4717   E:\FR\FM\10AUR2.SGM   10AUR2
                                             48458             Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

                                             FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION                                careful review and consideration of the                  promulgate regulations addressing some
                                                                                                     entire record on the issues presented in                 specific practices, which the Act
                                             16 CFR Part 310                                         this rulemaking proceeding, including                    designated as ‘‘abusive.’’6 The Act also
                                                                                                     public comments submitted by 321                         authorized state attorneys general or
                                             Telemarketing Sales Rule                                interested parties,2 the Commission has                  other appropriate state officials, as well
                                             AGENCY:  Federal Trade Commission                       decided to adopt, with several                           as private persons who meet stringent
                                             (‘‘Commission’’ or ‘‘FTC’’).                            modifications, the proposed                              jurisdictional requirements, to bring
                                                                                                     amendments to the TSR intended to                        civil actions in federal district court.7
                                             ACTION: Final rule amendments.
                                                                                                     curb deceptive and abusive practices in                     Pursuant to the Act’s directive, the
                                             SUMMARY:     In this document, the                      the telemarketing of debt relief services.               Commission promulgated the original
                                             Commission adopts amendments to the                     The Rule provisions will: (1) prohibit                   TSR in 1995 and subsequently amended
                                             Telemarketing Sales Rule (‘‘TSR’’ or                    debt relief service providers3 from                      it in 2003 and again in 2008 to add,
                                             ‘‘Rule’’) that address the telemarketing of             collecting a fee for services until a debt               among other things, provisions
                                             debt relief services. These amendments                  has been settled, altered, or reduced;                   establishing the National Do Not Call
                                             define debt relief services, prohibit debt              (2) require certain disclosures in calls                 Registry and addressing the use of pre-
                                             relief providers from collecting fees                   marketing debt relief services;                          recorded messages.8 The TSR applies to
                                             until after services have been provided,                (3) prohibit specific misrepresentations                 virtually all ‘‘telemarketing,’’ defined to
                                             require specific disclosures of material                about material aspects of the services;                  mean ‘‘a plan, program, or campaign
                                             information about offered debt relief                   and (4) extend the TSR’s coverage to                     which is conducted to induce the
                                             services, prohibit specific                             include inbound calls made to debt                       purchase of goods or services or a
                                             misrepresentations about material                       relief companies in response to general                  charitable contribution, by use of one or
                                             aspects of debt relief services, and                    media advertisements.                                    more telephones and which involves
                                             extend the TSR’s coverage to include                      Beginning on September 27, 2010,                       more than one interstate telephone
                                             inbound calls made to debt relief                       sellers and telemarketers of debt relief                 call.’’9 The Telemarketing Act, however,
                                                                                                     services will be required to comply with                 explicitly states that the jurisdiction of
                                             companies in response to general media
                                                                                                     the amended TSR requirements, except                     the Commission in enforcing the Rule is
                                             advertisements. The amendments are
                                                                                                     for § 310.4(a)(5), the advance fee ban                   coextensive with its jurisdiction under
                                             necessary to protect consumers from
                                                                                                     provision, which will be effective on                    Section 5 of the Federal Trade
                                             deceptive or abusive practices in the
                                                                                                     October 27, 2010.                                        Commission Act (‘‘FTC Act’’).10 As a
                                             telemarketing of debt relief services.
                                                                                                     B. The Commission’s Authority Under                      result, some entities and products fall
                                             DATES: These final amendments are
                                                                                                     the TSR                                                  outside the scope of the TSR.11
                                             effective on September 27, 2010, except                                                                             In addition, the Rule wholly or
                                             for § 310.4(a)(5), which is effective on                   Enacted in 1994, the Telemarketing                    partially exempts several types of calls
                                             October 27, 2010.                                       and Consumer Fraud and Abuse                             from its coverage. For example, the Rule
                                             ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of these                 Prevention Act (‘‘Telemarketing Act’’ or                 generally exempts inbound calls placed
                                             amendments to the TSR and this                          ‘‘Act’’) targets deceptive and abusive                   by consumers in response to direct mail
                                             Statement of Basis and Purpose (‘‘SBP’’)                telemarketing practices, and directed                    or general media advertising.12
                                             should be sent to: Public Reference                     the Commission to adopt a rule with
                                             Branch, Federal Trade Commission, 600                   anti-fraud and privacy protections for                     6  15 U.S.C. 6102(a)(3).
                                             Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Room 130,                       consumers receiving telephone                              7  15 U.S.C. 6103, 6104.
                                             Washington, D.C. 20580. The complete                    solicitations to purchase goods or                          8 TSR and Statement of Basis and Purpose and

                                             record of this proceeding is also                       services.4 Specifically, the Act directed                Final Rule (‘‘TSR Final Rule’’), 60 FR 43842 (Aug.
                                                                                                     the Commission to issue a rule defining                  23, 1995); Amended TSR and Statement of Basis
                                             available at that address. Relevant                                                                              and Purpose (‘‘TSR Amended Rule’’), 68 FR 4580
                                             portions of the proceeding, including                   and prohibiting deceptive and abusive                    (Jan. 29, 2003); Amended TSR and Statement of
                                             the final amendments to the TSR and                     telemarketing acts or practices.5 In                     Basis and Purpose (‘‘TSR Amended Rule 2008’’), 73
                                             SBP, are available at (http://                          addition, the Act mandated that the FTC                  FR 51164 (Aug. 29, 2008).
                                                                                                                                                                 9 16 CFR 310.2(cc) (using the same definition as
                                             www.ftc.gov).                                                                                                    the Telemarketing Act, 15 U.S.C. 6106(4)). The TSR
                                                                                                        2 The comments and other material placed on the
                                             FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:                                                                                 excludes from the definition of telemarketing:
                                                                                                     rulemaking record are available at (http://
                                             Alice Hrdy, Allison Brown, Evan                         www.ftc.gov/os/comments/tsrdebtrelief/                      the solicitation of sales through the mailing of a
                                                                                                     index.shtm). In addition, a list of commenters cited     catalog which: contains a written description or
                                             Zullow, or Stephanie Rosenthal,                                                                                  illustration of the goods or services offered for sale;
                                                                                                     in this SBP, along with their short citation names
                                             Attorneys, Division of Financial                        or acronyms used throughout the SBP, follows             includes the business address of the seller; includes
                                             Practices, Bureau of Consumer                           Section V of this SBP. When a commenter                  multiple pages of written material or illustrations;
                                             Protection, Federal Trade Commission,                   submitted more than one comment, the comment is          and has been issued not less frequently than once
                                                                                                     also identified by date.                                 a year, when the person making the solicitation
                                             600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Room                           3 Throughout the SBP, the Commission uses the         does not solicit customers by telephone but only
                                             NJ-3158, Washington, D.C. 20580, (202)                  term ‘‘providers’’ to refer to ‘‘sellers and             receives calls initiated by customers in response to
                                             326-3224.                                               telemarketers’’ as defined in the TSR. ‘‘Seller’’ is     the catalog and during those calls takes orders only
                                                                                                     defined as ‘‘any person who, in connection with a        without further solicitation.
                                             SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
                                                                                                     telemarketing transaction, provides, offers to              Id.
                                                                                                     provide, or arranges for others to provide goods or         10 15 U.S.C. 6105(b).
                                             I. Overview and Background
                                                                                                     services to the customer in exchange for                    11 See 15 U.S.C. 44, 45(a)(2), which exclude or

                                             A. Overview                                             consideration.’’ 16 CFR 310.2(aa). ‘‘Telemarketer’’ is   limit from the Commission’s jurisdiction several
                                                                                                     defined as ‘‘any person who, in connection with          types of entities, including bona fide nonprofits,
                                               This document states the basis and                    telemarketing, initiates or receives telephone calls     bank entities (including, among others, banks,
sroberts on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES




                                             purpose for the Commission’s decision                   to or from a customer or donor.’’ 16 CFR 310.2(cc).      thrifts, and federally chartered credit unions), and
                                                                                                        4 15 U.S.C. 6101-6108. Subsequently, the USA          common carriers, as well as the business of
                                             to adopt amendments to the TSR that
                                                                                                     PATRIOT Act, Pub. L. No. 107–56, 115 Stat. 272           insurance.
                                             were proposed and published for public                  (Oct. 26, 2001), expanded the Telemarketing Act’s           12 16 CFR 310.6(b)(5)-(6). Moreover, the Rule
                                             comment on August 19, 2009.1 After                      definition of ‘‘telemarketing’’ to encompass calls       exempts from the National Do Not Call Registry
                                                                                                     soliciting charitable contributions, donations, or       provisions calls placed by for-profit telemarketers to
                                               1 TSR Proposed Rule, 74 FR 41988 (Aug. 19,            gifts of money or any other thing of value.              solicit charitable contributions; such calls are not
                                             2009). The TSR is set forth at 16 CFR 310.                 5 15 U.S.C. 6102(a).                                  exempt, however, from the ‘‘entity-specific’’ do not



                                        VerDate Mar<15>2010   16:17 Aug 09, 2010   Jkt 220001   PO 00000   Frm 00002   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10AUR2.SGM     10AUR2
                                                                Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations                                                         48459

                                             However, there are certain ‘‘carve-outs’’                  of assisting and facilitating sellers or                      Over the last several years, the
                                             from some of the TSR’s exemptions that                     telemarketers engaged in violations of                      Commission has addressed consumer
                                             limit their reach, such as the carve-out                   the TSR.20 Fifth, the TSR, with narrow                      protection concerns about debt relief
                                             for calls initiated by a customer in                       exceptions, prohibits telemarketers from                    services through law enforcement
                                             response to a general advertisement                        calling consumers whose numbers are                         actions,27 consumer education,28 and
                                             relating to investment opportunities.13                    on the National Do Not Call Registry or                     outreach to industry and other relevant
                                                The TSR is designed to protect                          who have specifically requested not to                      parties.29 The brief description of the
                                             consumers in a number of different                         receive calls from a particular entity.21                   debt relief services industry in the next
                                             ways. First, the Rule includes                             Finally, the TSR requires that                              section is based upon information in the
                                             provisions governing communications                        telemarketers transmit to consumers’                        record, the enforcement activities of the
                                             between telemarketers and consumers,                       telephones accurate Caller ID                               FTC and the states, and independent
                                             requiring certain disclosures and                          information22 and places restrictions on                    research by Commission staff.30
                                             prohibiting material                                       calls made by predictive dialers23 and
                                             misrepresentations.14 Second, the TSR                                                                                  1. Credit Counseling Agencies
                                                                                                        those delivering pre-recorded
                                             requires telemarketers to obtain                           messages.24                                                    Credit counseling agencies (‘‘CCAs’’)
                                             consumers’ ‘‘express informed consent’’                                                                                historically were nonprofit
                                             to be charged on a particular account                      C. Overview of Debt Relief Services                         organizations that worked as liaisons
                                             before billing or collecting payment and,                     Debt relief services have proliferated                   between consumers and creditors to
                                             through a specified process, to obtain                     in recent years as the economy has                          negotiate ‘‘debt management plans’’
                                             consumers’ ‘‘express verifiable                            declined and greater numbers of                             (‘‘DMPs’’). DMPs are monthly payment
                                             authorization’’ to be billed through any                   consumers hold debts they cannot                            plans for the repayment of credit card
                                             payment system other than a credit or                      pay.25 A range of nonprofit and for-                        and other unsecured debt, enabling
                                             debit card.15 Third, the Rule prohibits as                 profit entities – including credit                          consumers to repay the full amount
                                             an abusive practice requesting or                          counselors, debt settlement companies,                      owed to their creditors under
                                             receiving any fee or consideration in                      and debt negotiation companies – offer                      renegotiated terms that make repayment
                                             advance of obtaining any credit repair                     debt relief services, frequently through                    less onerous.31 To be eligible for a DMP,
                                             services;16 recovery services;17 or offers                 telemarketing. Thus, consumers with
                                             of a loan or other extension of credit, the                debt problems have several options for                      Communications (June 16, 2010) at 1 (according to
                                             granting of which is represented as                                                                                    industry groups, consumers who can afford to pay
                                                                                                        which they may qualify. Those who                           1.5-2% of their debt amount each month should
                                             ‘‘guaranteed’’ or having a high likelihood                 have sufficient assets and income to                        enter debt settlement). Moreover, even for those
                                             of success.18 Fourth, the Rule prohibits                   repay their full debts over time, if their                  consumers for whom debt settlement might be
                                             credit card laundering19 and other forms                   creditors make certain concessions (e.g.,                   appropriate, the practice of charging large advance
                                                                                                                                                                    fees makes it much less likely that those consumers
                                                                                                        a reduction in interest rate), can enroll                   can succeed in such a program. CFA at 9; CareOne
                                             call provisions or the TSR’s other requirements. 16        in a debt management plan with a credit                     at 4; see SBLS at 2-3.
                                             CFR 310.6(a).
                                                13 See, e.g., 16 CFR 310.6(b)(5)-(6) (provisions
                                                                                                        counseling agency. On the other end of                         27 See List of FTC Law Enforcement Actions


                                             related to general advertisements and direct mail          the spectrum, for consumers who are so                      Against Debt Relief Companies, following Section V
                                                                                                        far in debt that they can never catch up,                   of the SBP, for a list of cases that the FTC has
                                             solicitations).
                                                                                                                                                                    prosecuted since 2003 (‘‘FTC Case List’’). In
                                                14 The TSR requires that telemarketers soliciting       declaring Chapter 13 or Chapter 7                           addition, as detailed in the subsequent List of State
                                             sales of goods or services promptly disclose several       bankruptcy might be the most                                Law Enforcement Actions Against Debt Relief
                                             key pieces of information in an outbound telephone
                                             call or an internal or external upsell: (1) the identity
                                                                                                        appropriate course. Debt settlement is                      Companies (‘‘State Case List’’), state law
                                                                                                        ostensibly designed for consumers who                       enforcement agencies have brought at least 236
                                             of the seller; (2) the fact that the purpose of the call                                                               enforcement actions against debt relief companies
                                             is to sell goods or services; (3) the nature of the        fall between these two options, i.e.,                       in the last decade.
                                             goods or services being offered; and (4) in the case       consumers who cannot repay their full                          28 See, e.g., FTC, Settling Your Credit Card Debts
                                             of prize promotions, that no purchase or payment
                                             is necessary to win. 16 CFR 310.4(d); see also 16
                                                                                                        debt amount, but could pay some                             (2010); FTC, Fiscal Fitness: Choosing a Credit
                                                                                                        percentage of it.26                                         Counselor (2005); FTC, For People on Debt
                                             CFR 310.2(ee) (defining ‘‘upselling’’). Telemarketers
                                                                                                                                                                    Management Plans: A Must-Do List (2005); FTC,
                                             also must disclose in any telephone sales call the
                                                                                                                                                                    Knee Deep in Debt (2005).
                                             cost of the goods or services and certain other              20  16 CFR 310.3(b).                                         29 In September 2008, the Commission held a
                                             material information. 16 CFR 310.3(a)(1).                    21  16 CFR 310.4(b)(iii).                                 public workshop entitled ‘‘Consumer Protection and
                                                In addition, the TSR prohibits misrepresentations          22 16 CFR 310.4(a)(7).
                                                                                                                                                                    the Debt Settlement Industry’’ (‘‘Workshop’’), which
                                             about, among other things, the cost and quantity of           23 16 CFR 310.4(b)(1)(iv) (a call abandonment safe
                                                                                                                                                                    brought together stakeholders to discuss consumer
                                             the offered goods or services. 16 CFR 310.3(a)(2). It      harbor is found at 16 CFR 310.4(b)(4)).                     protection concerns associated with debt settlement
                                             also prohibits making false or misleading                     24 16 CFR 310.4(b)(1)(v).                                services, one facet of the debt relief services
                                             statements to induce any person to pay for goods              25 See, e.g., TASC (Oct. 26, 2009) at 7; NFCC at         industry. Workshop participants also debated the
                                             or services or to induce charitable contributions. 16
                                                                                                        2; Federal Reserve Board, Charge-off and                    merits of possible solutions to those concerns,
                                             CFR 310.3(a)(4).
                                                15 16 CFR 310.4(a)(7); 16 CFR 310.3(a)(3).              Delinquency Rates (May 24, 2010), available at              including the various remedies that were
                                                                                                        (http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/chargeoff/          subsequently included in the proposed rule. An
                                                16 16 CFR 310.4(a)(2).
                                                                                                        delallsa.htm) (charting recent increase in credit           agenda and transcript of the Workshop are available
                                                17 16 CFR 310.4(a)(3). As the Commission has
                                                                                                        card delinquency rate); Debt Settlement:                    at (http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/
                                             previously explained, [in] recovery room scams . . . a     Fraudulent, Abusive, and Deceptive Practices Pose           debtsettlement/index.shtm). Public comments
                                             deceptive telemarketer calls a consumer who has            Risk to Consumers: Hearing on The Debt Settlement           associated with the Workshop are available at
                                             lost money, or who has failed to win a promised            Industry: The Consumer’s Experience Before the S.           (http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/
                                             prize, in a previous scam. The recovery room               Comm. on Commerce, Science, & Transportation,               debtsettlementworkshop/index.shtm). As discussed
                                             telemarketer falsely promises to recover the lost          111th Cong. at 1 (2010) (statement of Philip A.             below, in November 2009, the Commission held a
                                             money, or obtain the promised prize, in exchange           Lehman, Assistant Attorney General, North                   public forum on issues specific to the rulemaking
                                             for a fee paid in advance. After the fee is paid, the      Carolina Department of Justice) (‘‘NC AG                    proceeding.
sroberts on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES




                                             promised services are never provided. In fact, the         Testimony’’).                                                  30 A more detailed description of the history and
                                             consumer may never hear from the telemarketer                 26 See Weinstein (Oct. 26, 2009) at 8 (see attached      evolution of these different forms of debt relief can
                                             again.                                                     Bernard L. Weinstein & Terry L. Clower, Debt                be found in Section II of the Notice of Proposed
                                                TSR Final Rule, 60 FR at 43854.                         Settlement: Fulfilling the Need for An Economic             Rulemaking in this proceeding.
                                                18 16 CFR 310.4(a)(4); see TSR Amended Rule, 68
                                                                                                        Middle Ground at 7 (Sept. 2009) (‘‘Weinstein                   31 GP (Oct. 22, 2009) at 2; Cambridge (Oct. 26,
                                             FR at 4614 (finding that these three services were         paper’’)). It is not clear, however, how wide a ‘‘slice’’   2009) at 1. Each creditor determines what, if any,
                                             ‘‘fundamentally bogus’’).                                  of the debt-impaired population is suitable for debt        repayment options to offer the consumer based on
                                                19 16 CFR 310.3(c).                                     settlement programs. See Summary of                                                                    Continued




                                        VerDate Mar<15>2010    16:17 Aug 09, 2010   Jkt 220001   PO 00000      Frm 00003   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4700    E:\FR\FM\10AUR2.SGM      10AUR2
                                             48460              Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

                                             a consumer generally must have                              typically receive less than 10% of their                allegedly made frequent
                                             sufficient income to repay the full                         revenue from such contributions.34                      misrepresentations about the benefits
                                             amount of the debts, provided that the                        Over the past decade, a number of                     and likelihood of success consumers
                                             terms are adjusted to make such                             larger CCAs entered the market. Many of                 could expect from their services. These
                                             repayment possible. Credit counselors                       these CCAs obtained nonprofit status                    included false promises to provide
                                             typically also provide educational                          from the Internal Revenue Service.                      counseling and educational services39
                                             counseling to assist consumers in                           Other CCAs openly operated as for-                      and overstatements of the amount or
                                             developing manageable budgets and                           profit companies. In response to illegal                percentage of interest charges a
                                             avoiding debt problems in the future.32                     practices by some of these new entrants,                consumer might save.40 Third, the
                                                                                                         the FTC and state attorneys general                     Commission alleged that these entities
                                               Nonprofit CCAs generally receive                          brought a number of enforcement                         misrepresented material information
                                             funding from two sources. First,                            actions challenging these practices.35                  regarding their fees, including making
                                             consumers typically pay for their                           Specifically, since 2003, the                           false claims that they did not charge
                                             services: usually $25 to $45 to enroll in                   Commission has brought six cases                        upfront fees41 or that fees were tax
                                             a DMP, followed by a monthly charge of                      against credit counseling entities for                  deductible.42 In addition to allegedly
                                             roughly $25.33 The second source of                         deceptive and abusive practices. In one                 violating the FTC Act, some of these
                                             funding is creditors themselves. After a                    of these cases, the FTC sued AmeriDebt,                 entities were engaging in outbound
                                             consumer enrolls in a DMP, the                              Inc., at the time one of the largest CCAs               telemarketing and allegedly violating
                                             consumer’s creditors often pay the CCA                      in the United States.36 The defendants                  the TSR, particularly the Rule’s
                                             a percentage of the monthly payments                        in these cases allegedly engaged in                     disclosure requirements and
                                             the CCA receives. In the past, this                         several common patterns of deceptive                    prohibitions of misrepresentations, as
                                             funding mechanism, known as a ‘‘fair                        conduct in violation of Section 5 of the                well as its provisions on certain abusive
                                             share’’ contribution, has provided the                      FTC Act.37 First, most made allegedly                   practices, including violations of the
                                             bulk of a nonprofit CCA’s operating                         deceptive statements regarding their                    National Do Not Call Registry
                                             revenue, but these agencies now                             nonprofit nature.38 Second, they                        provision.43
                                                                                                                                                                    Over the last several years, in
                                             the consumer’s income and total debt load.
                                                                                                            34 GP (McNamara), Transcript of Public Forum on      response to abuses such as these, the
                                             Repayment options, known as ‘‘concessions,’’                Debt Relief Amendments to the TSR (‘‘Tr.’’), at 77-
                                             include reduced interest rates, elimination of late or      78; RDRI at 2 (creditor fair share has fallen to 4%     the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs,
                                             over limit fees, and extensions of the term for             to 5% of consumer debt amounts and in some cases        significant harm to consumers may accrue from
                                             repayment.                                                  has been eliminated); NWS (Oct. 22, 2009) at 5 (see     misrepresentations regarding an entity’s nonprofit
                                                32 GP (Oct. 22, 2009) at 2; Davis at 2; CCCS NY          attached Walji paper at 5) (fair share is 4% to 10%);   status. See Consumer Protection Issues in the Credit
                                             at 2; FECA (Oct. 26, 2009) at 2-3; DebtHelper at 1;         see also National Consumer Law Center, Inc. &           Counseling Industry: Hearing Before the Permanent
                                             Cambridge (Oct. 26, 2009) at 1 (‘‘Roughly 85% of            Consumer Federation of America, Credit Counseling       Subcomm. on Investigations, S. Comm. on
                                             the individuals who contact Cambridge [a credit             in Crisis: The Impact on Consumers of Funding           Governmental Affairs, 108th Cong. 2d Sess. (2004)
                                             counseling agency] simply have questions about a            Cuts, Higher Fees and Aggressive New Market             (testimony of the FTC) (‘‘[S]ome CCAs appear to use
                                             particular aspect of their finances or wouldn’t             Entrants at 10-12 (April 2003); NFCC (Binzel),          their 501(c)(3) status to convince consumers to
                                             qualify for creditor concessions due to too much or         Transcript of ‘‘Consumer Protection and the Debt        enroll in their DMPs and pay fees or make
                                             too little income. Nevertheless, they receive the           Settlement Industry’’ Workshop, September 2008          donations. These CCAs may, for example, claim
                                             same financial analysis and Action Plan offered to          (‘‘Workshop Tr.’’) at 37; but see JH (Oct. 24, 2009)    that consumers’ ‘donations’ will be used simply to
                                             Cambridge’s DMP clients, and are also offered               at 8 (without citation, the commenter states that       defray the CCA’s expenses. Instead, the bulk of the
                                             ongoing counseling, educational guides and web              CCAs receive 22.5% of the total amount collected        money may be passed through to individuals or for-
                                             resources, free of charge.’’). In fact, Section 501(c)(3)   from each consumer).                                    profit entities with which the CCAs are closely
                                             of the Internal Revenue Code (‘‘IRC’’), 26 U.S.C.
                                                                                                            35 See FTC and State Case Lists, supra note 27.      affiliated. Tax-exempt status also may tend to give
                                             501(c)(3), dictates that nonprofits must provide a             36 FTC v. AmeriDebt, Inc., No. PJM 03-3317 (D.       these fraudulent CCAs a veneer of respectability by
                                             substantial amount of free education and                    Md., final order May 17, 2006). On the eve of trial,    implying that the CCA is serving a charitable or
                                             counseling to the public and prohibits them from            the FTC obtained a $35 million settlement and thus      public purpose. Finally, some consumers may
                                             refusing credit counseling services to a consumer if        far has distributed $12.7 million in redress to         believe that a ‘non-profit’ CCA will charge lower
                                             the consumer cannot pay. FECA (Oct. 26, 2009) at            287,000 consumers. See Press Release, FTC, FTC’s        fees than a similar for-profit.’’), available at (http://
                                             4.                                                          AmeriDebt Lawsuit Resolved: Almost $13 Million          www.ftc.gov/os/2004/03/040324testimony.shtm).
                                                                                                                                                                    39 See, e.g., FTC v. Integrated Credit Solutions,No.
                                                33 Cambridge (Oct. 26, 2009) at 1; NWS (Oct. 22,         Returned to 287,000 Consumers Harmed by Debt
                                             2009) at 6 (see attached Hasnain Walji, Delivering          Management Scam (Sept. 10, 2008), (http://              06-806-SCB-TGW(M.D. Fla. filed May 2, 2006); U.S.
                                             Value to Consumers in a Debt Settlement Program             www.ftc.gov/opa/2008/09/ameridebt.shtm).                v. Credit Found. of Am., No. CV 06-3654
                                             at 6 (Oct. 16, 2009) (‘‘Walji paper’’)) (the average           37 See, e.g., FTC v. Debt Solutions, Inc., No. 06-   ABC(VBKx) (C.D. Cal. filed June 13, 2006); FTC v.
                                             account set up fee is $25 and monthly maintenance           0298 JLR (W.D. Wash. filed Mar. 6, 2006); U.S. v.       Nat’l Consumer Council, No. SACV04-0474
                                             fee is $15); see also Cards & Payments, Vol. 22,            Credit Found. of Am., No. CV 06-3654 ABC(VBKx)          CJC(JWJX) (C.D. Cal. filed Apr. 23, 2004).
                                                                                                                                                                    40 See U.S. v. Credit Found. of Am., No. CV 06-
                                             Issue 2, Credit Concessions: Assistance for                 (C.D. Cal. filed June 13, 2006); FTC v. AmeriDebt,
                                             Borrowers on the Brink (Feb. 1, 2009) (nonprofit            Inc., No. PJM 03-3317 (D. Md. filed Nov. 19, 2003).     3654 ABC(VBKx) (C.D. Cal. filed June 13, 2006);
                                             agencies’ counseling fees average about $25 per                38 See U.S. v. Credit Found. of Am., No. CV 06-      FTC v. Integrated Credit Solutions, Inc., No. 06-806-
                                             month); Miami Herald, Credit Counselors See                 3654 ABC(VBKx) (C.D. Cal. filed June 13, 2006);         SCB-TGW (M.D. Fla. filed May 2, 2006); FTC v.
                                             Foreclosures on the Rise, July 13, 2008, (CCAs              FTC v. Integrated Credit Solutions, Inc., No. 06-806-   Debt Mgmt. Found. Servs., Inc., No. 04-1674-T-17-
                                             charge an initial fee of $25 and a $25 monthly fee).        SCB-TGW (M.D. Fla. filed May 2, 2006) ; FTC v.          MSS (M.D. Fla. filed July 20, 2004).
                                                                                                                                                                    41 See FTC v. Express Consolidation, No. 06-cv-
                                                These fees are often limited by state law. See, e.g.,    Express Consolidation, No. 06-cv-61851-WJZ (S.D.
                                             Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. Tit. 17, § 701, et seq., tit. 32        Fla. Am. Compl. filed Mar. 21, 2007); FTC v. Debt       61851-WJZ (S.D. Fla. Am. Compl. filed Mar. 21,
                                             § 6171, et seq. (limiting fees to $75 for set-up and        Mgmt. Found. Servs., Inc., No. 04-1674-T-17-MSS         2007); FTC v. AmeriDebt, Inc., No. PJM 03-3317 (D.
                                             $40 monthly charge); Md. Code Ann. § 12-901 et              (M.D. Fla. filed July 20, 2004); FTC v. AmeriDebt,      Md. filed Nov. 19, 2003).
                                             seq. (limiting fees to $50 consultation fee and the         Inc., No. PJM 03-3317 (D. Md. filed Nov. 19, 2003).        42 See FTC v. Integrated Credit Solutions, No. 06-

                                             lesser of $40 per month or $8 per creditor per              Although the defendants in these cases had              806-SCB-TGW (M.D. Fla. filed May 2, 2006); U.S.
                                             month); Ill. Com. Stat. Ann., § 205 ILCS 665/1 et           obtained IRS designation as nonprofits under IRC        v. Credit Found. of Am., No. CV 06-3654
                                             seq. (limiting fees to an initial counseling fee of $50,    § 501(c)(3), they allegedly funneled revenues out of    ABC(VBKx) (C.D. Cal. filed June 13, 2006). Other
sroberts on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES




                                             provided the average initial counseling fee does not        the CCAs and into the hands of affiliated for-profit    defendants allegedly claimed to have ‘‘special
                                             exceed $30 per debtor for all debtors counseled, and        companies and/or the principals of the operation.       relationships’’ with the consumers’ creditors. See
                                             $50 per month for each debtor, provided the                 Thus, the FTC alleged defendants were ‘‘operating       FTC v. Debt Solutions, Inc., No. 06-0298 JLR (W.D.
                                             average monthly fee does not exceed $30 per debtor          for their own profit or that of their members’’ and     Wash. filed Mar. 6, 2006) .
                                             for all debtors counseled); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-423        fell outside the nonprofit exemption in the FTC Act.       43 See FTC v. Express Consolidation, No. 06-cv-

                                             et seq. (limiting fees to $40 for set-up and 10% of         See 15 U.S.C. 44, 45(a)(2).                             61851-WJZ (S.D. Fla. Am. Compl. filed Mar. 21,
                                             the monthly payment disbursed under the DMP, not               As the Commission has stated in testimony before     2007); U.S. v. Credit Found. of Am., No. CV 06-3654
                                             to exceed $40 per month).                                   the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of         ABC(VBKx) (C.D. Cal. filed June 13, 2006).



                                        VerDate Mar<15>2010    16:17 Aug 09, 2010    Jkt 220001   PO 00000    Frm 00004   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10AUR2.SGM      10AUR2
                                                                Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations                                                    48461

                                             IRS has challenged the tax-exempt                        state laws in 49 states, most of which set              typically then urge consumers to call a
                                             status of a number of purportedly                        fee limits.48                                           toll-free number for more information.52
                                             nonprofit CCAs – both through                                                                                      Consumers who call the specified
                                                                                                      2. For-Profit Debt Settlement Services
                                             enforcement of existing statutes and                                                                             phone number reach a telemarketer
                                             new tax code provisions.44 To enhance                       Debt settlement companies purport to                 working for or on behalf of the debt
                                             the IRS’s ability to oversee CCAs, in                    offer consumers the opportunity to                      settlement provider. The telemarketer
                                                                                                      obtain lump sum settlements with their                  obtains information about the
                                             2006 Congress amended the IRC, adding
                                                                                                      creditors for significantly less than the               consumer’s debts and financial
                                             § 501(q) to provide specific eligibility
                                                                                                      full outstanding balance of their                       condition and makes the sales pitch,
                                             criteria for CCAs seeking tax-exempt                     unsecured debts. Unlike a traditional
                                             status as well as criteria for retaining                                                                         often repeating the claims made in the
                                                                                                      DMP, the goal of a debt settlement plan                 advertisements as well as making
                                             that status.45 Among other things,                       is for the consumer to repay only a                     additional ones. If the consumer agrees
                                             § 501(q) of the Code prohibits tax-                      portion of the total owed.                              to enroll in the program, the provider
                                             exempt CCAs from refusing to provide                                                                             mails a contract for signature. Providers
                                             credit counseling services due to a                      The Promotion of Debt Settlement
                                                                                                      Services                                                sometimes pressure consumers to return
                                             consumer’s inability to pay or a                                                                                 payment authorization forms and signed
                                             consumer’s ineligibility or                                 Debt settlement companies typically                  contracts as quickly as possible
                                             unwillingness to enroll in a DMP;                        advertise through the Internet,                         following the call.53
                                             charging more than ‘‘reasonable fees’’ for               television, radio, or direct mail.49 The
                                             services; or, unless allowed by state law,               advertisements generally follow the                     The Debt Settlement Program
                                             basing fees on a percentage of a client’s                ‘‘problem-solution’’ approach –                            In the typical scenario, consumers
                                             debt, DMP payments, or savings from                      consumers who are over their heads in                   enroll one or more of their unsecured
                                             enrolling in a DMP.46 In addition to                     debt can be helped by enrolling in the                  debts into the program and begin
                                                                                                      advertiser’s program. Many                              making payments into a dedicated bank
                                             receiving regulatory scrutiny from the
                                                                                                      advertisements make specific claims                     account established by the provider.54
                                             IRS, as a result of changes in the federal
                                                                                                      that appeal to the target consumers – for               These payments are apportioned in
                                             bankruptcy code, 158 nonprofit CCAs,                     example, claims that consumers will
                                             including the largest such entities, have                                                                        some fashion between the provider’s
                                                                                                      save 40 to 50 cents on each dollar of                   fees and money set aside for settlements
                                             been subjected to rigorous screening by                  their credit card debts50 or will become
                                             the Department of Justice’s Executive                                                                            of the debts. According to industry
                                                                                                      debt-free.51 The advertisements                         representatives, debt settlement
                                             Office of the U.S. Trustee (‘‘EOUST’’).47
                                             Finally, nonprofits must comply with                       48 Supra note 33; see also CareOne at 4. Some of
                                                                                                                                                              providers assess each consumer’s
                                                                                                      the state laws apply to for-profit credit counseling
                                                                                                                                                              financial condition and, based on that
                                                44 In 2006, the IRS examined all tax-exempt           companies as well; others do not.                       individualized assessment and the
                                             CCAs, resulting in revocation or proposed
                                                                                                        49 Able (Oct. 21, 2009) at 17; CFA at 2-3;            provider’s historical experience,
                                                                                                      Weinstein (Oct. 26, 2009) at 7 (see attached            calculate a single monthly payment that
                                             revocation of the existing tax-exempt status of 41
                                                                                                      Weinstein paper at 6); see also USOBA Workshop
                                             of them, as well as increased scrutiny of new
                                                                                                      Comment at 9.
                                             applications for tax-exempt status. TSR Proposed           50 In April 2010, FTC staff conducted a surf of       JTLx (C.D. Cal. filed Feb. 3, 2004) (Complaint, ¶ 26)
                                             Rule, 74 FR at 41992; Hunter at 1; AICCCA at 5;          debt settlement websites, based on a sample of the      (the company’s website ‘‘represent[ed] that, by using
                                             FECA (Oct. 26, 2009) at 4; CareOne at 4; Eileen          websites that a consumer searching for debt             DRS’s debt negotiation services, consumers can pay
                                             Ambrose, Credit firms’ status revoked; IRS says 41       settlement services on a major search engine would      off their credit card debt for fifty percent or less of
                                             debt counselors will lose tax-exempt standing,           encounter. In conducting the surf, staff searched on    the amount currently owed and be debt free within
                                             Baltimore Sun, May 16, 2006.                             Google for the term ‘‘debt settlement services,’’       three to 36 months.’’); GAO Testimony, supra note
                                                45 Pension Protection Act of 2006, Pub. L. No.        obtaining more than 24,000 results. To best             50, at 18.
                                                                                                                                                                 52 In its review of debt settlement websites, see
                                             109-280, Section 1220 (Aug. 2006) (codified as 26        duplicate what a typical consumer searching for
                                                                                                      these services would find, staff narrowed the results   supra note 50, FTC staff found that 91% of websites
                                             U.S.C. 501(q)).
                                                46 See 26 U.S.C. 501(q). Section 501(q) also limits   to the websites that appeared on the first six pages    reviewed directed the consumer to call a telephone
                                                                                                      of the search results and eliminated duplicates. The    number to learn more about the service. The
                                             the total revenues that a tax-exempt CCA may                                                                     Commission also has observed this practice in its
                                                                                                      staff found that 86% of the 100 debt settlement
                                             receive from creditors for DMPs and prohibits tax-       websites reviewed represented that the provider         law enforcement experience. See, e.g., FTC v. Debt-
                                             exempt CCAs from making or receiving referral fees       could achieve a specific level of reduction in the      Set, Inc., No. 1:07-CV-00558-RPM (D. Colo. filed
                                             and from soliciting voluntary contributions from a       amount of debt owed.                                    Mar. 19, 2007); FTC v. Edge Solutions, Inc., No. CV-
                                             client. 26 U.S.C. 501(q)(1)-(2); see also FECA (Oct.       See also, e.g., FTC v. Better Budget Fin. Servs.,     07-4087 (E.D.N.Y. filed Sept. 28, 2007); FTC v.
                                             26, 2009) at 4-5.                                        Inc., No. 04-12326 (WG4) (D. Mass. filed Nov. 2,        Connelly, No. SA CV 06-701 DOC (RNBx) (C.D. Cal.
                                                47 Pursuant to the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention        2004) (Complaint, ¶ 12) (defendants’ websites           Am. Compl. filed Nov. 27, 2006); FTC v. Jubilee Fin.
                                             and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, consumers           represented that they could ‘‘reduce the amount of      Servs., Inc., No. 02-6468 ABC (Ex) (C.D. Cal. filed
                                             must obtain credit counseling before filing for          the consumer’s debt by as much as 50% - 70%.’’);        Aug. 19, 2002).
                                                                                                                                                                 53 See, e.g., FTC v. Debt-Set, Inc., No. 1:07-cv-
                                             bankruptcy and must take a financial literacy class      infra note 566; Debt Settlement: Fraudulent,
                                             before obtaining a discharge from bankruptcy. See        Abusive, and Deceptive Practices Pose Risk to           00558-RPM (D. Colo. filed Mar. 19, 2007)
                                             Pub L. No. 109-8, 119 Stat. 23 (codified as amended      Consumers: Hearing on The Debt Settlement               (Complaint ¶ 20) (alleging ‘‘[c]onsumers who agree
                                             at 11 U.S.C. 101 et seq.). CCAs seeking certification    Industry: The Consumer’s Experience Before the          to enroll . . . are sent an initial set of enrollment
                                             as approved providers of the required credit             Sen. Comm. On Commerce, Science, &                      documents from Debt Set Colorado. During their
                                                                                                      Transportation, 111th Cong. (2010) (testimony of the    telephone pitches, the defendants’ telemarketers
                                             counseling must submit to an in-depth initial
                                                                                                      U.S. Government Accountability Office) (‘‘GAO           also exhort consumers to fill out the enrollment
                                             examination and to subsequent re-examination by
                                                                                                      Testimony’’) at 13.                                     documents and return the papers as quickly as
                                             the EOUST. See Application Procedures and                  51 Of the 100 websites FTC staff reviewed, see        possible . . . . Included in these documents are forms
                                             Criteria for Approval of Nonprofit Budget and                                                                    for the consumer to authorize direct withdrawals
                                                                                                      supra note 50, 57% represented that they could
                                             Credit Counseling Agencies by United States                                                                      from the consumer’s checking account, to identify
                                                                                                      settle or reduce all unsecured debts (websites made
                                             Trustees; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 73 FR           claims such as ‘‘Become Debt Free,’’ ‘‘Debt free in     the amounts owed to various creditors, and a Client
sroberts on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES




                                             6062 (Feb. 1, 2008) (seeking comment on proposed         as little as 24-48 months,’’ and ‘‘Achieve $0.00 Debt   Agreement.’’).
                                             rule setting forth additional procedures and criteria    In 12-60 Months.’’); see also, e.g., FTC v. Edge           54 See SBLS at 1; USDR (Oct. 20, 2009) at 14;
                                             for approval of entities seeking to become, or           Solutions, Inc., No. CV-07-4087 (E.D.N.Y. filed Sept.   Orion (Jan. 12, 2009) at 5; NWS (Oct. 29, 2009) at
                                             remain, approved nonprofit budget and credit             28, 2007) (Complaint, ¶ 16) (defendants’ websites       10 (see attached Walji paper at 10). In fact, most
                                             counseling agencies). A list of EOUST-approved           represented that ‘‘we can reduce your unsecured         state debt management laws, including the Uniform
                                             credit counselors is available to consumers at           debt by up to 60% and sometimes more and have           Debt-Management Services Act (‘‘UDMSA’’), require
                                             (http://www.usdoj.gov/ust/eo/bapcpa/ccde/                you debt free in 18 to 30 months.’’); FTC v.            providers to keep client funds in separate,
                                             cc_approved.htm).                                        Innovative Sys. Tech., Inc., No. CV04-0728 GAF          dedicated bank accounts. ULC at 2; CareOne at 6.



                                        VerDate Mar<15>2010   16:17 Aug 09, 2010   Jkt 220001   PO 00000   Frm 00005   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10AUR2.SGM     10AUR2
                                             48462             Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

                                             the consumer must make to both save                     creditors a letter, directly or through the              attempted or achieved any settlements.
                                             for settlements and pay the provider’s                  provider, instructing the creditor to                    An increasing number of providers
                                             fee.55 The providers typically tell                     cease communication with the                             utilize a so-called ‘‘pay as you go’’
                                             consumers that the monthly payments –                   consumer.60 In some cases, providers                     model, spreading the fees over the first
                                             often in the hundreds of dollars – will                 have even executed a change of address                   fifteen months or more of the program,
                                             accumulate until there are sufficient                   form substituting their address for the                  yet still requiring consumers to pay
                                             funds to make the creditor or debt                      consumer’s, thereby redirecting billing                  hundreds of dollars in fees before they
                                             collector an offer equivalent to an                     statements and collection notices so that                receive a single settlement.64 Even when
                                             appreciable percentage of the amount                    the consumer does not receive them.61                    providers spread the fee over the
                                             originally owed to the creditor. The                    Some providers represent that they                       anticipated duration of the program
                                             provider generally will not begin                       maintain direct contact with the                         (usually three years), consumers
                                             negotiations with creditors until the                   consumer’s creditors or debt collectors                  typically are required to pay a
                                             consumer has saved money sufficient to                  and that collection calls and lawsuits                   substantial percentage of the fee before
                                             fund a possible settlement of the debt.56               will cease upon the consumer’s                           any portion of their funds is paid to
                                             The provider pursues settlements on an                  enrollment in the debt settlement                        creditors.65
                                             individual, debt-by-debt basis as the                   program.62                                                  Many debt settlement companies
                                             consumer accumulates sufficient funds                                                                            break their fee into separate
                                                                                                     Debt Settlement Fee Models                               components, such as an initial fee,
                                             for each debt. According to industry
                                             representatives, the process of settling                  Many debt settlement providers                         monthly fees, and/or contingency fees
                                             all of a consumer’s debts can take three                charge significant advance fees. Some                    based on the amount of savings the
                                             years or more to complete.57                            require consumers to pay 40% or more                     company obtains for the consumer.66
                                                While the consumer is accumulating                   of the total fee within the first three or               While fee models vary greatly, they
                                             funds, the debt settlement provider                     four months of enrollment and the                        generally require a substantial portion of
                                             often advises the consumer not to talk                  remainder over the ensuing 12 months                     the fee in advance of any settlements.67
                                             to the associated creditors or debt                     or fewer.63 These fees must be paid                      As described more fully below, the large
                                             collectors.58 In addition, some providers               whether or not the provider has                          initial commitment required of
                                             instruct the consumer to assign them                                                                             consumers has contributed to the high
                                             power of attorney59 and to send                            60 AFSA at 6; RDRI at 5 (‘‘The issuance of ‘cease

                                                                                                     and desist’ letters from debt settlement companies          64 DRS (Jan. 12, 2010) at 1 (fee of 15% of enrolled
                                                                                                     to creditors provides a false sense of security to
                                               55  See, e.g., FDR (Jan. 14, 2010) at 2; TASC (Oct.                                                            debt balance is collected over 15 months); FDR
                                                                                                     consumers that their accounts are being
                                             26, 2009) at 7.                                                                                                  (Oct. 26, 2009) at 14 (fees are collected over the first
                                                                                                     successfully negotiated and that there is not any
                                                56 USOBA (Oct. 26, 2009) at 32. A trade                                                                       18 months or longer of the program); JH (Jan. 12,
                                                                                                     threat of impending legal action.’’); see also ACA
                                             association reported that creditors may not consider                                                             2010) at 4 (The first payment goes toward fees; the
                                                                                                     Workshop Comment (Dec. 1, 2008) at 4-7;
                                             settlements until an account is at least 60 days                                                                 remainder of the fee is collected in installments
                                                                                                     Consumer Bankers Association Workshop Comment
                                             delinquent. USOBA (Oct. 26, 2009) at 32. If                                                                      over one-half of the program. The company’s total
                                                                                                     (Dec. 1, 2008) at 2-3. Creditors have expressed
                                             consumers are current on their debts, debt              displeasure, however, that once debt settlement          fee is 15% of enrolled debt, plus a $49 per month
                                             settlement providers sometimes advise them to stop      providers intercede on behalf of consumers, the          maintenance fee. Formerly, the company collected
                                             making payments to their creditors so that they can     providers are not responsive to creditor contacts.       the 15% fee over the first 12 months.); Hunter at
                                             achieve the duration of delinquency necessary for       See, e.g., AFSA at 2. One workshop panelist              3 (‘‘[I]t is becoming more common for companies to
                                             the provider to initiate negotiations. Infra note 73.   representing the American Bankers Association            charge a one-time, flat enrollment fee and prorate
                                                57 DSA/ADE at 8; see also CO AG at 5 (based on
                                                                                                     (‘‘ABA’’) noted that, even when successful, attempts     the remaining percentage of the fee over at least half
                                             data submitted by industry members, the average         to inhibit direct communication with consumers           the life of the program.’’); NC AG Testimony, supra
                                             program length was 32.3 months).                        prevent creditors from informing consumers about         note 25, at 4 (‘‘a significant portion of the
                                                58 See CFA at 9; SOLS at 2; AFSA at 2; JH (Oct.
                                                                                                     available options for dealing with the debt and the      consumer’s initial payments is diverted to the
                                             24, 2009) at 14; NC AG Testimony, supra note 25,        ramifications of the failure to make payments. See       settlement company’s fees.’’).
                                             at 3-4 (‘‘The whole premise of debt settlement is       ABA (O’Neill), Workshop Tr. at 96.                          65 See USOBA (Jan. 29, 2010) at 3; CSA (Witte),

                                             based on consumers not paying their debts and not          61 See, e.g., FTC v. Jubilee Fin. Servs., Inc., No.   Tr. at 64 (company collects its entire fee monthly,
                                             communicating with creditors.’’); see also, e.g., FTC   02-6468 ABC (Ex) (C.D. Cal. filed Aug. 19, 2002)         in even amounts, throughout the program); USDR
                                             v. Connelly, No. SA CV 06-701 DOC (RNBx) (C.D.          (alleging defendants instructed consumers, among         (Johnson), Tr. at 187 (same); SDS (Jan. 22, 2010) at
                                             Cal. Am. Compl. filed Nov. 27, 2006); FTC v. Jubilee    other things, to submit change of address                1-2 (no fee is taken from the first payment; the fee
                                             Fin. Servs., Inc., No. 02-6468 ABC (Ex) (C.D. Cal.      information to creditors so that mail would go           is then taken in equal amounts from the next 20
                                             filed Aug. 19, 2002).                                   directly to defendants); FTC v. Debt-Set, Inc., No.      payments for 36-month programs).
                                                59 AFSA at 5 (‘‘Debt settlement providers                                                                        66 CRN (Jan. 21, 2010) at 4; FCS (Oct. 27, 2009)
                                                                                                     1:07-cv-00558-RPM, Exs. Supp. Mot. T.R.O., at Exh.
                                             frequently use such means to block communication        7 (D. Colo. Mar. 20, 2007) (same).                       at 2; ACCORD (Oct. 9, 2009) at 2-3; SBLS at 4
                                             between the creditor and the consumer. This                62 NACCA at 5; AFSA at 8; FTC v. Connelly, No.        (Financial Consulting Services, National Asset
                                             prevents the creditor from being able to put together                                                            Services, and American Debt Arbitration, three
                                                                                                     SA CV 06-701 DOC (RNBx) (C.D. Cal. Am. Compl.
                                             a workout plan that would be free for the                                                                        different companies that share identical websites,
                                                                                                     filed Nov. 27, 2006); Better Business Bureau, BBB
                                             consumer.’’). However, ACA International (‘‘ACA’’),                                                              have charged a ‘‘set-up fee’’ of $399, an ‘‘enrollment
                                                                                                     on Differences Between Debt Consolidation, Debt
                                             a trade organization representing third-party debt                                                               fee’’ equal to half of each of the first six monthly
                                                                                                     Negotiation and Debt Elimination Plans (Mar. 2,
                                             collectors, stated that the power of attorney                                                                    payments, a $49 monthly maintenance fee, a $7.20
                                                                                                     2009) , available at (http://www.bbb.org/us/article/
                                             documents prepared by debt settlement providers                                                                  monthly bank fee, and a settlement fee of 29% of
                                             frequently are legally deficient under state law. See   bbb-on-differences-between-debt-consolidation-
                                                                                                     debt-negotiation-debt-elimination-plans-9350).           the savings on each settlement. Two other
                                             ACA Workshop Comment (Dec. 1, 2008) at 5-8.
                                                                                                        63 USDR (Oct. 20, 2009) at 2; NAAG (Oct. 23,          providers, Debt Choice and the Palmer Firm, have
                                             Further, unless presented by an attorney, a power
                                                                                                     2009) at 3; CFA at 4, 8-10; SBLS at 4; QLS at 2;         charged an 8% set-up fee, a $65 monthly fee, and
                                             of attorney may permit, but does not require, a
                                                                                                     SOLS at 2; see also, e.g., FTC v. Connelly, No. SA       a 33% settlement fee on realized savings at the time
                                             creditor to contact the debt settlement provider.
                                             Accordingly, it appears that this strategy often does   CV 06-701 DOC (RNBx) (C.D. Cal. Am. Compl. filed         of settlement. A debt settlement company called
                                             not stop collection calls, lawsuits, or garnishment     Nov. 27, 2006) (alleging that defendants required        Allegro Law has charged a 16% fee collected over
                                             proceedings, but instead may actually escalate the      consumers to make a ‘‘down payment’’ of 30% to           18 months and a $59.99 monthly fee; the 16% fee
                                             collection process. See, e.g., FTC v. Debt-Set, Inc.,   40% of the total fee in the first two or three months    is due immediately if the customer drops out of the
                                             No. 1:07-cv-00558-RPM (D. Colo. filed Mar. 19,          with the remainder paid over the following six to        program within the first 18 months. Morgan Drexen
sroberts on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES




                                             2007)(alleging defendants sent power of attorney        12 months). A debt settlement trade association          and the Eric A. Rosen law firm have charged a set-
                                             documents to consumers); FTC v. Better Budget Fin.      (USOBA) obtained information about providers’ fee        up fee of 5%, monthly fees of $48, and a 25%
                                             Servs., Inc., No. 04-12326 (WG4) (D. Mass. filed        structures from 58 providers and reported that six       settlement fee based on realized savings at time of
                                             Nov. 2, 2004) (alleging that consumers were             of the 58 primarily use this ‘‘front end fee model.’’    settlement).
                                                                                                     USOBA (Jan. 29, 2010) at 3 (providing no                    67 GAO Testimony, supra note 50, at 9. The wide
                                             instructed to sign power of attorney forms); FTC v.
                                             Nat’l Credit Council, Case No. SACV04-0474 CJC          information as to whether the 58 respondents are         variety of fee models makes it difficult for
                                             (JWJx) (C.D. Cal. 2004) (alleging that defendants       representative of the trade association or the           consumers to shop for the lowest cost service. See
                                             used power of attorney documents).                      industry as a whole).                                    Loeb (Mallow), Tr. at 206.



                                        VerDate Mar<15>2010   16:17 Aug 09, 2010   Jkt 220001   PO 00000   Frm 00006   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10AUR2.SGM      10AUR2
                                                               Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations                                                         48463

                                             rate at which consumers drop out of                     record, discussed in detail below,                          enforcement actions targeting deceptive
                                             these programs before their debts are                   establishes that a large proportion of                      and unfair practices in the debt
                                             settled.                                                consumers who enter a debt settlement                       settlement industry.77 Since 2001, the
                                                                                                     plan do not attain results close to those                   Commission has brought nine actions
                                             Consumer Protection Concerns
                                                                                                     commonly represented.                                       against debt settlement entities under
                                                Debt settlement plans, as they are                     In the context of the widespread                          the FTC Act for many of the abuses
                                             often marketed and implemented, raise                   deception in this industry, the advance                     detailed above.78 As in the FTC’s
                                             several consumer protection concerns.                   fee model used by many debt settlement                      actions against deceptive credit
                                             First, many providers’ advertisements                   providers causes substantial consumer                       counselors, these suits commonly
                                             and ensuing telemarketing pitches                       injury. Consumers often are not aware                       alleged that the provider
                                             include false, misleading, or                           that their initial payments are taken by                    misrepresented, or failed to disclose
                                             unsubstantiated representations,                        the provider as its fees and are not saved                  adequately, the amount and/or timing of
                                             including claims that                                   for settlement of their debt; in many                       its substantial advance fees.79
                                                ∑ the provider will or is highly likely              instances, providers deceptively                            Additionally, the Commission alleged
                                             to obtain large debt reductions for                     underestimate the time necessary to                         that the defendants in these cases falsely
                                             enrollees, e.g., a 50% reduction of what                complete the program.74 As a result,                        promised high success rates and results
                                             the consumer owes;68                                    many consumers fall further behind on                       that were, in fact, unattainable;80
                                                ∑ the provider will or is highly likely                                                                          misrepresented their refund policies;81
                                                                                                     their debts, incur additional charges,
                                             to eliminate the consumer’s debt                                                                                    and failed to disclose the accumulation
                                                                                                     harm their creditworthiness, including
                                             entirely in a specific time frame, e.g., 12                                                                         of creditor late fees and other negative
                                                                                                     credit scores, and, in some cases, suffer
                                             to 36 months;69                                                                                                     consequences of their programs.82
                                                ∑ harassing calls from debt collectors               legal action against them to collect the
                                                                                                     debt.75 Moreover, in a large percentage                        The states also have been active in
                                             and collection lawsuits will cease;70                                                                               attacking abuses in this industry. State
                                                ∑ the provider has special                           of cases, consumers are unable to
                                                                                                     continue making payments while their                        regulators and attorneys general have
                                             relationships with creditors and expert
                                                                                                     debts remain undiminished and drop                          filed numerous law enforcement actions
                                             knowledge about available techniques to
                                                                                                     out of the program, usually forfeiting all                  against debt settlement providers83
                                             induce settlement;71 and
                                                ∑ the provider’s service is part of a                the payments they made towards the                          under their state unfair and deceptive
                                             government program, through the use of                  provider’s fees.76                                          acts and practices statutes84 or other
                                             such terms as ‘‘credit relief act,’’                      Both the Commission and state                             state laws or regulations.85 In addition,
                                             ‘‘government bailout,’’ or ‘‘stimulus                   enforcers have brought numerous law                         many states have enacted statutes
                                             money.’’72                                                                                                          specifically designed to combat
                                             Many providers also tell consumers that                 2006); FTC v. Jubilee Fin. Servs., Inc., No. 02-6468        deceptive debt settlement practices;86 in
                                                                                                     ABC (Ex) (C.D. Cal. filed Aug. 19, 2002); see also
                                             they can, and should, stop paying their                 Texas Attorney General, Press Release, Attorney               77  See FTC and State Case Lists, supra note 27.
                                             creditors, while not disclosing that                    General Abbott Pursues Restitution for Texans from            78  See FTC Case List, supra note 27.
                                             failing to make payments to creditors                   ‘‘Debt Settlement Company’’ in Bankruptcy Court                79 See, e.g., FTC v. Debt-Set, No. 1:07-cv-00558-
                                             may actually increase the amounts                       (Aug. 20, 2009), available at (http://
                                                                                                                                                                 RPM (D. Colo. filed Mar. 19, 2007) (alleging that
                                             consumers owe (because of                               www.oag.state.tx.us/oagNews/
                                                                                                                                                                 defendants misrepresented that they would not
                                                                                                     release.php?id=3088); Florida v. Hacker (Fl. Cir. Ct.
                                             accumulating fees and interest) and will                - 4th filed Feb 21, 2008); GAO Testimony, supra
                                                                                                                                                                 charge consumers any upfront fees before obtaining
                                             adversely affect their                                                                                              the promised debt relief, but in fact required a
                                                                                                     note 50, at 9; NC AG Testimony, supra note 25, at
                                                                                                                                                                 substantial upfront fee).
                                             creditworthiness.73 The rulemaking                      4 (‘‘The theory is that the older and more delinquent          80 See, e.g., id; FTC v. Connelly, No. SA CV 06-
                                                                                                     the debt, the easier it will be to negotiate.’’); Debt
                                                                                                     Settlement: Fraudulent, Abusive, and Deceptive              701 DOC (RNBx) (C.D. Cal. Am. Compl. filed Nov.
                                               68  Supra note 50; infra note 566.                    Practices Pose Risk to Consumers: Hearing on The            27, 2006).
                                               69  Supra note 51.                                    Debt Settlement Industry: The Consumer’s
                                                                                                                                                                    81 See, e.g., FTC v. Innovative Sys. Tech., Inc., No.
                                                70 See, e.g., FTC v. Debt-Set, Inc., No. 1:07-cv-
                                                                                                     Experience Before the Sen. Comm. On Commerce,               CV04-0728 GAF JTLx (C.D. Cal. filed Feb. 3, 2004)
                                             00558-RPM (D. Colo. filed Mar. 19, 2007); FTC v.        Science, & Transportation, 111th Cong. (2010)               (defendants misrepresented that they would refund
                                             Better Budget Fin. Servs., Inc., No. 04-12326 (WG4)     (Statement of Holly Haas) (‘‘Haas Testimony’’), at 2        consumers’ money if unsuccessful).
                                             (D. Mass. filed Nov. 2, 2004); FTC v. Jubilee Fin.      (‘‘We were instructed by [the debt settlement                  82 See, e.g., id.; FTC v. Connelly,No. SA CV 06-
                                             Servs., Inc., No. 02-6468 ABC (Ex) (C.D. Cal. filed     company] not to pay our credit card bills because           701 DOC (RNBx) (C.D. Cal. Am. Compl. filed Nov.
                                             Aug. 19, 2002); GAO Testimony, supra note 50, at        the credit card companies would not negotiate               27, 2006); FTC v. Debt-Set, No. 1:07-cv-00558-RPM
                                             13; see also, e.g., In re Positive Return, Inc. (Cal.   settlements with current accounts.’’); RDRI at 5.           (D. Colo. filed Mar. 19, 2007).
                                             Dep’t of Corps., desist and refrain order May 28,          74 See, e.g., Debt Settlement USA, Growth of the            83 See State Case List, supra note 27.
                                             2004).
                                                71 See, e.g., FTC v. Debt-Set, Inc., No. 1:07-cv-
                                                                                                     Debt Settlement Industry,at 10 (Oct. 17, 2008)                 84 See, e.g. State of Illinois v. Clear Your Debt,

                                                                                                     (‘‘Fraudulent firms also regularly fail to provide the      LLC, No. 2010-CH-00167 (Cir. Ct. 7th Judicial Cir.
                                             00558-RPM (D. Colo. filed Mar. 19, 2007); FTC v.
                                                                                                     services promised to consumers by claiming that             filed Feb. 10, 2010); State of Texas v. CSA-Credit
                                             Better Budget Fin. Servs., Inc., No. 04-12326 (WG4)
                                                                                                     they can help them become debt free in an                   Solutions of Am., Inc., No. 09-000417 (Dist. Travis
                                             (D. Mass. filed Nov. 2, 2004); Press Release, Florida
                                                                                                     unrealistically short amount of time and/or promise         Cty. filed Mar. 26, 2009); State of Florida v. Boyd,
                                             Attorney General, Two Duval County Debt
                                             Negotiation Companies Sued for Alleged                  too low of a settlement.’’); see also, e.g., FTC v. Debt-   No. 2008-CA-002909 (Cir. Ct. 4th Cir. Duval Cty
                                             Deceptions (Mar. 5, 2008), available at                 Set, Inc., No. 1:07-cv-00558-RPM (D. Colo. filed            filed Mar. 5, 2008).
                                             (myfloridalegal.com/__852562220065EE67.nsf/0/           Mar. 19, 2007).                                                85 See, e.g., Press Release, Colorado Attorney
                                                                                                        75 One of the Commission’s enforcement actions,          General, Eleven Companies Settle With The State
                                             1E9B7637235FE1
                                             6C85257403005C595F?                                     FTC v. Connelly, No. SA CV 06-701 DOC (RNBx)                Under New Debt-Management And Credit
                                             Open&Highlight=0,ryan,boyd); In re Am. Debt Arb.,       (C.D. Cal. Am. Compl. filed Nov. 27, 2006), is              Counseling Regulations (Mar. 12, 2009), available at
                                             No. 06CS01309 (Cal. Dep’t of Corps., desist and         particularly illustrative of the risk of litigation. In     (http://www.ago.state.co.us/
                                             refrain order June 30, 2008).                           that case, between 2004 and 2005, nearly a third of         press_detail.cfmpressID=957.html).
                                                72 See, e.g., NAAG (July 6, 2010) at 2; FTC v.       defendants’ 18,116 customers were sued by                      86 Some states restrict the amount and timing of

                                             Dominant Leads, LLC, No. 1:10-cv-00997 (D.D.C.          creditors or debt collectors. See id.,Trial Exs. 382,       fees, including initial fees and subsequent monthly
sroberts on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES




                                             filed June 15, 2010); GAO Testimony, supra note         561, 562, 623 & Schumann Test., Day 4, Vol. III,            charges. In 2005, the Uniform Law Commission
                                             50, at 13-14; Steve Bucci, Bankrate.com, Settle         37:21 - 40:12; 34:17 - 37:4.                                (‘‘ULC’’) drafted the UDMSA in an attempt to foster
                                             Credit Card Debt For Pennies? (Feb. 2, 2010),              76 NC AG Testimony, supra note 25, at 4 (‘‘If the        consistent regulation of both for-profit and
                                             available at (http://www.bankrate.com/finance/          consumer drops out before the settlement process            nonprofit debt relief services across the United
                                             credit-cards/settle-credit-card-debt-for-pennies-       is concluded, as is usually the case, he or she will        States. ULC at 2. Among the key consumer
                                             1.aspx).                                                lose the fee payments, while facing increased debt          protection provisions in the UDMSA are: a fee cap,
                                                73 See, e.g., FTC v. Connelly,No. SA CV 06-701       account balances.’’); see infra Section III.C.2.a.(1);      mandatory education requirements, a requirement
                                             DOC (RNBx) (C.D. Cal. Am. Compl. filed Nov. 27,         FTC Case List, supra note 27.                                                                             Continued




                                        VerDate Mar<15>2010   16:17 Aug 09, 2010   Jkt 220001   PO 00000   Frm 00007   Fmt 4701    Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10AUR2.SGM        10AUR2
                                             48464              Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

                                             fact, six states have banned for-profit                    than the full balance the consumer                      secure savings for consumers, but the
                                             debt settlement services entirely.87 Most                  owes.                                                   sole service provided is creation of an
                                             state laws, however, allow these                              Debt negotiation providers often                     accelerated payment schedule that
                                             services but impose certain                                market to consumers through so-called                   recommends increased monthly
                                             requirements or restrictions, for                          ‘‘robocalls.’’93 Like debt settlement                   payments.97 Although increased
                                             example, banning advance fees,88                           companies, some debt negotiation                        monthly payments would result in
                                             requiring that providers be licensed in                    providers charge significant advance                    interest savings, consumers seeking
                                             the state,89 providing consumers with                      fees.94 Additionally, like some debt                    these services usually cannot afford the
                                             certain key disclosures (e.g., a schedule                  settlement companies, debt negotiators                  recommended payments.
                                             of payments and fees),90 and granting                      may promise specific results, such as a                    The FTC has brought nine actions
                                             consumers some right to cancel their                       particular interest rate reduction or                   against defendants alleging deceptive
                                             enrollment.91                                              amount of savings that will be                          and abusive debt negotiation
                                                                                                        realized.95 In some cases, the                          practices.98 In each case, the defendants
                                             3. Debt Negotiation                                        telemarketers of debt negotiation                       used telemarketing to deliver
                                                In addition to credit counseling and                    services refer to themselves as ‘‘card                  representations that they could reduce
                                             debt settlement, there is a third category                 services’’ or a ‘‘customer service                      consumers’ interest payments by
                                             of debt relief services, often referred to                 department’’ during telephone calls with                specific percentages or minimum
                                             as ‘‘debt negotiation.’’ Debt negotiation                  consumers in order to mislead them into                 amounts. In many of these cases, the
                                             companies offer to obtain interest rate                    believing that the telemarketers are                    Commission also alleged that the
                                             reductions or other concessions to lower                   associated with consumers’ credit card                  defendants falsely purported to be
                                             the amount of consumers’ monthly                           companies.96 In other cases, debt                       affiliated, or have close relationships,
                                             payment owed to creditors.92 Unlike                        negotiators represent that they can                     with consumers’ creditors.99 Finally, in
                                             DMPs or debt settlement, debt                                                                                      each case, the Commission charged
                                             negotiation does not purport to                               93 See, e.g., FTC v. Advanced Mgmt. Servs. NW,
                                                                                                                                                                defendants with violations of the TSR.
                                             implement a full balance payment plan                      LLC, No. 10-148-LRS (E.D. Wash. filed May 10,
                                                                                                        2010); FTC v. Econ. Relief Techs., LLC, No. 09-CV-      II. Overview of the Proposed Rule and
                                             or obtain lump sum settlements for less                    3347 (N.D. Ga. filed Nov. 30, 2009) .
                                                                                                           94 NAAG (Oct. 23, 2009) at 3-4; FTC v. Advanced
                                                                                                                                                                Comments Received
                                             that the provider employ certified counselors, and         Mgmt. Servs. NW, LLC, No. 10-148-LRS (E.D. Wash.          On August 19, 2009, the Commission
                                             accreditation requirements for sellers of debt             filed May 10, 2010) (alleging defendants charged an
                                             management services. Id. To date, six states have
                                                                                                                                                                published its Notice of Proposed
                                                                                                        upfront fee of $499 to $1,590); FTC v. Econ. Relief
                                             adopted the UDMSA with some modifications;                 Techs., LLC, No. 09-CV-3347 (N.D. Ga. filed Nov.        Rulemaking (‘‘NPRM’’) proposing
                                             additional state legislatures currently are                30, 2009) (alleging defendants charged an upfront       revisions to the TSR (‘‘proposed rule’’) to
                                             considering doing so. Id.                                  fee of $990 to $1,495); FTC v. 2145183 Ontario, Inc.,   cover debt relief services. The
                                                87 See, e.g., La. Rev. Stat. § 14:331, et seq.; N.D.    No. 09-CV-7423 (N.D. Ill. filed Nov. 30, 2009)
                                                                                                        (alleging defendants charged an upfront fee of $495
                                                                                                                                                                Commission proposed amendments to:
                                             Cen. Code § 13-06-02; Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 33-14-101,
                                             et seq.; Haw. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 446-2; Mass. Gen.          to $1,995); FTC v. JPM Accelerated Servs., Inc., No.      ∑ Define the term ‘‘debt relief service’’
                                             Laws Ann. Ch. 180 § 4A; N.J. Stat. Ann. § 17:16G-          09-CV-2021 (M.D. Fla. Am. Compl. filed Jan. 19,         to cover any service to renegotiate,
                                             2.                                                         2010) (alleging defendants charged an upfront fee       settle, or in any way alter the terms of
                                                88 N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-423 et seq.                     of $495 to $995); FTC v. Group One Networks, Inc.,
                                                                                                        No. 8:09-cv-352-T-26-MAP (M.D. Fla. Am. Compl.
                                                                                                                                                                a debt between a consumer and any
                                                89 See, e.g., Kan. Stat. Ann. § 50-1116, et seq.; Me.
                                                                                                        filed Apr. 14, 2009) (alleging defendants charged an    unsecured creditor or debt collector,
                                             Rev. Stat. Ann. Tit. 17 § 701, et seq. & tit. 32 § 6171,
                                             et seq., 1101-03; N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 339-D:1, et       upfront fee of $595 to $895); FTC v. Select Pers.       including a reduction in the balance,
                                             seq.; Va. Code Ann. § 6.1-363.2, et seq.                   Mgmt., No. 07-CV-0529 (N.D. Ill. Am. Compl. filed       interest rate, or fees owed;
                                                                                                        Aug. 18, 2007) (alleging defendants charged an
                                                90 See, e.g,. Kan. Stat. Ann. § 50-1116, et seq.;
                                                                                                        upfront fee of $695); FTC v. Debt Solutions, Inc.,
                                                                                                                                                                  ∑ Prohibit providers from charging
                                             N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 339-D:1, et seq.; S.C. Code         No. 06-0298 JLR (W.D. Wash. filed Mar. 6, 2006)         fees until they have provided the debt
                                             Ann. § 37-7-101, et seq.; Wash. Rev. Code                  (alleging defendants charged an upfront fee of $399     relief services;
                                             § 18.28.010, et seq.                                       to $629).
                                                91 See, e.g., S.C. Code Ann. § 37-7-101, et seq.; Va.                                                             ∑ Require providers to make six
                                                                                                           95 See, e.g., FTC v. Advanced Mgmt. Servs. NW,
                                             Code Ann. § 6.1-363.2, et seq.; Wash. Rev. Code                                                                    specific disclosures about the debt relief
                                                                                                        LLC, No. 10-148-LRS (E.D. Wash. filed May 10,
                                             § 18.28.010, et seq.                                       2010) (alleging defendants represented that if the      services being offered;
                                                92 NAAG (Oct. 23, 2009) at 3-4; MN AG at 2
                                                                                                        consumer did not save the promised amount of              ∑ Prohibit misrepresentations about
                                             (‘‘Minnesotans are being deluged with phone calls          $2,500 or more in a short time, the consumer would      material aspects of debt relief services,
                                             and advertising campaigns promising to lower               receive a full refund); FTC v. Econ. Relief Techs.,
                                             credit card interest rates, reduce bills, or repair                                                                including success rates and whether a
                                                                                                        LLC, No. 09-CV-3347 (N.D. Ga. filed Nov. 30, 2009)
                                             damaged credit’’); see, e.g., FTC v. Advanced Mgmt.        (alleging defendants represented that if consumers      provider is a nonprofit entity; and
                                             Servs. NW, LLC, No. 10-148-LRS (E.D. Wash. filed           did not save a ‘‘guaranteed’’ amount – typically          ∑ Extend the TSR to cover calls
                                             May 10, 2010); FTC v. Econ. Relief Techs., LLC, No.        $4,000 or more – they could get a full refund of the    consumers make to debt relief service
                                             09-CV-3347 (N.D. Ga. filed Nov. 30, 2009); FTC v.          upfront fee); FTC v. 2145183 Ontario, Inc., No. 09-
                                             2145183 Ontario, Inc., No. 09-CV-7423 (N.D. Ill.           CV-7423 (N.D. Ill. filed Nov. 30, 2009) (alleging          97 NAAG (Oct. 23, 2009) at 3-4; see also, e.g., FTC
                                             filed Nov. 30, 2009); FTC v. JPM Accelerated Servs.,       defendants claimed that their interest rate reduction
                                             Inc., No. 09-CV-2021 (M.D. Fla. Am. Compl. filed           services would provide substantial savings to           v. Advanced Mgmt. Servs. NW, LLC, No. 10-148-
                                             Jan. 19, 2010); FTC v. Group One Networks, Inc.,           consumers, typically $2,500 or more in a short          LRS (E.D. Wash. filed May 10, 2010).
                                                                                                                                                                   98 See FTC Case List, supra note 27.
                                             No. 8:09-cv-352-T-26-MAP (M.D. Fla. Am. Compl.             time); FTC v. JPM Accelerated Servs., Inc., No. 09-
                                             filed Apr. 14, 2009); FTC v. Select Pers. Mgmt., No.       CV-2021 (M.D. Fla. Am. Compl. filed Jan. 19, 2010)         99 See, e.g., FTC v. Econ. Relief Techs., LLC, No.

                                             07-CV-0529 (N.D. Ill. Am. Compl. filed Aug. 18,            (same); FTC v. Group One Networks, Inc., No. 8:09-      09-cv-3347 (N.D. Ga. filed Nov. 30, 2009); FTC v.
                                             2007); FTC v. Debt Solutions, Inc., No. 06-0298 JLR        cv-352-T-26-MAP (M.D. Fla. Am. Compl. filed Apr.        2145183 Ontario, Inc., No. 09-CV-7423 (N.D. Ill.
                                             (W.D. Wash. filed Mar. 6, 2006); see also, e.g., Press     14, 2009) (alleging defendants represented they         filed Nov. 30, 2009); FTC v. Group One Networks,
                                             Release, West Virginia Attorney General, Attorney          would provide consumers with savings of $1,500 to       Inc., No. 8:09-cv-352-T-26- MAP (M.D. Fla. Am.
                                             General McGraw Announces WV Refunds of                     $20,000 in interest) ; FTC v. Select Pers. Mgmt., No.   Compl. filed Apr. 14, 2009) (alleging defendants
                                             $214,000 in Debt Relief Companies Settlement (Jan.         07-CV-0529 (N.D. Ill. Am. Compl. filed Aug. 18,         claimed to have ‘‘close working relationships with
sroberts on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES




                                             13, 2010), available at (http://www.wvago.gov/             2007) (alleging defendants represented consumers        over 50,000’’ creditors); FTC v. Select Pers. Mgmt.,
                                             press.cfm?ID=500&fx=more); Press Release,                  would save a minimum of $2,500 in interest); FTC        No. 07-CV-0529 (N.D. Ill. Am. Compl. filed Aug. 18,
                                             Minnesota Attorney General, Attorney General               v. Debt Solutions, Inc., No. 06-0298 JLR (W.D.          2007) (alleging defendants claimed to be affiliated
                                             Swanson Files Three Lawsuits Against companies             Wash. filed Mar. 6, 2006) (alleging defendants          with consumers’ credit card companies); FTC v.
                                             Claiming to Help Consumers Lower Their Credit              promised to save consumers $2,500).                     Debt Solutions, Inc., No. 06-0298 JLR (W.D. Wash.
                                             Card Interest Rates (Sept. 22, 2009), available at            96 MN AG at 2; see also, e.g., FTC v. JPM            filed Mar. 6, 2006) (alleging that defendants claimed
                                             (http://www.ag.state.mn.us/consumer/pressrelease/          Accelerated Servs., Inc., No. 09-cv-2021 (M.D. Fla.     to have ‘‘special relationships’’ with creditors); see
                                             090922ccinterestrates.asp).                                Am. Compl. filed Jan. 19, 2010).                        also MN AG at 2.



                                        VerDate Mar<15>2010    16:17 Aug 09, 2010   Jkt 220001   PO 00000    Frm 00008   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10AUR2.SGM     10AUR2
                                                               Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations                                                   48465

                                             providers in response to general media                  organizations responded and provided                       The final amended Rule adopted here
                                             advertising.                                            data. Finally, Commission staff met with                is substantially the same in most
                                                During the course of this rulemaking,                industry and consumer representatives                   respects to the proposed rule, but
                                             the Commission received comments                        to discuss the issues under                             includes certain important
                                             from 321 stakeholders, including                        consideration in the rulemaking                         modifications. The Commission bases
                                             representatives of the debt relief                      proceeding.                                             these modifications on the entire record
                                             industry, creditors, law enforcement,                                                                           in this proceeding, including the public
                                             consumer groups, and individual                         III. Summary of the Final Amended
                                                                                                                                                             comments, the forum and workshop
                                             consumers.100 Most industry                             Rule and Comments Received
                                                                                                                                                             records, consumer complaints, recent
                                             commenters supported parts of the                          The Commission has carefully                         testimony on debt settlement before
                                             proposal but opposed the advance fee                    reviewed and analyzed the entire record                 Congress, and the law enforcement
                                             ban.101 One industry member opposed                     developed in this proceeding. The                       experience of the Commission and state
                                             virtually the entire proposal,102 while a               record, as well as the Commission’s own                 enforcers. The major differences
                                             few supported the proposal as a                         law enforcement experience and that of                  between the proposed amendments and
                                             whole.103 In contrast, state attorneys                  its state counterparts, shows that                      the final amendments are as follows:
                                             general and regulators, consumer                        amendments to the TSR are warranted                        ∑ The advance fee ban provision now
                                             advocates, legal aid attorneys, and                     and appropriate.107 As discussed in                     explicitly sets forth three conditions
                                             creditors generally supported the                       detail in this SBP, the Final Rule                      before a telemarketer or seller may
                                             proposed amendments, including the                      addresses deceptive and abusive                         charge a fee: (1) the consumer must
                                             advance fee ban.104 The comments and                    practices of debt relief service providers              execute a debt relief agreement with the
                                             the basis for the Commission’s adoption                 and includes the following elements:                    creditor; (2) the consumer must make at
                                             or rejection of the commenters’                            ∑ Defines the term ‘‘debt relief service’’           least one payment pursuant to that
                                             suggested modifications to the proposed                 as proposed in the NPRM;                                agreement; and (3) the fee must be
                                             rule are analyzed in detail in Section III                 ∑ Prohibits providers from charging or               proportional either to the fee charged for
                                             below.                                                  collecting fees until they have provided                the entire debt relief service (if the
                                                On November 4, 2009, the                             the debt relief services, but (1) permits               provider uses a flat fee structure) or a
                                             Commission held a public forum to                       such fees as individual debts are                       percentage of savings achieved (if the
                                             discuss the issues raised by the                        resolved on a proportional basis, or if                 provider uses a contingency fee
                                             commenters in this proceeding. Many of                  the fee is a percentage of savings,108 and              structure);
                                             those who had filed comments on the                     (2) allows providers to require                            ∑ Notwithstanding the advance fee
                                             proposed rule participated as panelists                 customers to place funds in a dedicated                 ban, the Final Rule allows providers to
                                             at the forum, and members of the public                 bank account that meets certain criteria;               require consumers to place funds for the
                                             had the opportunity to make statements                     ∑ Requires four disclosures in                       provider’s fee and for payment to
                                             on the record. A transcript of the                      promoting debt relief services, in                      consumers’ creditors or debt collectors
                                             proceeding was placed on the public                     addition to the existing disclosures                    into a dedicated bank account if they
                                             record.105 After the forum, Commission                  required by the TSR: (1) the amount of                  satisfy five specified criteria; and
                                             staff sent letters to trade associations                time it will take to obtain the promised                   ∑ The Final Rule eliminates three of
                                             and individual debt relief providers that               debt relief; (2) with respect to debt                   the proposed disclosures that the
                                             had submitted public comments,                          settlement services, the amount of                      Commission has determined are
                                             soliciting additional information in                    money or percentage of each                             unnecessary, and it adds one new
                                             connection with certain issues that                     outstanding debt that the customer must                 disclosure.
                                             arose at the public forum.106 Sixteen                   accumulate before the provider will
                                                                                                     make a bona fide settlement offer; (3) if               A. Section 310.1: Scope
                                               100  These 321 commenters consist of: 35 industry     the debt relief program entails not                        Many commenters raised concerns
                                             representatives, 10 industry trade associations and     making timely payments to creditors, a                  regarding the TSR’s scope as applied to
                                             groups, 26 consumer groups and legal services           warning of the specific consequences                    the debt relief industry, in particular its
                                             offices, six law enforcement organizations, three       thereof; and (4) if the debt relief                     treatment of nonprofits, creditors, and
                                             academics, two labor unions, the Uniform Law
                                             Commission, the Responsible Debt Relief Institute,      provider requests or requires the                       debt collectors.109 First, several
                                             the Better Business Bureau, and 236 individual          customer to place funds in a dedicated                  commenters expressed concern that
                                             consumers. Of these commenters, three sought and        bank account, that the customer owns                    while nonprofit entities are a major part
                                             obtained confidential treatment of data submitted as    the funds held in the account and may                   of the debt relief industry, the Rule does
                                             part of their comments pursuant to FTC Rule 4.9(c),
                                             16 CFR 4.9(c).                                          withdraw from the debt relief service at                not apply to them, thus establishing a
                                                101 See, e.g., TASC (Oct. 26, 2009) at 2; USOBA      any time without penalty, and receive                   potential competitive imbalance. Some
                                             (Oct. 26, 2009) at 3. Two industry commenters           all funds remitted to the account.                      of these commenters requested that the
                                             supported a partial advance fee ban allowing debt          ∑ Prohibits misrepresentations about                 FTC explicitly apply the Rule to
                                             relief providers to receive fees to cover               material aspects of debt relief services,
                                             administrative expenses before providing the
                                                                                                                                                             nonprofits.110 Others argued that the
                                             promised services. CRN (Oct. 2, 2009) at 10-11;         including success rates and a provider’s                TSR is not an appropriate vehicle for
                                             USDR (Oct. 20, 2009) at 2.                              nonprofit status; and                                   regulating the debt relief industry
                                                102 MD (Oct. 26, 2009) at 4.                            ∑ Extends the TSR to cover calls                     because the FTC cannot regulate bona
                                                103 ACCORD (Oct. 9, 2009) at 1; FCS (Oct. 27,
                                                                                                     consumers make to debt relief services                  fide nonprofits through it.111
                                             2009) at 1; CareOne at 1.                               in response to advertisements
                                                104 NAAG (Oct. 23, 2009) at 1; NACCA at 1; CFA
                                                                                                                                                                As stated above, the FTC Act exempts
                                             at 2; SBLS at 1; QLS at 2; AFSA at 3; ABA at 2.
                                                                                                     disseminated through any medium,                        nonprofit entities, and, pursuant to the
                                                                                                     including direct mail or email.
sroberts on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES




                                                105 The public record in this proceeding,
                                                                                                                                                                109 The proposed rule did not modify the scope
                                             including the transcript of the forum, is available
                                             at (http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/rulemaking/tsr/tsr-            107  The Commission’s decision to amend the Rule      of the TSR.
                                             debtrelief/index.shtm) and in Room 130 at the FTC,      is made pursuant to the rulemaking authority               110 SOLS at 3; Orion (Oct. 1, 2009) at 1; CareOne

                                             600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C.           granted by the Telemarketing Act to protect             at 8; TASC (Oct. 26, 2009) at 29.
                                             20580, telephone number: 202-326-2222.                  consumers from deceptive and abusive practices. 15         111 USOBA (Oct. 26, 2009) at 40; MD (Mar. 22,
                                                106 The letters are posted at (http://www.ftc.gov/   U.S.C. 6102(a)(1) and (a)(3).                           2010) at 16 n.9; TASC (Young), Tr. at 229; see also
                                             os/comments/tsrdebtrelief/index.shtm).                     108 See infra Section III.C.5.b.                     USOBA (Ansbach), Tr. at 231-32; ULC at 6.



                                        VerDate Mar<15>2010   16:17 Aug 09, 2010   Jkt 220001   PO 00000     Frm 00009   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10AUR2.SGM   10AUR2
                                             48466              Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

                                             Telemarketing Act, this jurisdictional                    A banking trade group stated that the                       The Commission received several
                                             limit applies to the TSR.112 As a result,                 FTC should clarify that the Rule is not                   comments about the definition of ‘‘debt
                                             the Commission has no discretion to                       intended to apply to the legitimate                       relief service’’ with respect to its
                                             include nonprofits in the Final Rule.113                  outreach and loss mitigation activities of                (1) breadth, (2) limitation to unsecured
                                             Nonprofits, however, must comply with                     creditors and their agents or affiliates.119              debts, (3) product coverage, and
                                             49 state laws and stringent IRS                           Similarly, an association of debt                         (4) application to attorneys.
                                             regulations.114 These regulations                         collectors sought to clarify that the Rule
                                                                                                                                                                 1. Breadth of Definition of Debt Relief
                                             include strict limitations on fee                         would exclude routine communications
                                                                                                                                                                 Service
                                             income.115 Additionally, based on                         between consumers and credit grantors
                                             examination of consumer complaints                        or debt collectors about settling debts,                     Several commenters addressed the
                                             and other research, and in light of the                   restructuring debt terms, waiving fees,                   breadth of the debt relief service
                                             IRS and EOUST programs, it appears                        reducing interest rates, or arranging for                 definition. For example, the National
                                             many of the concerns about deceptive                      other account changes.120                                 Association of Attorneys General
                                             practices, including deceptive claims of                      The TSR only covers the practice of                   (‘‘NAAG’’) supported the proposed
                                             nonprofit status, have been                               ‘‘telemarketing,’’ defined as ‘‘a plan,                   definition, stating that because the debt
                                             addressed.116 Thus, the Commission                        program, or campaign which is                             relief industry is constantly evolving,
                                             does not believe that the TSR’s                           conducted to induce the purchase of                       the definition of ‘‘debt relief’’ should be
                                             exclusion of nonprofits is likely to                      goods or services . . . .’’121 The types of               broad enough to account for future
                                             create an unfair competitive                              debt collection and debt servicing                        developments in the industry.124 NAAG
                                             disadvantage for for-profit debt relief                   activities described by the commenters                    noted that in recent years, the debt
                                             services.117                                              do not fall within this definition                        settlement industry has engaged in
                                                                                                       because they are not intended to induce                   particularly abusive practices, but the
                                               Some commenters raised concerns
                                                                                                       purchases. Therefore, it is unnecessary                   same concerns exist with respect to all
                                             that the proposed rule could be read to
                                                                                                       to explicitly exempt creditors or debt                    forms of debt relief.125 The National
                                             apply to creditors and others collecting
                                                                                                       collectors from compliance with this                      Association of Consumer Credit
                                             on unsecured debts to the extent that
                                                                                                       provision of the Final Rule.122                           Administrators (‘‘NACCA’’) emphasized
                                             they offer concessions to individual
                                                                                                                                                                 that many providers of debt relief
                                             debtors. For example, a financial                         B. Section 310.2: Definitions                             services purchase consumer contact
                                             services industry association expressed                      The Final Rule defines ‘‘debt relief                   information from so-called ‘‘lead
                                             concern that the proposed rule would                      service’’ as ‘‘any service or program                     generators’’ – intermediaries that
                                             potentially cover an affiliate entity                     represented, directly or by implication,                  produce and disseminate
                                             servicing an unsecured loan or credit                     to renegotiate, settle, or in any way alter               advertisements for debt relief services to
                                             card account on behalf of a creditor.118                  the terms of payment or other terms of                    generate ‘‘leads’’ that they then sell to
                                                112 15 U.S.C. 6105(b) (providing that the
                                                                                                       the debt between a person and one or                      actual providers.126 NACCA
                                             jurisdiction of the Commission in enforcing the
                                                                                                       more unsecured creditors or debt                          recommended that lead generators be
                                             Rule is coextensive with its jurisdiction under           collectors, including, but not limited to,                covered by the Rule.127 A coalition of
                                             Section 5 of the FTC Act).                                a reduction in the balance, interest rate,                consumer groups commented that the
                                                113 15 U.S.C. 44 and 45(a)(2) (setting forth certain
                                                                                                       or fees owed by a person to an                            definition should be broad and include
                                             limitations to the Commission’s jurisdiction with         unsecured creditor or debt collector.’’
                                             regard to its authority to prohibit unfair or
                                                                                                                                                                 debt management, debt settlement, and
                                             deceptive acts or practices). Although nonprofit          This definition is virtually unchanged                    debt negotiation,128 noting that some
                                             entities are exempt, telemarketers or sellers that        from the proposed rule.123                                companies provide a range of debt relief
                                             solicit on their behalf are nonetheless covered by                                                                  options.129 A consumer law professor
                                             the TSR. See TSR Amended Rule, 68 FR at 4631.             on loans they own or service for others pursuant to       also advocated a definition that covers
                                             Indeed, several commenters requested that the             bona fide servicing relationships.’’).
                                             Commission carve out an explicit exemption for               119 ABA at 3.
                                                                                                                                                                 credit counseling and debt settlement,
                                             nonprofits. See, e.g., CareOne (Croxson), Tr. at 243.        120 ACA at 6. NACCA also commented that it was
                                                                                                                                                                 asserting that many of the abuses are
                                             The Commission, however, believes it is
                                                                                                       not clear whether the Rule excludes holders of the        common to both types of services.130
                                             unnecessary to state in the Rule what is already                                                                    Moreover, some industry commenters
                                                                                                       debt or entities that are contracted to service the
                                             clear in the Telemarketing Act, and it therefore          debt for the debt holder, and recommended that it
                                             declines to include an express statement in the Rule      exclude such entities. NACCA at 2.
                                             that nonprofits are exempt. See TSR Amended Rule,                                                                   replaces the existing debts rather than altering
                                                                                                          121 16 CFR 310.2(dd).
                                             68 FR at 4586.                                                                                                      them.
                                                                                                          122 See TSR Amended Rule, 68 FR at 4615. In the           124 NAAG (Oct. 23, 2009) at 4.
                                                114 Supra Section I.C.1; GP (McNamara), Tr. at
                                                                                                       event that a creditor or debt collector is engaging          125 Id.
                                             245-46. In addition, 158 nonprofit CCAs, including
                                                                                                       in the sale of a service to assist in altering debts of
                                             the largest entities, have been approved by the                                                                        126 NACCA at 3 (representing 49 state government
                                                                                                       the consumer that it does not itself own or service,
                                             EOUST after rigorous screening.                                                                                     agencies that regulate non-depository consumer
                                                                                                       the entity would be subject to the Rule. More
                                                115 Supra note 33.                                                                                               lending and debt relief companies); see also ULC at
                                                                                                       generally, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
                                                116 The Commission is continuing to monitor this                                                                 7 (‘‘The regulations go further than the UDMSA in
                                                                                                       (‘‘FDCPA’’), 15 U.S.C. 1692, governs the debt
                                             industry, particularly for evidence of a resurgence                                                                 reaching lead generation firms that solicit debtors
                                                                                                       collection practices of third-party collectors;
                                             of sham nonprofits. See CareOne at 4 (‘‘A wave of         creditors collecting on their own debts are not           for debt relief providers but provide no direct
                                             tough state debt management laws and increased            covered by the FDCPA, but are subject to the              consumer services themselves. The ULC whole-
                                             federal oversight over the past several years has         general prohibition of unfair or deceptive acts or        heartedly supports this additional regulation.’’);
                                             helped clean up the debt management side of the           practices in Section 5 of the FTC Act.                    FTC v. Dominant Leads, LLC, No. 1:10-cv-00997
                                             debt relief industry.’’).                                    123 The only difference is the addition of the         (D.D.C. filed June 15, 2010) (alleging that
                                                117 In any event, the government need not                                                                        defendants misrepresented that they were the
                                                                                                       word ‘‘program’’ to the definition to clarify that the
                                             ‘‘regulate all aspects of a problem before it can make                                                              government, or were affiliated with the government,
                                                                                                       term ‘‘service’’ is not intended to be limiting in any
                                             progress on any front.’’ FTC v. Mainstream Mktg.                                                                    on multiple websites, then provided consumers
                                                                                                       way. Thus, regardless of its form, anything sold to
sroberts on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES




                                             Servs., Inc., 358 F.3d 1228, 1238 (10th Cir. 2004)                                                                  toll-free numbers connecting them to third-party
                                                                                                       consumers that consists of a specific group of
                                             (holding that the FTC’s Do Not Call Registry, which                                                                 companies that marketed purported debt relief
                                                                                                       procedures to renegotiate, settle, or in any way alter
                                             applies to commercial calls but not calls made by                                                                   services for a fee).
                                                                                                       the terms of a consumer debt, is covered by the              127 NACCA at 3; see also GP (Oct. 22, 2009) at
                                             charities or politicians, was not unconstitutionally      definition. The definition is not intended, however,
                                             underinclusive under the First Amendment).                to cover services or products that offer to refinance     2.
                                                118 AFSA at 7; see also FSR at 1-2 (the rule should                                                                 128 CFA at 7-8.
                                                                                                       existing loans with a new loan as a way of
                                                                                                                                                                    129 Id. at 7.
                                             clarify that the proposal does not include ‘‘the          eliminating the original debts, as such a process
                                             legitimate activities of servicers seeking collection     would result in a new extension of credit that               130 Greenfield at 1.




                                        VerDate Mar<15>2010   16:17 Aug 09, 2010   Jkt 220001   PO 00000    Frm 00010    Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10AUR2.SGM      10AUR2
                                                               Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations                                                    48467

                                             supported a broad definition that                       The definition in the Final Rule covers                 goods containing information or advice,
                                             includes debt management plans and                      all types of unsecured debts, including                 are common. This limitation, however,
                                             debt settlement arrangements.131 On the                 credit card, medical, and tax debts.                    should not be used to circumvent the
                                             other hand, a nonprofit credit                          There is no evidence in the record of                   rule by calling a service – in which the
                                             counseling agency stated that CCAs and                  deceptive or abusive practices in the                   provider undertakes certain actions to
                                             debt management plans should be                         promotion of services for the relief of                 provide assistance to the purchaser – a
                                             excluded entirely from the debt relief                  non-mortgage secured debt.136 The                       ‘‘product.’’ Nor can a provider evade the
                                             services definition because they provide                Commission notes that it is addressing                  rule by including a ‘‘product,’’ such as
                                             consumers with financial education.132                  the practices of entities that purport to               educational material on how to manage
                                                After considering the comments, and                  negotiate changes to the terms of
                                                                                                                                                             debt, as part of the service it offers. The
                                             other than the addition of the word                     mortgage loans or avert foreclosure in a
                                                                                                                                                             Commission further notes that deceptive
                                             ‘‘program,’’ as noted in footnote 123, the              separate rulemaking proceeding.137
                                                                                                     Commenters generally agreed that                        or abusive practices in the telemarketing
                                             Commission has determined not to
                                                                                                     concerns regarding mortgage relief                      of products already are prohibited by
                                             change the proposed rule’s definition of
                                                                                                     services are appropriately addressed in                 the TSR and/or the FTC Act. Therefore,
                                             ‘‘debt relief service.’’ The Commission
                                             believes that this definition                           a separate rulemaking.138                               the Final Rule does not add the term
                                             appropriately covers all current and                                                                            ‘‘product’’ to the definition of ‘‘debt relief
                                                                                                     3. Coverage of Products                                 services.’’
                                             reasonably foreseeable forms of debt
                                             relief services, including debt                            Some commenters recommended that
                                                                                                     the Commission add the term                             4. Coverage of Attorneys
                                             settlement, debt negotiation, and debt
                                             management, as well as lead generators                  ‘‘products’’ to the term ‘‘debt relief                     A number of commenters expressed
                                             for these services.133 This definition is               services’’ to ensure that providers cannot              views as to whether the Rule should
                                             consistent with the goal of ensuring that               evade the Rule by selling books, CDs, or                cover attorneys who provide debt relief
                                             consumers are protected regardless of                   other tangible materials promising debt
                                                                                                                                                             services. Several commenters argued
                                             how a debt relief service is structured or              relief, or by including such products as
                                                                                                                                                             that attorneys generally should be
                                             denominated. The Commission does not                    part of the service.139 Another
                                                                                                     commenter disagreed, stating that                       covered by the Rule when they are
                                             believe there is sufficient basis for                                                                           providing covered services.141 One
                                             excluding CCAs and debt management                      products should be excluded from the
                                                                                                     definition. This commenter noted that a                 commenter stated that exempting
                                             plans from the definition. Indeed, the                                                                          attorneys would create a major loophole
                                                                                                     consumer who purchases a product
                                             record shows that some for-profit CCAs                                                                          for providers engaged in deception or
                                                                                                     (e.g., a book) intended to help relieve
                                             have engaged in the types of deceptive                                                                          abuse.142 A second commenter agreed
                                                                                                     debt is himself responsible for taking
                                             or abusive practices that the Rule is                                                                           that an exemption would make it easy
                                                                                                     the steps stated therein; in contrast, an
                                             designed to curtail.                                                                                            for debt relief companies to ally
                                                                                                     individual who purchases a service is
                                             2. Limitation to Unsecured Debts                        paying the seller to provide that                       themselves with lawyers to escape the
                                                Several comments related to the                      service.140                                             Rule.143 By contrast, two commenters
                                             definition’s limitation to unsecured                       The Commission declines to modify                    argued that attorneys should be exempt
                                             debt. A creditor trade association                      the Rule to include products in the                     from the Rule because state bars
                                             expressed concern that the Rule would                   definition of debt relief services. The                 separately license them, and the bars’
                                             not cover relationships with most                       Rule is targeted at practices that take                 ethics rules and complaint systems
                                             installment lenders, title lenders, auto                place in the provision of services, and
                                             finance lenders, secured card issuers, or               the record does not indicate that                          141 TASC (Oct. 26, 2009) at 13 (‘‘Consumers

                                             residential mortgage lenders, all of                    deceptive or abusive practices in the                   should be entitled to the same protections whether
                                             which typically provide secured                         sale of products, such as books or other                or not their provider is an attorney.’’); ACCORD
                                                                                                                                                             (Noonan), Tr. at 236-37 (recommending an
                                             credit.134 By contrast, a representative of                136 To the extent any entity markets debt relief     exception for attorneys who attempt to settle debts
                                             an association of state legislators agreed              related to automobile title loans or other secured      as a de minimis, incidental part of their primary
                                             with the limitation to unsecured debts                  debts, Section 5 of the FTC Act covers such             businesses); see also CFA (Grant), Tr. at 240.
                                                                                                                                                                142 MN LA (Elwood), Tr. at 233. Another
                                             because secured debts are governed by                   marketing.
                                                                                                        137 Mortgage Assistance Relief Services Notice of    commenter noted that the Commission has played
                                             the Uniform Commercial Code, which                                                                              an active role in policing unfair and deceptive
                                                                                                     Proposed Rulemaking, 75 FR 10707 (Mar. 9, 2010).
                                             may conflict with some elements of the                  This rulemaking addresses the industry of for-profit    practices by attorneys in other industries, such as
                                             Rule.135                                                companies purporting to obtain mortgage loan            credit repair and debt collection. ACCORD
                                                The Commission has determined to                     modifications or other relief for consumers facing      (Noonan), Tr. at 237.
                                                                                                                                                                143 FDR (Linderman), Tr. at 234; see also TASC
                                             keep the proposed rule’s limitation of                  foreclosure. Under the proposed rule in that
                                                                                                     proceeding, companies could not receive payment         (Young), Tr. at 238; FTC v. Nat’l Consumer Council,
                                             debt relief services to unsecured debt.                 until they have obtained for the consumer a             No. SACV04-0474 CJC(JWJX) (C.D. Cal. June 10,
                                                                                                     documented offer from a mortgage lender or              2004) (Supplement to Report of Temporary
                                               131  CareOne at 3; USDR (Oct. 20, 2009) at 12.        servicer that comports with the promises they have      Receiver’s Activities, First Report to the Court at 2)
                                               132  CCCS CNY at 1.                                   made.                                                   (defendant would assign certain debt settlement
                                                133 Depending on the facts, lead generators for         138 FCS (Oct. 27, 2009) at 3; FDR (Linderman), Tr.   contracts with consumers to a law firm because of
                                             debt relief services may be covered under the TSR’s     at 115.                                                 certain state qualification restrictions). The FTC has
                                             primary provisions or its assisting and facilitating       139 CFA at 7; ULC (Kerr), Tr. at 258; AFSA           filed a number of lawsuits against mortgage
                                             provision. See 16 CFR 310.3(b).                         (Sheeran), Tr. at 259-60; FDR (Linderman), Tr. at       assistance relief service providers, in an analogous
                                                134 AFSA at 7 (‘‘There does not appear to be a       256 (for products that are sold with a guarantee).      context, that affiliated themselves with attorneys in
                                             reason in the Rule for limiting debt repair services       140 Centricity (Manganiello), Tr. at 239; see also   order to come within attorney exemptions in state
sroberts on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES




                                             to relationships only with unsecured creditors.’’).     MP at 3 (stating that expanding the definition to       statutes. In those cases, the Commission has named
                                                135 ULC (Kerr), Tr. at 252. In addition, the         products is ‘‘completely unnecessary,’’ as ‘‘the FTC    both the providers and the attorneys themselves as
                                             evidence in the record suggests that debt relief        already has adequate authority to deal with             defendants. See, e.g., FTC v. US Foreclosure Relief
                                             services generally do not seek to alter secured debts   deceptive marketing of such products.’’ The             Corp., No. SACV09-768 JVS (MGX) (C.D. Cal. filed
                                             such as installment loans and title loans. NACCA        commenter also stated that ‘‘where the true             July 7, 2009) ; FTC v. LucasLawCenter ‘‘Inc.,’’ No.
                                             (Keiser), Tr. at 250; see also USDR (Oct. 20, 2009)     intention of the product offering is to ‘up-sell’       09-CV-770 (C.D. Cal. filed July 7, 2009); FTC v. Fed.
                                             at 12 (supporting the definition’s limitation to        consumers to a full-service debt program, then the      Loan Modification Law Ctr., LLP, No. SACV09-401
                                             unsecured debts).                                       proposed rule-change would already govern.’’).          CJC (MLGx) (C.D. Cal. filed Apr. 3, 2009).



                                        VerDate Mar<15>2010   16:17 Aug 09, 2010   Jkt 220001   PO 00000   Frm 00011   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10AUR2.SGM    10AUR2
                                             48468             Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

                                             govern their behavior.144 A different                    that even in transactions falling within                  and engage in other activity that would
                                             commenter, however, questioned                           the face-to-face exemption,                               run afoul of other state bar rules.153
                                             whether state bar rules are effective in                 telemarketers must abide by certain                          Fourth, it is important to retain Rule
                                             deterring unfair and deceptive                           restrictions in the Rule.149                              coverage for attorneys, and those
                                             practices.145                                               Third, the Commission believes that                    partnering with attorneys, who
                                                The existing TSR currently covers                     attorneys acting in compliance with                       principally rely on telemarketing to
                                             attorneys who engage in                                  state bar rules and providing bona fide                   obtain debt relief service clients,
                                             telemarketing.146 Based on the record in                 legal services already fall outside of the                because they have engaged in the same
                                             this proceeding, the Commission has                                                                                types of deceptive and abusive practices
                                                                                                      TSR’s coverage in most instances. For
                                             concluded that an exemption from the
                                                                                                      example, state bar rules typically                        as those committed by non-attorneys
                                             amended rule for attorneys engaged in
                                                                                                      prohibit attorneys from making                            and that are proscribed by the Rule. For
                                             the telemarketing of debt relief services
                                                                                                      outbound telemarketing calls to                           example, attorneys have been sued in
                                             is not warranted. The Commission
                                             believes that the final amended Rule                     prospective clients.150 State bar rules                   numerous law enforcement actions
                                             strikes the appropriate balance between                  also restrict another practice common to                  alleging deceptive practices in violation
                                             permitting attorneys to provide bona                     telemarketers – the provision of services                 of the TSR.154 In some cases, law
                                             fide legal services and curbing deceptive                to consumers in multiple states or                        enforcement authorities have alleged
                                             and abusive practices engaged in by                      nationwide.151 State bar rules also                       that a law firm served as a referral
                                             some attorneys in this industry. Several                 require an attorney to provide basic,                     service for a non-attorney third party,
                                             factors support this conclusion.                         competent legal services and to charge                    and many consumers selected the
                                                First, as a threshold matter, the TSR                 a reasonable fee.152 Accordingly,                         company believing they would be
                                             applies only to persons, regardless of                   attorneys who limit their contact with                    represented by a law firm.155 Some
                                             their professional affiliation, who                      clients to telemarketing calls and then                   public comments also detailed
                                             engage in ‘‘telemarketing’’ – i.e., ‘‘a plan,            charge hundreds or thousands of dollars                   deception and abuse by attorneys.156
                                             program, or campaign which is                            for those services may also violate these                 State bar rules, while important and
                                             conducted to induce the purchase of                      rules. Finally, based on the
                                             goods or services’’ and that involves                    Commission’s experience, telemarketers                       153 Id. Model Rules of Prof. Conduct 5.4, 7.2(b)

                                             interstate telephone calls.147 In general,               frequently split fees, pay for referrals,                 . Cf. Supreme Court of New Jersey Adv. Comm.
                                                                                                                                                                Professional Ethics & Comm. on Unauthorized
                                             attorneys who provide bona fide legal                                                                              Practice of Law, Lawyers Performing Loan or
                                             services do not utilize a plan, program,                 and, in any event, likely would meet with their           Mortgage Modification Services for Homeowners,
                                             or campaign of interstate telephonic                     clients face-to-face.                                     197 N.J.L.J. 59 (June 26, 2009) (noting that attorneys
                                                                                                         149 See 16 CFR 310.6(b)(3). Sellers engaged in         are being approached by mortgage loan
                                             communications in order to solicit
                                                                                                      telemarketing that qualify for the face-to-face           modification entities and asked to enter
                                             potential clients to purchase debt relief                exemption must not fail to comply with the                impermissible fee sharing agreements).
                                             services. Thus, an attorney who makes                    National Do Not Call Registry provisions; call               154 See, e.g., FTC v. Express Consolidation, No.

                                             telephone calls to clients on an                         outside permissible calling hours; abandon calls;         06-cv-61851-WJZ (S.D. Fla. Am. Compl. filed Mar.
                                             individual basis to provide assistance                   fail to transmit Caller ID information; threaten or       21, 2007) (a Florida attorney, his debt management
                                                                                                      intimidate a consumer or use obscene language; or         services company, and a telemarketer charged with
                                             and legal advice generally would not be                  cause any telephone to ring or engage a person in         using abusive telemarketing and deception to sell
                                             engaged in ‘‘telemarketing.’’                            conversation with the intent to annoy, abuse, or          debt management services to consumers
                                                Second, even if an attorney is engaged                harass the person called. Id.                             nationwide); Florida v. Hess, No. 08007686 (17th
                                                                                                         150 See, e.g., Model Rules of Prof. Conduct 7.3(a);    Jud. Cir., Broward Cty. 2008) ; Alabama v. Allegro
                                             in telemarketing as defined in the TSR,
                                                                                                      Cal. Rules of Prof. Conduct 1-400; Florida Rules of       Law LLC, No. 2:2009cv00729 (M.D. Ala. 2009) ;
                                             it is common for the attorney to meet                    Prof. Conduct 4-7.4(a).                                   North Carolina v. Hess Kennedy Chartered, LLC,
                                             with prospective clients in person                          151 See, e.g., Model Rules of Prof. Conduct 5.5        No. 08CV002310, (N.C. Super. Ct., Wake Cty. 2008);
                                             before agreeing to represent them. These                 (prohibiting attorneys from providing legal services      California Dep’t of Corps. v. Express Consolidation,
                                             attorneys would not be covered by the                    to consumers outside of the state in which he or she      Inc., No. 943-0122 (2008) ; In re The Consumer
                                                                                                      is licensed).                                             Protection Law Ctr. (California Dep’t of Corps.
                                             TSR under the Rule’s exemption for                          152 See, e.g., Model Rules of Prof. Conduct 1.1,       Amended Desist and Refrain Order filed Jan. 9,
                                             transactions where payment is not                        1.3, & 1.5. For example, some state bars recently         2009); (WV) State ex rel. McGraw v. Hess Kennedy
                                             required until after a face-to-face                      suggested that attorneys who refuse to meet in            Chartered LLC, No. 07-MISC-454 (Cir. Ct., Kanawha
                                             meeting.148 It should be noted, however,                 person with prospective clients may be violating          Cty. 2007); see also, e.g., Alabama State Bar, The
                                                                                                      some of these basic requirements. See Press Release,      Alabama Lawyer, 71 Ala. Law. 90, 91 (Jan. 2010)
                                                                                                      CA Bar, State Bar Takes Action to Aid Homeowners          (noting suspension of attorney purporting to
                                                144 USOBA (Ansbach), Tr. at 231; USOBA (Oct.
                                                                                                      in Foreclosure Crisis (Sept. 18, 2009) (‘‘The State Bar   provide debt settlement services to over 15,000
                                             26, 2009) at 42; MD (Oct. 26, 2009) at 28, 38, 57-                                                                 consumers nationwide); Press Release, Maryland
                                                                                                      suggests that consumers be wary of attorneys
                                             58.                                                                                                                Attorney General, Richard A. Brennan Jailed for
                                                145 MN LA (Elwood), Tr. at 232-33.
                                                                                                      offering loan modification services . . . [who are] too
                                                                                                      busy or not willing to meet personally with               Contempt: Brennan Ordered to Pay More Than $2.5
                                                146 In fact, the only exemption for attorneys found                                                             Million in Restitution (July 31, 2009), available at
                                                                                                      prospective clients.’’), available at (http://
                                             in the TSR is a very limited one that permits            www.calbar.ca.gov/state/calbar/                           (http://www.oag.state.md.us/Press/2009/
                                             attorneys who help consumers recover funds lost as       calbar_generic.jsp?cid=10144&n=96395); Helen              073109.htm).
                                             a result of telemarketing fraud to collect an upfront    Hierschbiels, Working with Loan Modification                 155 Press Release, Alabama Attorney General,
                                             fee. See 16 CFR 310.4(a)(3); TSR Final Rule, 60 FR       Agencies, Oregon State Bar Bulletin, Aug./Sept.           A.G. King and Securities Commission Sue Prattville
                                             at 43854 (‘‘[T]he Commission does not wish to            2009 (attorneys who join companies that ‘‘do not          Companies Operating Alleged National Debt
                                             hinder legitimate activities by licensed attorneys to    contemplate the lawyer ever meeting or speaking           Settlement Scheme, available at (http://
                                             recover funds lost by consumers through deceptive        with the client . . . risk violating the duties of        www.ago.state.al.us/
                                             telemarketing.’’).                                       competence, diligence and communication’’).               news_template.cfm?Newsfile=http://
                                                147 16 CFR 310.2(cc).                                                                                           www.ago.alabama.gov/news/07102009.htm).
                                                                                                      Additionally, the Ohio Supreme Court has
                                                148 See 16 CFR 310.6(b)(3). The Commission            sanctioned attorneys hired by a foreclosure ‘‘rescue’’       156 For instance, a legal services lawyer identified
sroberts on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES




                                             considered whether it should explicitly exempt           company for, inter alia, failing to engage in             six consumers who were harmed by law firms
                                             attorneys representing clients in bankruptcy             adequate preparation and failing to properly pursue       offering debt relief services or partnering with
                                             proceedings from the Rule’s coverage, as attorneys       clients’ individual objectives. In so doing, it noted     companies that offered the services. SBLS at 2-4;
                                             in such proceedings generally advise their clients       that the attorneys relegated responsibility for           see also TASC (Young), Tr. at 229. A consumer
                                             about handling their debt. The Commission                meeting with clients to non-attorneys at the              advocate noted that public websites contain
                                             determined that such an exemption was                    company and ‘‘did not as a rule meet with [the            numerous complaints about law firms engaging in
                                             unnecessary, because bankruptcy attorneys                company’s] clients.’’ See Cincinnati Bar Ass’n v.         unfair or deceptive debt relief practices. CFA
                                             typically would not be involved in ‘‘telemarketing,’’    Mullaney, 894 N.E. 2d 1210 (Ohio 2008).                   (Grant), Tr. at 241.



                                        VerDate Mar<15>2010   16:17 Aug 09, 2010   Jkt 220001   PO 00000   Frm 00012    Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10AUR2.SGM      10AUR2
                                                               Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations                                                   48469

                                             effective when enforced, have not                       otherwise altered. The Final Rule                       analysis, and (4) describes the operation
                                             eliminated these practices.                             includes an advance fee ban, but in a                   of this provision of the Final Rule.
                                                Finally, the Commission’s                            form modified from the proposed rule.
                                                                                                                                                             1. Comments Supporting the Proposed
                                             determination not to extend a special                   In short, the Final Rule sets forth three               Ban on Advance Fees
                                             exemption to attorneys is consistent                    conditions before a debt relief provider
                                             with the existing scope of the TSR and                  may collect a fee for resolving a                         Numerous commenters supported the
                                             several other statutes and FTC rules                    particular debt: (1) the consumer must                  proposed ban on advance fees.163 In
                                             designed to curb deception, abuse, and                  execute a debt relief agreement with the                supporting the advance fee ban, NAAG,
                                             fraud. For example, the Credit Repair                   creditor or debt collector; (2) the                     representing over forty state attorneys
                                             Organizations Act (‘‘CROA’’) contains no                consumer must make at least one                         general, cited its law enforcement
                                             exemption for attorneys.157 The fact that               payment pursuant to that agreement;                     experience in this area. Over the past
                                             the CROA and TSR cover attorneys                        and (3) the fee must be proportional, i.e.,             decade, 29 states have brought at least
                                             reflects the reality that the number of                 the same fraction of the total fee as the               236 enforcement actions against debt
                                             attorneys who have engaged in unfair,                   size of the debt resolved is of the total               relief companies, at least 127 of which
                                             deceptive, and abusive acts that fall                   debt enrolled, or, alternatively, the fee               targeted debt settlement providers.164
                                             within the Commission’s law                             collected must be based on a percentage                 Typical allegations in these cases
                                             enforcement authority is not de                         of savings that the debt relief company                 targeted deceptive television and radio
                                             minimis.158                                             achieves for the consumer. In addition,                 advertising, deceptive telemarketing
                                                In light of the above factors, the                   the Final Rule allows the provider to                   pitches, and failure to provide promised
                                             Commission concludes that attorneys                     require consumers to place funds in a                   services. In 2009, the New York and
                                             who choose to offer debt relief services                dedicated bank account for fees and                     Florida Attorneys General announced
                                             using telemarketing should be treated                   payments to their creditor(s) or debt                   investigations of 19 debt settlement
                                             no differently under the TSR than non-                  collector(s) in advance of securing the                 companies, which are still pending.165
                                             attorneys who do the same.                                                                                        NAAG further stated that prohibiting
                                                                                                     debt relief, provided certain conditions
                                             C. Section 310.4: Abusive Telemarketing                 are met.160                                             the collection of advance fees would
                                             Acts or Practices - Advance Fee Ban                        The Commission concludes that the                    provide regulators and enforcement
                                                                                                                                                             authorities a bright line method to
                                               As noted earlier, the existing TSR                    collection of advance fees in
                                                                                                                                                             identify entities that merit immediate
                                             bans the abusive practice of collecting                 transactions that frequently are
                                                                                                                                                             investigation and prosecution.166 NAAG
                                             advance fees for three other services –                 characterized by deception is an abusive
                                                                                                                                                             further asserted that debt relief
                                             credit repair services, recovery services,              practice. In reaching this conclusion,
                                                                                                                                                             providers currently have minimal
                                             and offers of a loan or other extension                 the Commission has applied the
                                                                                                                                                             incentives to perform promised services
                                             of credit, the granting of which is                     unfairness analysis set forth in Section
                                                                                                                                                             because they collect substantial advance
                                             represented as ‘‘guaranteed’’ or having a               5(n) of the FTC Act,161 finding that this               fees whether or not they negotiate debt
                                             high likelihood of success.159 Section                  practice: (1) causes or is likely to cause              reductions for the consumer.167 NACCA
                                             310.4(a)(5) of the proposed rule would                  substantial injury to consumers that                    also filed a comment supporting the
                                             have prohibited as ‘‘abusive’’ the request              (2) is not outweighed by countervailing                 advance fee ban.168
                                             or receipt by a debt relief provider of                 benefits to consumers or competition
                                             payment of any fee from a consumer                      and (3) is not reasonably avoidable.162                   The Colorado Attorney General filed a
                                             until the provider obtained a valid                                                                             supplemental comment supporting the
                                                                                                     The Commission’s decision to adopt the
                                             settlement contract or agreement                                                                                Commission’s advance fee ban. It cited
                                                                                                     advance fee ban is based on its review
                                             showing that the particular debt had                                                                            data supplied by debt relief providers
                                                                                                     of the entire record in this proceeding,
                                             been renegotiated, settled, reduced, or                                                                         showing that only 7.81% of Colorado
                                                                                                     including the public comments, the
                                                                                                                                                             consumers who had entered a debt
                                                                                                     forum and workshop records, consumer
                                               157  15 U.S.C. 1679-1679j.                                                                                    settlement program since the beginning
                                                                                                     complaints, recent testimony on debt                    of 2006 had completed their programs
                                               158  See, e.g., FTC v. Credit Restoration Brokers,
                                             LLC, No. 2:10-cv-0030-CEH-SPC (M.D. Fla. filed Jan.     settlement before Congress, and the law
                                             19, 2010) (alleging, inter alia, violations of CROA     enforcement experience of the                              163 As explained below, the advance fee ban in
                                             by attorney engaged in credit repair); FTC v. US        Commission and state enforcers. In this                 the Final Rule differs from that in the proposed rule
                                             Foreclosure Relief Corp., No. SACV09-768 JVS            section, the Commission: (1) reviews                    in certain respects. The discussion of the
                                             (MGX) (C.D. Cal. filed July 7, 2009)(alleging
                                                                                                     comments supporting the advance fee                     commenters’ views refers to the proposed version.
                                             violations of FTC Act and TSR against attorney                                                                     164 NAAG (Oct. 23, 2009) at 1-2 & NAAG (July
                                             purporting to provide mortgage assistance relief        ban, (2) reviews comments opposing the
                                             services); FTC v. Rawlins & Rivera, Inc., No. 07-146                                                            6, 2010), supplemented by Commission staff
                                                                                                     advance fee ban, (3) sets forth its legal               research; see State Case List, supra note 27. Of the
                                             (M.D. Fla. filed Jan. 31, 2007) (alleging violations
                                             of the FDCPA against attorney); U.S. v.                                                                         127 state debt settlement cases, 84 were brought by
                                             Entrepreneurial Strategies, Ltd., No. 2:06-CV-15          160  See infra Section III.C.5.c.                     state attorneys general and 43 by state regulatory
                                             (WCO)(N.D. Ga. filed Jan. 24, 2006) (alleging             161  The Telemarketing Act authorizes the             agencies. In addition, state attorneys general have
                                             violations of TSR against attorney assisting debt       Commission to promulgate Rules ‘‘prohibiting            brought 21 cases against credit counseling
                                             relief entity); FTC v. Express Consolidation, No. 06-   deceptive telemarketing acts or practices and other     companies and 14 cases against debt negotiation
                                             cv-61851-WJZ (S.D. Fla. Am. Compl. filed Mar. 21,       abusive telemarketing acts or practices.’’ 15 U.S.C.    companies. States have also brought 64 actions
                                             2007) (alleging violations of the FTC Act and TSR       6102(a)(1) (emphasis added). In determining             against debt relief companies for failure to file
                                             against attorney engaged in debt relief); U.S. v.       whether a practice is ‘‘abusive,’’ the Commission has   requisite state registrations or obtain proper
                                             Schrold, No. 98-6212-CIV-ZLOCH (S.D. Fla. filed         used the Section 5(n) unfairness standard. See TSR      licenses.
                                                                                                                                                                165 See State Case List, supra note 27, for names
                                             Mar. 3, 1998) (alleging violations of the FTC Act       Amended Rule, 68 FR at 4614.
                                             and CROA against attorney credit repair provider);         162 See 15 U.S.C. 45(n) (codifying the               of companies under investigation by New York and
sroberts on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES




                                             FTC v. Capital City Mortgage Corp., No. 98-237          Commission’s unfairness analysis, set forth in a        Florida.
                                                                                                                                                                166 NAAG (Oct. 23, 2009) at 10; NAAG (July 6,
                                             (JHG) (D.D.C. Sec. Am. Compl. filed Mar. 19, 2003)      letter from the FTC to Hon. Wendell Ford and Hon.
                                             (alleging FDCPA violations against attorney); FTC v.    John Danforth, Committee on Commerce, Science           2010) at 1 (‘‘A prohibition on advance fees for debt
                                             Watson, No. 98-C-1218 (N.D. Ill. filed Feb. 26, 1998)   and Transportation, United States Senate,               settlement services is the most essential element of
                                             (alleging violations of CROA and FTC Act against        Commission Statement of Policy on the Scope of          the proposed Rule.’’).
                                             attorney); FTC v. Gill, No. 98-1436 LGB (Mcx) (C.D.                                                                167 NAAG (Oct. 23, 2009)at 9.
                                                                                                     Consumer Unfairness Jurisdiction, reprinted in In re
                                             Cal. filed Mar. 2, 1998) (same).                        Int’l Harvester Co., 104 F.T.C. 949, 1079, 1074 n.3        168 NACCA at 2 (providing general statement of
                                                159 16 CFR 310.4(a)(4).                              (1984)) (‘‘Unfairness Policy Statement’’).              support without elaboration).



                                        VerDate Mar<15>2010   16:17 Aug 09, 2010   Jkt 220001   PO 00000     Frm 00013   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10AUR2.SGM   10AUR2
                                             48470              Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

                                             by the end of 2008.169 At the end of that                  One group stated that its members often                 of an advance fee ban,186 noting that the
                                             period of less than three years, 39% of                    get one or two letters from a debt                      predominant business model of the debt
                                             the consumers were still active, while                     settlement service provider, but then                   settlement industry has been based on
                                             53% had dropped out of the program.170                     stop hearing from the provider entirely,                significant upfront fees that make it
                                             Thus, over half of enrolled consumers                      even when the creditor requests a                       difficult for consumers to amass funds
                                             had dropped out in less than three                         response.179                                            for a settlement, while forcing them to
                                             years.                                                        Some debt relief industry commenters                 endure extensive creditor collection
                                               A coalition of 19 consumer advocacy                      also supported the proposed rule’s                      efforts.187 CareOne posited that it would
                                             groups filed a comment stating that an                     advance fee ban. One debt settlement                    be economically feasible for it to
                                             advance fee ban is ‘‘essential’’ to protect                company (CRN) credits its success in                    provide effective debt settlement
                                             consumers who pay fees in advance but                      obtaining settlements to its practice of                services even with an advance fee
                                             receive few, if any services.171                           not charging fees until the service is                  ban.188
                                             According to this comment, debt                            performed and the creditor is paid.180                     Two associations of nonprofit credit
                                             settlement firms often mislead                             Another debt settlement company (FCS)                   counselors, NFCC and AICCCA,
                                             consumers about the likelihood of a                        stated that it has been implementing a                  supported the advance fee ban.189
                                             settlement and the consequences of the                     debt settlement program that does not                   AICCCA stated that its member CCAs
                                             settlement process on debt collection                      require any advance fees.181 A small                    saw the victims of debt settlement
                                             activities and the consumer’s                              trade association, ACCORD, of which                     scams on a regular basis,190 and asserted
                                             creditworthiness. The coalition asserted                   FCS is a member, also supported the                     that an advance fee ban would both
                                             that having to pay advance fees prevents                   advance fee ban.182 It stated that a ban                protect consumers from paying for
                                             consumers from saving enough money                         on advance fees and a requirement that                  promised benefits that may prove
                                             to fund settlement offers satisfactory to                  fees be based on the savings achieved                   entirely illusory, and force debt
                                             creditors or debt collectors.172                           would protect consumers from debt                       settlement providers to deliver on their
                                               Three legal services offices also                        settlement programs that leave them in                  promises if they wish to be
                                             submitted comments supporting the                          worse financial shape than when they                    compensated. Other commenters opined
                                             advance fee ban.173 The comment by                         started.183                                             that an advance fee ban would motivate
                                             SBLS highlighted eight consumers                              A third debt settlement company                      providers to engage in a more robust
                                             whose financial situations had                             (USDR) commented that, if an advance                    qualification process to ensure that the
                                             deteriorated as a result of entering debt                  fee ban were imposed, consumers                         program is suitable for the consumer.191
                                             settlement programs; each of them paid                     would be able to evaluate debt relief
                                             over $1,000 in fees to debt settlement                     companies more easily, and poorly                       2. Comments Opposing the Proposed
                                             companies while receiving virtually no                     performing companies would need to                      Ban on Advance Fees for Debt Relief
                                             benefits.174 QLS commented that                            improve their service levels in order to                Services
                                             consumers who leave debt settlement                        get paid.184 Moreover, consumers would                    Numerous commenters – in particular,
                                             programs after several months typically                    be able to change providers if they were                members of the debt settlement
                                             have accumulated little, if any, money                     dissatisfied with a company’s services                  industry – opposed the advance fee
                                             to fund settlements because of the large                   without forfeiting the large sums they                  ban.192 The overall theme of most of
                                             upfront fees they were required to                         had paid in fees, thus increasing                       these comments can be summarized as
                                             pay.175 QLS recounted the experience of                    competition in the debt relief market.185               follows: many enrollees in debt
                                             a husband and wife who paid $3,200 in                         For-profit debt relief company                       settlement programs (including some
                                             fees to a debt settlement provider, only                   CareOne Services also supported a form                  who drop out before completing the
                                             to be sued by a creditor within five
                                             months. The provider refused to refund                        179 AFSA at 9. The second group claimed that an         186 CareOne at 4-5. CareOne has traditionally
                                             the fees, even though it had not settled                   average of 63% of identified accounts enrolled in       provided consumers with credit counseling and
                                             any of the couple’s debts.176                              debt settlement programs are charged off, as            DMP services. In 2009, CareOne began a pilot debt
                                               A law professor commented in                             compared to only 16% of accounts placed by a            settlement program designed for consumers who do
                                             support of the advance fee ban, stating                    credit counseling agency into a debt management         not qualify for a DMP and who are not candidates
                                                                                                        plan. ABA at 4. Charged off debt is the term used       for bankruptcy. Id. at 2.
                                             that debt settlement companies should                      to describe debt that is written off as a                  187 Id. at 4.
                                             not be allowed to collect and retain a fee                 nonperforming asset by a creditor because of severe        188 Id. at 5.
                                             before any beneficial service is                           delinquency, typically after 180 days. If a creditor       189 NFCC at 1, 12; AICCCA at 6. AICCCA

                                             provided.177 Two creditor trade groups                     charges off the debt or sends it to a collection        supported the ban on the condition that the Final
                                                                                                        agency, it ‘‘will likely have a severe negative         Rule explicitly exempt nonprofit debt relief
                                             also supported the advance fee ban.178                     impact’’ on a consumer’s credit score. See Fair Isaac   providers. AICCCA at 6.
                                                                                                        Corp., Credit Q&A, What are the different categories       190 AICCCA at 2. Other CCAs stated that they, too,
                                               169 CO AG at 5. These consumers executed a total         of late payments and how does your FICO score
                                                                                                                                                                regularly counsel consumers who paid debt
                                             of 1,357 consumer agreements with about 13                 consider late payments?, available at (http://
                                                                                                                                                                settlement companies but never received the
                                             companies.                                                 www.myfico.com/CreditEducation/Questions/Late-
                                                                                                                                                                promised services. FECA (Oct. 26, 2009) at 4; GP
                                               170 Id. at 5.                                            Credit-Payments.aspx).
                                                                                                           180 CRN (Oct. 8, 2009) at 1. CRN recommended
                                                                                                                                                                (Oct. 22, 2009) at 1.
                                               171 CFA at 8; see also NC AG Testimony, supra
                                                                                                                                                                   191 CRN (Oct. 8, 2009) at 4; WV AG (Googel), Tr.
                                             note 25, at 5 (‘‘the advance fee ban . . . is the key to   allowing a nominal monthly service fee. Id. at 10-
                                                                                                                                                                at 222; ACCORD (Noonan), Tr. at 275-76.
                                             preventing fraud and ensuring that debt settlement         11.                                                        192 Twenty companies, five trade associations,
                                             services will be performed.’’).                               181 FCS (Oct. 27, 2009) at 2.
                                               172 CFA at 4-5.                                             182 ACCORD (Oct. 9, 2009) at 1. Another debt
                                                                                                                                                                two employees of debt settlement companies, three
                                               173 QLS at 2-3; SBLS at 8; SOLS at 2. In addition,
                                                                                                                                                                other entities, and over 190 consumers filed
                                                                                                        settlement industry association asserted that           comments opposing the proposed advance fee ban.
                                             two additional legal services offices, Mid-Minnesota       ACCORD only has one member. USOBA (Oct. 26,             Of these commenters, two industry members
sroberts on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES




                                             Legal Assistance and Jacksonville Area Legal Aid,          2009) at 48. As of July 2010, the ACCORD website        supported a partial ban that would allow debt relief
                                             were part of the coalition of consumer groups              lists six members. See (http://www.accordusa.org/       providers to receive fees to cover administrative
                                             discussed above.                                           members-area.html).
                                               174 SBLS at 2-4.
                                                                                                                                                                expenses in advance of delivering settlements. CRN
                                                                                                           183 ACCORD (Oct. 9, 2009) at 2.
                                               175 QLS at 3.
                                                                                                                                                                (Oct. 2, 2009) at 10-11; USDR (Oct. 20, 2009) at 2;
                                                                                                           184 USDR (Oct. 20, 2009) at 2, 12. USDR
                                                                                                                                                                see also CSA at 14 (‘‘if the FTC chooses to regulate
                                               176 Id.
                                                                                                        encouraged the FTC to allow an initial set-up fee       the fees charged for debt settlement services,’’ it
                                               177 Greenfield at 1-2.                                   and monthly fees consistent with the Uniform Act.       should follow the UDMSA framework and allow
                                               178 AFSA at 3; ABA at 2.                                    185 Id. at 2.                                        specific set-up fees and monthly fees).



                                        VerDate Mar<15>2010    16:17 Aug 09, 2010   Jkt 220001   PO 00000    Frm 00014   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10AUR2.SGM     10AUR2
                                                               Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations                                                   48471

                                             program) obtain significant reductions                  Several credit counseling companies                    the service.197 Only a small number of
                                             in their debt. Therefore, debt settlement               also submitted information about the                   parties submitted company-specific
                                             is a useful product for many people, the                number of DMPs they have arranged for                  completion rate data, however, even
                                             benefits of which would be lost if                      their customers.195 In contrast, no debt               after FTC staff sent letters to
                                             providers went out of business because                  negotiation company provided any data                  commenters in late December 2009
                                             they could not collect fees necessary to                or other information showing that it                   asking detailed follow-up questions
                                             fund their operations until they settled                successfully achieved interest rate                    relating to completion rates.198
                                             the debts.                                              reductions or other debt alterations for                 The TASC member survey and seven
                                                The commenters advanced a number                     consumers.                                             individual commenters provided some
                                             of specific arguments in support of this                                                                       information about debt settlement
                                             position, including the following:                      Debt Settlement Data
                                                                                                                                                            completion and dropout rates. The
                                             (1) debt settlement and other forms of                     With respect to debt settlement, some               TASC survey estimated that 24.6% of
                                             debt relief services provide significant                commenters submitted specific data                     consumers who remained in a debt
                                             benefits to consumers, which, according                 purporting to show that they obtain                    settlement program for three years
                                             to industry’s comments, is demonstrated                 substantial savings for a significant                  completed the program – defined as
                                             by survey data and the numerous                         share of their customers. The industry                 having settlements for at least 75% of
                                             consumers who are satisfied with their                  association TASC submitted results                     their overall debt amount – with another
                                             debt settlement programs; (2) consumers                 from a 2009 survey covering 75% of                     9.8% still active at the three-year
                                             obtain better outcomes from debt                        customer debt enrolled in its members’                 point.199
                                             settlement services than other debt relief              programs (‘‘TASC survey’’). In addition,                 The TASC survey methodology has
                                             options; (3) advance fees provide needed                17 commenters provided individual                      several limitations. First, the survey is
                                             cash flow for debt settlement providers                 debt settlement company data.                          not representative of the entire
                                             to fund their operations; (4) advance fees              Collectively, these data fall into five                industry’s performance. Only 12 debt
                                             compensate debt settlement providers                    primary categories:196 (1) completion                  settlement companies reported
                                             for services undertaken before                          and dropout rates, (2) outcomes for                    sufficient data to determine a three-year
                                             settlement occurs; (5) advance fees                     dropouts, (3) average percentage savings               dropout rate, a very small number
                                             ensure that debt settlement providers                   and savings-to-fee ratios, (4) settlement              relative to the hundreds of operating
                                             get paid; (6) the advance fee ban violates              rates for all enrollees, and                           debt settlement providers.200 These
                                             the First Amendment; (7) state                          (5) testimonials from satisfied                        companies may not be representative of
                                             regulation of debt relief services is                   consumers. Each category is examined                   the industry as a whole and, in fact, may
                                             preferable to federal regulation; (8) the               in turn in the following section.                      have been comparatively more
                                             TSR is not the appropriate mechanism                                                                           successful.201 Indeed, it is unlikely that
                                             for regulating debt relief services; (9) the            (1) Completion and Dropout Rates
                                                                                                                                                            providers that have low success rates
                                             problematic practices in the debt                         Completion and dropout rates are                     would identify themselves by
                                             settlement industry are limited to a                    important measures of the effectiveness                participating in a survey the results of
                                             relatively few ‘‘bad actors,’’ and the                  of a debt settlement program; only                     which will be provided to a federal
                                             services are not ‘‘fundamentally bogus;’’               consumers who complete the program                     agency with enforcement authority over
                                             and (10) an advance fee ban does not                    are able to eliminate their debts by using
                                             provide proper incentives for debt                                                                                197 See USDR (Oct. 20, 2009) at 3 (citing retention

                                             settlement companies. The following                     (FCS and its family of companies have obtained         rates and graduation rates as important indicators
                                             section addresses each point in turn.                   over 70,000 settlements since 2003); FDR (Oct. 26,     of debt relief service success); RDRI at 6 (the
                                                                                                     2009) at 3 (FDR has obtained more than 100,000         percent of customers that complete the program
                                             a. Point 1: Debt Relief Services Provide                settlements); Loeb at 1-2 (10 companies settled        within 39 months is an ‘‘essential metric’’).
                                             Benefits to a Significant Number of                     23,586 accounts between 2003 and 2009);                   A commenter stated that the Commission should
                                                                                                     Confidential Comment at 2 (company has obtained        not impose a ‘‘100% standard’’ on debt settlement
                                             Consumers                                               21,651 settlements for 24,323 active clients from      companies. FDR (Oct. 26, 2009) at 8; see also
                                                Several industry commenters sought                   March 2007 to Sept. 2009). Although the absolute       Franklin at 17; MD (Mar. 22, 2010) at 13. Nothing
                                                                                                     number of debts that providers have settled over the   in the Final Rule would require providers to
                                             to demonstrate that debt relief services                                                                       achieve any particular completion rate; rather, they
                                                                                                     years may be sizable, as discussed below, the record
                                             provide benefits to a significant                       indicates that many consumers either receive no        must deliver whatever they claim. For example, if
                                             proportion of their customers.193 Some                  settlements or save less than the fees and other       a provider expressly or by implication represents
                                             debt settlement providers and their                     costs that they pay.                                   that it will eliminate consumers’ debt, consumers
                                                                                                       195 Cambridge (Jan. 15, 2009) at 1 (171,089          have a right to expect that all of the debts they
                                             representatives submitted data about the                                                                       enroll in the program will be resolved.
                                                                                                     accounts enrolled in DMPs between July 1, 2004
                                             number of debts that they or their                      and December 31, 2009); GP (Jan. 15, 2010) at 1           198 The request was in connection with the
                                             members have settled in recent years.194                (75,485 accounts enrolled in a total of 13,328 DMPs    November 2009 public forum. The letters are posted
                                                                                                     in 2009); CareOne at 1 (over 225,000 consumers         at (http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/tsrdebtrelief/
                                                193 The FTC has sought data on this issue from       enrolled in DMPs); AICCCA at 1 (member CCAs            index.shtm).
                                             the industry since July 2008. See (http://              serve about 500,000 clients enrolled in DMPs).            199 TASC (Oct. 26, 2010) at 10.

                                             www.ftc.gov/opa/2008/07/debtsettlement.shtm)              Only two for-profit credit counseling companies,        200 TASC (Mar. 15, 2010) at 4-5. TASC stated that

                                             (Topics for Comment link). In response to the July      CCC and CareOne, commented in this proceeding.         the survey as a whole was based on 75% of
                                             2008 request, only TASC provided some                   Only CareOne provided data, stating that (1) over      customer debt enrolled in its members’ programs,
                                             information about success and cancellation rates. It    700,000 consumers have called the company for          as several very large members participated in the
                                             submitted a so-called ‘‘preliminary study’’             counseling assistance; (2) over 225,000 customers      survey. TASC sent the survey questionnaires only
                                             purporting to show ‘‘completion rates’’ ranging from    enrolled in a DMP; (3) nearly 700,000 customer         to the 20 largest TASC members, representing
                                             35% to 60% for consumers in TASC member debt            service calls have been made; (4) over nine million    approximately 80% of the debt settlement
                                             settlement programs. TASC, Study on the Debt            creditor payments were processed; (5) nearly $650      consumers served by TASC members. TASC (Mar.
sroberts on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES




                                             Settlement Industry, at 1 (2007). The study’s           million in payments have moved from consumers          15, 2010) at 4. The survey included data on over
                                             probative value, however, was limited due to            to their creditors; and (6) fewer than 35 Better       43,000 consumers who had enrolled in a debt
                                             methodological issues. See TSR Proposed Rule, 74        Business Bureau complaints were filed in the           settlement plan offered by one of the 12 firms that
                                             FR at 41995 n.104; see also NAAG (Oct. 23, 2009)        previous year on approximately 70,000 new              responded to the survey. TASC (Oct. 26, 2009) at
                                             at 8-9.                                                 customers, and all had been successfully resolved.     9.
                                                194 E.g., TASC (Oct. 26, 2009) at 2 (respondents     CareOne at 1-2.                                           201 TASC stated that its membership represented

                                             to a TASC survey settled in the aggregate almost          196 Most of these commenters did not submit data     about 25% of the industry. TASC (Housser), Tr. at
                                             95,000 accounts in 2008); FCS (Oct. 27, 2009) at 1      in all five categories.                                61.



                                        VerDate Mar<15>2010   16:17 Aug 09, 2010   Jkt 220001   PO 00000   Frm 00015   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10AUR2.SGM   10AUR2
                                             48472             Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

                                             them.202 Second, many of the                            reported dropout rates of 71.9%,207                     the other hand, asserted that providers
                                             consumers counted as ‘‘completed’’ had                  54.4%,208 and 20%.209 Some debt                         are primarily responsible for the
                                             significant debts left after exiting the                settlement providers reported that                      dropouts, because they enroll
                                             program.203 Third, TASC members                         careful screening, strong customer                      consumers who are not financially
                                             themselves reported the data to an                      service, and full disclosure greatly                    suitable for the program, collect large
                                             accountant hired by the organization;                   reduced the number of dropouts.210                      fees in advance that are not adequately
                                             neither the accountant nor any other                      As several commenters noted, not all                  disclosed, and ultimately fail to settle
                                             entity validated that the data were                     dropouts are attributable to the failure of             the debts.212 Several commenters
                                             complete or accurate.204                                the provider.211 Several commenters, on                 provided survey information about the
                                                In any event, even assuming that (1)                                                                         reasons consumers drop out, finding
                                             the survey accurately represents overall                Solutions, identified on page 15 of the Briesch         that consumers drop out for various
                                             industry performance, (2) 75% of debts                  paper in a footnote.                                    reasons, e.g., because they paid off the
                                                                                                        207 SDS (Jan. 22, 2010) at 2. Of consumers
                                             settled is an appropriate demarcation of                enrolled in the program at least 36 months earlier,
                                                                                                                                                             debts themselves, settled the debts
                                             ‘‘success,’’ and (3) the 9.8% ‘‘still active’’          fewer than 17% had completed the program and            themselves, failed to save enough
                                             consumers ultimately receive the                        11.2% were still active.                                money for settlements, filed for
                                             promised results, nearly two-thirds of                     208 DMB (Feb. 12, 2010) at 6. Of consumers who
                                                                                                                                                             bankruptcy, or experienced ‘‘buyer’s
                                                                                                     had enrolled in the program at least 36 months          remorse.’’213
                                             enrolled consumers dropped out of the                   earlier, about 40% had completed the program and
                                             programs within the first three years.205               about 5% were still active.                               In any event, the relevant issue for
                                                In addition to the TASC survey,                         Debt settlement provider FDR provided data           purposes of determining whether the
                                             individual debt settlement providers                    about completion rates, but its data also comprised     advance fee ban is justified is the extent
                                             reported a range of dropout rates. A                    a very substantial part of the TASC data;               to which enrollees receive a net benefit
                                                                                                     accordingly, its data are not a separate reference
                                             paper by Dr. Richard Briesch reported                   point. Specifically, FDR stated that 32% of the
                                             on a sample of 4,500 consumers from                     enrollees who remained in its program for three         settlement program were genuine issues of fact.
                                             one company, finding that the                           years or more completed the program with 100%           Defendants claimed that consumers dropped out
                                                                                                                                                             because of their inability to save money for
                                             cancellation rate was 60% over two                      of debts settled, while 10.3% were still active.
                                                                                                                                                             settlement purposes, whereas the FTC contended
                                                                                                     These numbers were based on 7,803 consumers
                                             years.206 Three other commenters                        who had enrolled in the FDR program at least 36
                                                                                                                                                             that consumers dropped out because of lawsuits,
                                                                                                                                                             garnishments, property liens and other negative,
                                                                                                     months before the analysis was performed. FDR
                                                202 In general, self-selection and self-reporting                                                            undisclosed consequences of participation in the
                                                                                                     (Oct. 26, 2009) at 10. Therefore, 57.7% of
                                             bias can result in an over-representation of                                                                    program.).
                                                                                                     consumers dropped out within three years of                212 NAAG (Oct. 23, 2009) at 4-8, CFA at 9; SBLS
                                             successful respondents. See, e.g., Alyse S. Adams,      entering the program. See id.
                                             et al., Evidence of Self-report Bias in Assessing                                                               at 1-4; CareOne at 4; see GP (Oct. 22, 2009) at 3;
                                                                                                        Debt settlement company Orion also provided
                                             Adherence to Guidelines, International Journal for                                                              ACCORD (Feb. 5, 2010) at 3 (‘‘the more the fee
                                                                                                     some completion data. It stated that out of 825
                                             Quality in Health Care 11:187-192 (1999). In                                                                    structure is weighted toward the settlement fee, the
                                                                                                     customers who had made at least one payment,            higher the completion rate.’’).
                                             addition, providers that join trade associations may    approximately 29% had completed the program,               213 JH (Oct. 24, 2009) at 34 (see attached Briesch
                                             tend to conform to higher standards than                and 12.7% were still active. Orion (Jan. 12, 2010)
                                             nonmembers. USOBA (Ansbach), Tr. at 106; TASC                                                                   paper at 16). This survey does not establish how
                                                                                                     at 5. It noted that the numbers were based upon its
                                             (Oct. 26, 2009) at 4-5.                                                                                         many borrowers fall into each category, as 56% of
                                                                                                     former business model, in which customers saved
                                                203 As noted above, ‘‘completion’’ was defined as                                                            consumer respondents chose ‘‘other’’ as the reason
                                                                                                     funds to be used for settlements in their own bank
                                             settlement of at least 75% of the individual’s total                                                            they dropped out. Id. In any event, the survey
                                                                                                     accounts, rather than in special purpose accounts
                                             debt amount enrolled. TASC (Oct. 26, 2009) at 9.                                                                responses do not establish who is responsible for
                                                                                                     monitored by the company. Id.
                                             See CU (Hillebrand), Tr. at 55 (‘‘[c]onsumers are not      209 JH (Jan. 12, 2010) at 5. Of consumers who had
                                                                                                                                                             the dropouts. Indeed, if a consumer cannot afford
                                             getting what they expected to get, if only 25 percent                                                           to make the payments or files bankruptcy, it is not
                                                                                                     enrolled in this debt settlement program at least two   clear whether the consumer failed to complete the
                                             are even getting close.’’).                             years and nine months earlier, about 41% had
                                                204 TASC (Housser), Tr. at 60. See FTC v.
                                                                                                                                                             program because the provider misled the consumer
                                                                                                     completed the program and about 39% were still          about the amount of the monthly payments or the
                                             SlimAmerica, Inc., 77 F. Supp. 2d 1263, 1274 (S.D.      active. The company considered fewer than 1,000         timing of the fees; the provider failed to engage in
                                             Fla. 1999) (holding that defendant’s weight loss        consumers in calculating the dropout rate, as it had    an effective suitability analysis; or the consumer
                                             claims were unsupported where, inter alia,              only been providing services for two years and nine     took on new debt that made the program
                                             defendant failed to obtain proper scientific            months at the time of the response. Summary of          unsustainable.
                                             validation of those claims); FTC v. Cal. Pac.           Communications with FTC Staff Placed on the                A different survey of 129 consumers who
                                             Research, Inc., 1991 WL 208470, at *5 (D. Nev. Aug.     Public Record (Apr. 13, 2010).                          enrolled with a particular debt settlement provider
                                             27, 1991) (holding that defendants failed to               210 ACCORD (Oct. 9, 2009) at 3. In addition, debt
                                                                                                                                                             and dropped out of the program after completing
                                             properly substantiate hair loss claims because          settlement provider CRN reported that of all            50% of the program found that: 32% cancelled
                                             studies they cited did not meet basic scientific        consumers that had enrolled in its program from         because they decided to settle the debts on their
                                             requirements demonstrating validity and                 April 2007 through September 2009, 39% had              own; 42% could no longer afford or were not
                                             reliability).                                           completed the program. CRN (Jan. 21, 2010) at 6.        paying the monthly payment; 9% were generally
                                                Law enforcement authorities’ experience has          CRN has enrolled 1,218 consumers in total, and it       dissatisfied; 9% were categorized as ‘‘account lost
                                             shown that self-reported data may not be reliable.      stated that its practice of refraining from charging    through collection activity; could no longer collect;’’
                                             For example, the New York Attorney General              fees other than the initial membership fee of $495      5% were categorized as ‘‘unwilling to go through
                                             reported to the GAO that a consumer testified that      allows its customers to achieve success sooner. Id.     the legal process,’’ and 5% were categorized as
                                             she received a ‘‘congratulations’’ letter from the      at 2, 4; CRN (Oct. 8, 2009) at 1. CRN’s business        ‘‘other.’’ QSS (Oct. 22, 2009) at 2.
                                             company for completing a debt settlement program,       model is unique; after receipt of the initial              A third provider submitted survey information
                                             citing to settlements on four small accounts, even      membership fee, it provides instructions to             about 20,166 consumers who dropped out of the
                                             though the largest balance included in the program      consumers on how to achieve debt settlements by         program. The most frequent responses were:
                                             was not settled, and the creditor sued the consumer     calling creditors themselves. Subsequently, if the      customer decided to file bankruptcy (24.9%);
                                             for the full amount of that debt, plus penalties and    consumer specifically requests help, the company        customer made other arrangements (16.8%); and
                                             interest. GAO Testimony, supra note 50, at 26. In       negotiates on the customer’s behalf and charges         customer did not have sufficient money in bank
                                             addition, the GAO reported that some consumers          additional fees if it obtains successful settlements.   account for payments (11%). Arnold & Porter (Mar.
                                             who finished a debt settlement program                  CRN (Oct. 8, 2009) at 1. CRN did not provide data       17, 2010) at Exhs. 4 & 5.
                                             ‘‘complained of being deceived and harmed by the        separately for consumers using its do-it-yourself          Finally, a provider submitted results of a
                                             group. Nearly half of them actually paid more than      model and those using its negotiation services. See     customer exit survey of an unspecified number of
sroberts on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES




                                             they owed.’’ Id. at 25.                                 CRN (Jan. 21, 2010) at 2, 6.                            consumers who dropped out of the provider’s
                                                205 The Commission analyzes industry data on            211 JH (Oct. 24, 2009) at 34 (see attached Briesch
                                                                                                                                                             program; the most frequent responses were:
                                             outcomes for dropouts in the following subsection,      paper at 16); Loeb at 4 (citing Briesch paper);         customer did not have sufficient money in bank
                                             Section III.C.2.a.(2).                                  Arnold & Porter (Mar. 17, 2010) at Exhs. 4 & 5; MD      account for payments (28.6%); customer could not
                                                206 JH (Oct. 24, 2009) at 20 (see attached paper,    (Mar. 22, 2010) at Exhs. E-8 & E-9; see also FTC v.     afford payments (15.9%); customer decided to file
                                             Richard A. Briesch, Economic Factors and the Debt       Connelly, 2006 WL 6267337, at *11-12 (C.D. Cal.         bankruptcy (14%); and customer made other
                                             Management Industry 2 (Aug. 2009) (‘‘Briesch            Dec. 20, 2006) (holding that the reasons for the        arrangements (9.5%). MD (Mar. 22, 2010) at Exh. E-
                                             paper’’)). The paper is based on data from Credit       approximately 75% dropout rate for a debt               8.



                                        VerDate Mar<15>2010   16:17 Aug 09, 2010   Jkt 220001   PO 00000   Frm 00016   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10AUR2.SGM    10AUR2
                                                               Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations                                                      48473

                                             from the program. The net benefit takes                 which alone virtually cancel out the                       program, and even as to the remaining
                                             into account whether consumers save                     savings. When the other costs associated                   30%, there is no evidence that the
                                             more money than they paid in fees and                   with the program (e.g., creditor late fees                 consumers received savings
                                             other costs; it also considers other                    and interest) are factored in, it is likely                significantly greater than the fees and
                                             harms to consumers that result from                     that the costs exceed the benefits.218                     costs they paid.
                                             participation in the program, such as                   Moreover, as described earlier, there are
                                                                                                                                                                (3) Average Percentage Savings and
                                             harm to creditworthiness and continued                  a number of methodological concerns
                                                                                                                                                                Savings-to-Fee Ratios
                                             collection activity in many cases. In                   about this survey that likely skew the
                                             addition, by enrolling in a debt                        results in the direction of showing                           Many debt settlement providers
                                             settlement program, consumers forgo                     greater success.                                           advertise that consumers using their
                                             other alternatives, such as filing for                    Dr. Briesch also analyzed a second                       services achieve debt reductions within
                                             bankruptcy, borrowing money from a                      company’s data regarding dropouts. In                      a range of percentages, often 40% to
                                             relative, negotiating directly with                     that analysis, 43% of the dropouts                         60%.221 In their public comments, debt
                                             creditors, or enrolling in a credit                     settled at least one account.219 The 57%                   settlement providers reported that they
                                             counseling program that may be better                   of dropouts who did not settle any                         achieved average savings ranging from
                                             alternatives for them. Thus, many                       accounts clearly did not obtain a net                      39% to 72%.222 The Commission
                                             consumers suffer an opportunity cost                    benefit from the program, having paid
                                                                                                                                                                   221 In its review of 100 debt settlement websites,
                                             when they enroll in debt settlement                     and forfeited at least some amount of
                                                                                                                                                                supra note 50, FTC staff found that 86% of websites
                                             programs that do not benefit them.214 As                fees. Even as to those consumers who                       made specific savings claims. The most frequently
                                             discussed below, consumers who drop                     did obtain one or more settlements                         used percentage claims were 40% to 60%, 50%,
                                             out of the program prior to completion                  before dropping out, Dr. Briesch did not                   and up to 70%; see also GAO Testimony, supra
                                             generally do not obtain a net benefit.215               report how much consumers paid in                          note 50, at 19.
                                                                                                                                                                   222 TASC (Oct. 26, 2009) at 11 (average debt

                                             (2) Outcomes for Dropouts                               fees, nor did he report how many                           reductions were 55% of outstanding balances in
                                                                                                     accounts were settled out of the total                     2008 and 58% in the first six months of 2009 for
                                                As stated above, a major concern with                number of accounts enrolled in the                         14 respondents in TASC survey); USOBA (Jan. 29,
                                             debt settlement services is that most                   program.                                                   2010) at 3 (51 respondents provided information to
                                             consumers drop out of the program after                   Another debt settlement provider                         the trade association; the average percentage
                                                                                                                                                                reduction from the amount owed at enrollment
                                             paying large, unrefunded fees to the                    reported that it had settled at least one                  ranged from 27.9% to 72%, and the mean
                                             provider. In response, industry                         account for 30% of its dropouts.220 In                     percentage reduction for all respondents was
                                             commenters provided data purporting to                  that company’s case, 70% of dropouts                       53.23%); FDR (Oct. 26, 2009) at 3 (55.3% in 2008);
                                             show that a significant number of their                 did not receive any benefit from the                       JH (Oct. 24, 2009) at 35 (see attached Briesch paper
                                             dropouts obtained at least some value                                                                              at 17) (among consumers who received settlement
                                                                                                                                                                of at least one account, savings were over 50% of
                                             from the program in the form of one or                     218 To this point, TASC asserted that because
                                                                                                                                                                the original amount owed); FCS (Oct. 27, 2009) at
                                             more settled debts, prior to dropping                   interest and fees continued to accrue during the           1 (49% reduction of the debt calculated from the
                                             out. It is true that some consumers who                 course of the program, if a consumer is in the             time of enrollment); CRN (Jan. 12, 2010) at 3
                                                                                                     program for two years and settles his debt for the         (savings of 67% of the debt at the time of
                                             enroll in debt settlement programs,                     amount that he owed at enrollment, he received a           enrollment); SDS (Jan. 22, 2009) at 1 (savings of
                                             including some of those who                             large benefit from the program. TASC (Young), Tr.          51.19% of the debt at the time of enrollment); Orion
                                             subsequently drop out, may obtain some                  at 56-57. Consumers reasonably expect, however,            (Jan. 12, 2010) at 4 (‘‘For those consumers who have
                                             savings. For the reasons explained                      that the program will substantially reduce the debt        completed the program, the settlements have
                                             below, however, the submitted data                      they carry when they enter the program, not that           typically been between 50-75% of their incoming
                                                                                                     much or all of the ‘‘benefit’’ is from a reduction in      debt.’’); Loeb at 9 (providing raw numbers for ten
                                             provide little information about the                    the additional debt that accrues during the program.       unnamed companies without any description of the
                                             proportion of dropouts who receive a                    In one case, the Commission found that a                   methodology; percentage saved ranged from 38.73%
                                             net benefit from the program. To the                    telemarketer represented that the company could            to 71.66% and averaged 45.15%); DRS (Jan. 21,
                                             extent that the net benefit can be                      ‘‘negotiate your debt down to about 50 cents on the        2010) at 1 (savings of 44% of the debt at the time
                                                                                                     dollar . . . [so that] you’re looking at about $15,000,    of enrollment; 53% at the time of settlement).
                                             estimated, it appears that dropouts                     $16,000 in debt as opposed to [the] $30,000’’ owed            In addition, QSS conducted surveys on behalf of
                                             generally pay at least as much in fees                  at the time of the call. FTC v. Debt-Set, No. 1:07-        TASC and NWS. The QSS-TASC survey consisted
                                             and other costs as they save in reduced                 cv-00558-RPM, Mem. Supp. Mot. T.R.O. at 9-10 &             of 691 exit interviews of former customers of
                                             debts.                                                  Exh. D (D. Colo. Mar. 20, 2007); see also id. Exh.         ‘‘certain TASC members,’’ including both dropouts
                                                                                                     N (telemarketer representing that ‘‘on $30,000             and successful graduates, and reported that 69% of
                                                Several industry members or groups                   [owed], our settlement would be about $19,500’’);          settled accounts experienced a balance reduction of
                                             provided statistics on the number of                    see also FTC v. Edge Solutions, Inc., No. CV-07-           at least 40%. QSS (Oct. 22, 2009) at 7. The QSS-
                                             settlements that dropouts obtained prior                4087, Mem. Supp. Mot. T.R.O., Exh. PX-6 (E.D.N.Y.          NWS survey consisted of 329 exit interviews and
                                             to exiting the program. TASC reported                   Sept. 28, 2007) (consumer stating that ‘‘[a]fter telling   reported that 79% of consumers settled their credit
                                             that 34.8% of the dropouts in its survey                [the telemarketer] what my credit card balances            card debts at a discount of at least 40% or more of
                                                                                                     were, [he] informed me that [defendant] could settle       the outstanding balance. Id. at 18. In reporting on
                                             received at least one settlement – which                my $18,882 debt for $11,880’’).                            these surveys, QSS provided limited information
                                             means that 65.2% of the dropouts                           In a similar example, a large TASC member, FDR,         about the sample surveyed, such as the proportion
                                             (representing over 42% of all consumers                 reported that the 4,496 customers who dropped out          of the relevant consumer population the
                                             who enrolled) received no                               of its program before completion reduced their debt        interviewees represented or whether the TASC
                                                                                                     by approximately $9.1 million, based on their debt         members involved were representative of the
                                             settlements.216 It also reported that the               at the time of enrollment, and paid $8.7 million in        industry generally. NWS (Feb. 17, 2010) at 2-3.
                                             dropouts saved $58.1 million in the                     fees. FDR (Jan. 13, 2010) at 4; see also FDR (Oct.         Moreover, the labels on the electronic files
                                             aggregate (based on debt amounts at the                 26, 2009) at 10. Thus, on average, each of the 4,496       submitted by QSS indicate that the interviews were
                                             time of settlement).217 These dropouts                  terminated customers during this period saved $89.         conducted with consumers from no more than five
                                                                                                        219 According to Dr. Briesch, dropouts received         companies. QSS requested and received
                                             paid $55.6 million in fees, however,
                                                                                                     settlements at a similar rate to consumers who             confidential treatment pursuant to FTC Rule 4.9(c),
sroberts on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES




                                                                                                     stayed active in the program. See Briesch (dated           16 CFR 4.9(c), for the recorded interviews contained
                                                214 Summary of Communications (June 16, 2010)
                                                                                                     Oct. 27, 2009, and filed with the FTC on Nov. 5,           on the electronic files.
                                             at 2 (consumer group comments).                         2009) at 1-2 (stating that these dropouts settled at          The USOBA comment provided selected data
                                                215 SBLS (Tyler), Tr. at 187-88; see discussion of
                                                                                                     least one account, and the average settlement              about one of its member companies, which it
                                             industry data on outcomes for dropouts in Section       percentage on the settled accounts was 58%,                claimed to have verified. The comment asserted
                                             III.C.2.                                                meaning that the average savings percentage was            that this member had settled significant numbers of
                                                216 TASC (Oct. 26, 2009) at 10; CRL at 4.            42%).                                                      consumer debts for 53 cents on the dollar, based on
                                                217 TASC (Mar. 15, 2010) at 3.                          220 SDS (Jan. 22, 2010) at 3.                                                                      Continued




                                        VerDate Mar<15>2010   16:17 Aug 09, 2010   Jkt 220001   PO 00000   Frm 00017   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4700    E:\FR\FM\10AUR2.SGM      10AUR2
                                             48474             Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

                                             believes, however, that the methodology                  debt and represents that the consumers                      No commenter provided the
                                             used to calculate these percentages is                   will obtain a 40% reduction, consumers                    information necessary for the
                                             fundamentally flawed. Specifically, the                  who expected to be debt-free with the                     Commission to calculate actual average
                                             calculations do not account for                          payment of $6,000 actually must pay                       savings amounts using an appropriate
                                             (1) interest, late fees, and other creditor              $9,000, not counting possible penalties                   methodology. Because the savings
                                             charges that accrued during the life of                  and interest. The actual percentage                       amounts reported by commenters were
                                             the program; (2) the provider’s fees;                    savings would be 10%, putting aside the                   calculated using methodologies that
                                             (3) consumers who dropped out or                         other issues. Although consumers likely                   substantially overstate the savings,228
                                             otherwise failed to complete the                         presume the provider charges some fees,                   the Commission concludes that the
                                             program; and (4) debts that were not                     it is unlikely they would realize that the                actual savings, if any, generally
                                             settled successfully. By failing to                      fees are so substantial that they exceed                  achieved by consumers in a debt
                                             account for these factors, the providers                 savings for many consumers, especially                    settlement program are significantly
                                             substantially inflate the amount of                      because debt settlement advertisements                    lower than the average savings amounts
                                             savings that consumers generally can                     and websites generally do not disclose                    commenters reported.229
                                             expect. The following paragraphs                         the fees.223 Even an industry                               In addition to savings percentages,
                                             discuss each of these points in turn.                    representative has stated that the                        several commenters provided ‘‘savings-
                                                First, some commenters calculated                     various debt settlement fee models are                    to-fee ratios.’’ These ratios purport to
                                             ‘‘savings’’ without accounting for the                   confusing.224                                             compare the debt reductions consumers
                                             additional debt and losses consumers                        Third, commenters often considered                     have received from debt settlement
                                             incur as a result of interest, late fees,                only the savings associated with                          programs to the amount consumers have
                                             and other charges imposed by the                         consumers for whom settlements were                       paid in fees to show the value provided
                                             creditor(s) or debt collector(s) during the              obtained and excluded all those who                       to consumers.230 The ratios, however,
                                             course of the program. For example, if a                 dropped out of the programs.225 One
                                             consumer enrolls $10,000 in debt, and
                                                                                                                                                                  228  See supra note 222.
                                                                                                      analysis removed 78% of the provider’s                      229  In further support of their contention that debt
                                             the provider represents that it can                      customers from the sample and merely                      settlement service providers obtain successful
                                             achieve a 40% reduction, the consumer                    reported the settlements received by the                  outcomes for consumers, some commenters asserted
                                             reasonably expects to have to pay                        remaining customers, excluding those                      that debt settlement providers obtain more
                                             $6,000 to completely resolve his debts.                                                                            favorable settlements than consumers could obtain
                                                                                                      who had dropped out of the program                        on their own. See Figuliuolo at 4 (‘‘Debt settlement
                                             If, however, the size of the debt                        and those who were still active but had                   companies generally have substantial experience
                                             increases over the course of the program                 not yet settled a debt.226 Fourth, even                   dealing with creditors, have access to large
                                             due to interest and creditor fees of                     among the group that had settled at least                 quantities of data, can engage in sophisticated
                                                                                                                                                                analysis of those data, have a good understanding
                                             $2,000, the consumer will have to pay                    one debt and therefore was included in                    of what sorts of deals can realistically be struck
                                             $6,000 plus an additional $1,200 to                      the analysis, the savings calculations                    with particular creditors, develop ongoing
                                             cover the additional creditor charges                    accounted only for those individual                       relationships with those creditors, and importantly
                                             (the 40% reduction would apply to the                                                                              their clients generally have the capital to fulfill the
                                                                                                      accounts that actually were settled,                      negotiated settlement at the time of negotiation.’’);
                                             $2,000 in creditor charges as well as the                excluding those that were not.227                         Franklin at 8-13. These commenters provided
                                             original balance). Accordingly, the                                                                                limited evidence in support of their assertions.
                                             consumer must actually pay a total of                       223 Of the 100 websites FTC staff reviewed, supra      Moreover, even if the assertions were true, they do
                                                                                                                                                                not support the sorts of specific savings claims that
                                             $7,200 to settle the $10,000 in debt he                  note 50, staff found that only 14% of debt
                                                                                                                                                                providers have made, nor do they counsel against
                                             enrolled, and he saves $2,800. Thus, the                 settlement websites disclosed the specific fees that      imposition of an advance fee ban.
                                                                                                      a consumer will have to pay upon enrollment in the
                                             percentage of actual savings is lower                    service. An additional 34 out of the 100 websites
                                                                                                                                                                   230 The TASC survey reported that customers of

                                             than the 40% represented by the                                                                                    the companies that participated in the survey,
                                                                                                      mentioned fees but did not provide specific fee
                                                                                                                                                                including dropouts, received $245 million in
                                             provider. In this example, putting aside                 amounts. The Commission’s law enforcement
                                                                                                                                                                savings at a cost of $126 million in fees, a savings-
                                             the other issues, the percentage of                      experience bears this out as well. See, e.g., FTC v.
                                                                                                                                                                to-fee ratio of nearly 2 to 1. TASC (Oct. 26, 2009)
                                                                                                      Debt-Set, Inc., No. 1:07-cv-00558-RPM (D. Colo.
                                             savings would be 28%.                                    filed Mar. 19, 2007); see also New York v. Credit
                                                                                                                                                                at 10. The calculations, however, do not account
                                                Second, the industry data generally                                                                             for interest, late fees, and other creditor charges that
                                                                                                      Solutions, No. 401225 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. filed
                                                                                                                                                                accrued during the life of the program.
                                             exclude provider fees in calculating                     May 19, 2009) (Complaint, ¶ 17).
                                                                                                                                                                   FDR asserted that active customers who had been
                                             percentage savings and thereby inflate                      224 Smart Money, Debt Settlement: A Costly
                                                                                                                                                                in the program for at least three years reduced their
                                             the actual amount consumers saved. For                   Escape (Aug. 6, 2007)(quoting Jenna Keehnen, the          debt by $6.5 million and paid $3.3 million in fees,
                                                                                                      executive director of USOBA, as saying, ‘‘I have          a 1.97 to 1 ratio; completed customers reduced their
                                             example, if the provider charges $3,000                  seen every kind of (fee) model you can think of . . . .   debt by $25.2 million and paid $8.8 million in fees,
                                             in fees to consumers with $10,000 in                     It’s very confusing.’’), available at (http://            a 2.86 to 1 ratio; and terminated customers reduced
                                                                                                      articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/              their debt by $9.1 million and paid $8.7 million in
                                             the amount of the debt at the time of enrollment,        ManageDebt/DebtSettlementACostlyEscape.aspx).             fees, a 1.05 to 1 ratio. On average, each of the 4,496
                                                                                                         225 See supra note 222.
                                             which would equate to savings of 47%. USOBA                                                                        terminated customers saved $89. FDR also
                                             reported that this company had settled 32,450               226 JH (Oct. 24, 2009) at 33 (see attached Briesch
                                                                                                                                                                calculated that enrollees as a whole reduced their
                                             accounts totaling $174 million in debt settled.          paper at 15). In Dr. Briesch’s comment to the FTC         debt by $40.8 million and paid $20.8 million in
                                             USOBA provided no other information about the            following publication of the paper, he reported that      fees, a 1.96 to 1 ratio. FDR (Jan. 14, 2010) at 4-5.
                                             methodology used to arrive at these figures, making      among active consumers in the sample, only 55.7%          In these calculations, FDR estimated the amount
                                             it difficult to evaluate its reliability. USOBA (Oct.    had obtained at least one settlement. Briesch (dated      consumers owed at enrollment to determine the
                                             26, 2009) at 28-29.                                      Oct. 27, 2009 and filed with the FTC on Nov. 5,           savings.
                                                Another debt settlement company stated that it        2009) at 6-7. In arriving at the 78% figure stated in        NCC reported that its savings-to-fee ratio was 1.5
                                             had settled between 257 and 992 accounts with            the text, the FTC calculated that 60%, or 2,700, of       to 1. Arnold & Porter (Mar. 17, 2010) at Exh. 1. Total
                                             each of ten creditors and that debt reductions           the 4,500 consumers in the database had dropped           fees paid were approximately $3 million, and total
                                             ranged from 58.07% to 61.57%. MD (Mar. 22, 2010)         out; out of 1,800 active consumers, 44.3%, or 797,        customer savings were approximately $4.5 million,
sroberts on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES




                                             at Exh. E-8. The company provided information            had not obtained any settlements at the time the          a 1.5 to 1 savings-to-fee ratio. Id. NCC provided no
                                             only for the ‘‘top ten’’ largest creditors; it did not   data were collected. Thus, only 1,003, or 22.3% of        information regarding whether the calculations use
                                             explain whether these creditors were representative      the sample, were actually included in the analysis.       balances at enrollment or at settlement, the number
                                             or why it chose to highlight results from these          See CU at 6.                                              of consumers who completed the program, or
                                             creditors. The comment provided virtually no                227 For example, Dr. Briesch stated that on            whether the data covered all consumers who
                                             information about the total population of accounts,      average, about 50% of the consumer’s debts were           completed the program.
                                             nor any information about the amount of fees that        settled. JH (Oct. 24, 2009) at 35 (see attached              A debt settlement company provided confidential
                                             consumers paid to the provider.                          Briesch paper at 17).                                     information, pursuant to FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR



                                        VerDate Mar<15>2010   16:17 Aug 09, 2010   Jkt 220001   PO 00000   Frm 00018    Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10AUR2.SGM       10AUR2
                                                                Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations                                                        48475

                                             only account for debts that are settled;                   The CSA comment also did not disclose                     Individual consumer testimonials are,
                                             they fail to account for increased                         the amounts of the debts that were the                    by their nature, anecdotal; they do not
                                             balances on debts that were not settled.                   subjects of the early offers, and it may                  constitute a representative sample of
                                             Assessing whether consumers benefitted                     be the case that the early settlements                    consumers who have enrolled in debt
                                             from the programs would require review                     tended to be for relatively small                         settlement programs.240 Moreover, it is
                                             of individual consumer circumstances,                      debts.235 Finally, as was true with the                   not clear for many of the testimonials in
                                             as well as determining harm to                             Briesch study, CSA did not provide the                    the record that the individual consumer
                                             creditworthiness and harm resulting                        amount of savings from the early                          actually benefitted financially from the
                                             from continued collection activity.                        settlements, nor the amount paid in fees                  program. Many of the consumers did
                                             Additionally, neither the TASC survey                      by consumers. Thus, the data do not                       not provide any specific information
                                             respondents nor the individual                             show whether consumers in CSA’s                           about their debt settlement
                                             commenters are representative of the                       program experienced a net benefit or net                  experiences,241 and, for some other
                                             industry; TASC selected its largest                        loss.                                                     consumers, it was not clear that they
                                             members, and only some of them                               A second provider stated that in                        had obtained any settlements at the time
                                             provided responsive information. Thus,                     recent years, 40.4% of its customers had                  they submitted their comment.242
                                             although the savings-to-fee ratios                         settled at least one debt within the first                   In addition to the individual
                                             provided to the Commission suggest                         year after enrolling.236 Thus, almost                     consumer comments, the QSS-TASC
                                             that some consumers of debt relief                         60% failed to settle even one debt                        customer survey discussed previously
                                             services may have benefitted to a certain                  within that first year. Furthermore, the                  included a satisfaction question. The
                                             extent, they do not establish that                         company provided no information about                     survey concluded that 88% of
                                             consumers generally achieved more in                       the amount of savings dropouts                            consumers said they were ‘‘satisfied’’ or
                                             savings than they paid in fees and other                   obtained from settlements, nor the                        ‘‘very satisfied’’ with their settlement
                                             expenses for their debts as a whole.                       amount consumers paid in fees.237                         amounts.243 As explained above,
                                             (4) Settlement Rates for All Enrollees                     (5) Testimonials from Satisfied                           however, QSS did not provide any
                                                                                                        Consumers                                                 information as to whether the
                                               Several commenters asserted that                                                                                   consumers were representative in any
                                             many consumers receive settlement                             Two-hundred thirty-nine consumers
                                                                                                                                                                  sense of the population of consumers
                                             offers soon after enrollment and before                    filed comments about their experiences
                                                                                                                                                                  who use debt settlement services.244
                                             they pay substantial fees to the                           with debt settlement companies, 193 of
                                             provider.231 The CSA comment reported                      which expressed positive views. Several                   b. Point 2: Debt Settlement is Superior
                                             that among consumers who remained in                       industry commenters also incorporated                     to Other Debt Relief Services
                                             CSA’s program for one month or more,                       positive consumer testimonials into                         Several industry commenters argued
                                             56% received at least one settlement                       their comments.238                                        that the Commission should not impose
                                             offer.232 The CSA comment, however,                           The Commission does not question
                                                                                                                                                                  an advance fee ban on debt settlement
                                             did not provide any information as to                      that some consumers have had favorable
                                                                                                                                                                  services because they provide better
                                             whether consumers accepted, or were                        experiences with debt settlement. That
                                                                                                                                                                  outcomes for consumers than other
                                             able to fund, the offers.233 Moreover, the                 fact, however, does not establish that
                                                                                                                                                                  types of debt relief, particularly
                                             data do not measure the drop out rate                      consumers generally benefit from these
                                                                                                                                                                  bankruptcy and DMPs.245 The Briesch
                                             or the success of enrollees as a whole.234                 programs, or that they receive the
                                                                                                                                                                  paper contended that consumers pay
                                                                                                        results they were promised.239
                                                                                                                                                                  less overall in payments and fees in a
                                             4.9(c), reporting that its savings-to-fee ratio was 1.2                                                              successful debt settlement plan than in
                                             to 1, as total fees paid were almost $900,000 and          who dropped out of the program by the end of each
                                             total customer savings were slightly over $1               interval were excluded from the calculations of the
                                             million. The company provided no information               next group of consumers.                                  FTC v. SlimAmerica, Inc., 77 F. Supp. 2d 1263,
                                             regarding whether the savings calculation used                235 See RDRI at 5 (noting that settlement              1273 (S.D. Fla. 1999).
                                                                                                                                                                     240 This is especially true here, where some
                                             balances at enrollment or at settlement, the number        companies may begin with customer accounts that
                                             of consumers who completed the program, or                 have the smallest balances or with ‘‘friendly’’           providers actively solicited positive comments from
                                             whether the data covered all consumers who                 creditors).                                               specific consumers. Ho at 2 (attaching email from
                                             completed the program.                                        236 SDS (Jan. 22, 2010) at 3.                          debt settlement company encouraging the consumer
                                                231 If consumers obtain settlements soon after             237 Another commenter stated that its figures          to send positive comments to the FTC).
                                                                                                                                                                     241 See, e.g., Allen at 1; Clement at 1; Garner at
                                             enrollment, providers should not be adversely              were difficult to estimate but provided rough
                                             affected by a ban on collecting fees before they           figures. The commenter estimated that of its              1; Gecha at 1; Houghton at 1; Kaiser at 1; McInnis
                                             procure settlements. As explained below, however,          customers who stayed in the program for at least          at 1; Neal at 1; Seigle at 1; Taillie at 1.
                                             the record does not support this assertion.                four months, 75% received at least one settlement            242 See, e.g., Wheat at 1; Silverman at 1; Paquette
                                                232 For consumers who stayed in the program for         in the first year. It also estimated that, of customers   at 1; Pratt at 1. Although an industry association
                                             a minimum of three months, 67% received at least           who stayed in the program for at least one year,          argued that positive comments from consumers
                                             one offer (and 47% received at least three); among         more than 95% had at least one debt settled within        before they achieve any settlements shows that the
                                             consumers who stayed in the program for a                  two years. Finally, it estimated that about 15% to        companies provide value aside from obtaining
                                             minimum of six months, 77% received at least one           20% of its customers drop out without settling any        settlements (USOBA (Oct. 26, 2009) at 33-34), the
                                             offer and 58% received three or more offers. All           debts. The commenter noted that a significant             overriding purpose for which consumers enroll in
                                             consumers who stayed in the program for 36                 portion of customers revoke their enrollment before       debt relief programs is to resolve their debts, not to
                                             months received five or more offers. CSA at 5-6; see       six months and receive a refund; these individuals        receive other ‘‘benefits.’’ See WV AG (Googel), Tr.
                                             also CSA (Witte) at 29-30 (‘‘And in the first month,       were not counted in any of the above statistics.          at 45; SBLS (Tyler), Tr. at 38. Indeed, in some of
                                             we’re able to get 56 percent of the people one offer       Orion (Jan. 12, 2010) at 5.                               the consumer comments, it was not even clear that
                                             and 28 percent of the people five or more offers, just        238 USOBA (Oct. 26, 2009) at 85-212; CSA at 22-        the consumer had actually participated in a debt
                                             in the first month. And I think everyone can agree         47; DRS (Sept. 29, 2009) at 3-13; see also Franklin       settlement program. See, e.g., Atkins at 1; Brodie at
                                             that’s pretty remarkable and sort of stands against        at 7-8.                                                   1; Cheney at 1; Hargrove at 1; Hinksor at 1.
sroberts on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES




                                             what was in the [NPRM] that no work is being done             239 Similarly, in assessing whether a success or          243 QSS (Oct. 22, 2009) at 8. In addition, the

                                             at the beginning.’’).                                      performance claim is deceptive under Section 5 of         survey reported that 82% of consumers had an
                                                233 See SBLS (Tyler), Tr. at 40 (‘‘I had a client who
                                                                                                        the FTC Act, courts consistently have held that the       ‘‘Excellent’’ or ‘‘Good’’ experience in the debt
                                             got three offers. She had no money in the escrow           existence of some satisfied consumers is not              settlement program. Id. at 9.
                                             account. She had no money to pay the offer.’’).            adequate substantiation. See, e.g., FTC v. Amy               244 Supra note 222.
                                                234 The comment only reported results for               Travel Serv., 875 F.2d 564, 572 (7th Cir.1989), cert.        245 In fact, the Final Rule applies to for-profit

                                             consumers who remained in the program until – or           denied, 493 U.S. 954 (1989); FTC v. Five-Star Auto        DMPs as well as debt settlement and other debt
                                             beyond – each time interval. Therefore, consumers          Club, Inc., 97 F. Supp. 2d 502, 530 (S.D.N.Y. 2000);      relief services.



                                        VerDate Mar<15>2010    16:17 Aug 09, 2010   Jkt 220001   PO 00000    Frm 00019    Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10AUR2.SGM      10AUR2
                                             48476             Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

                                             a DMP.246 The paper included a                           analysis does not account for a                         one year (if the debt reduction is 40%
                                             hypothetical example of a consumer                       significant advantage of DMPs:                          of the original debt balance) or the
                                             with $10,000 in debt who is on a DMP                     consumers enrolled in DMPs receive the                  consumer can obtain debt reductions in
                                             that lowers his credit card interest rates               benefits – in the form of creditor                      the amount of 60% of the original debt
                                             to 10%, requires the consumer to pay                     concessions – within a short time,                      balance and can make monthly
                                             his debt over a period of five years, and                providing more certainty than debt                      payments of $458 over one year.252
                                             charges a fee of $15 per month. Based                    settlement and eliminating additional                   These high monthly payment amounts
                                             on these assumptions, that consumer                      collection efforts. Late fees and other                 are likely to be unrealistic for many
                                             would pay $13,648 in total payments                      penalty fees generally stop accruing on                 consumers. In contrast, Dr. Briesch
                                             and generate $1,537 in revenue for the                   a DMP. In contrast, consumers who                       estimated that a consumer with $10,000
                                             CCA.247 In contrast, if the consumer                     enter a debt settlement program                         in debt would pay only $227 per month
                                             enrolls in a debt settlement program that                typically do not receive benefits (i.e.,                on a DMP for five years.
                                             reduces his debt by 50%248 and imposes                   settlements) for many months, if not                       Other debt settlement providers
                                             a fee of 15%, that same consumer would                   years. During that extended period, the                 similarly argued that, on average,
                                             pay $6,500 in total payments and                         consumer has no certainty that he or she                consumers who complete debt
                                             generate $1,500 in fees for the debt                     will be successful, and creditor                        settlement plans pay lower monthly
                                             settlement provider.                                     collection efforts are likely to                        payment amounts and lower amounts
                                                However, credit counseling and debt                   continue.250 In addition, consumers                     overall than consumers who complete
                                             management provide entirely different                    obtain some benefits from a DMP even                    DMPs.253 Where consumers actually
                                             benefits from debt settlement, and it is                 if they do not complete the programs                    obtain debt settlements, this may be
                                             misleading simply to measure how                         because most of each monthly payment                    true, but the comparison fails to
                                             much a hypothetical consumer saves                       goes to their creditors and reduces their               examine fully the costs and benefits of
                                             from each program.249 Dr. Briesch’s                      overall debt balance. In contrast, in the               each type of program with respect to
                                                                                                      typical debt settlement plan, most of the               consumers who fail to complete them.
                                                246 JH (Oct. 24, 2009) at 39 (see attached Briesch
                                                                                                      money, for the first several months, goes               As described above, DMPs offer more
                                             paper at 21); see also USOBA (Oct. 26, 2009) at 25-      to the non-refundable fees of the
                                             26. Dr. Briesch also asserted that credit counseling                                                             certainty than debt settlement, provide
                                             has a higher dropout rate which, at different points,    provider.                                               a reprieve from collection efforts, and
                                             he asserts is 65% or 74%. The paper provides no             Dr. Briesch’s analysis also failed to                result in decreasing debt balances with
                                             citation to support the 65% number and cites to an       consider the relative impact of debt                    every payment.
                                             unnamed NCLC report that relies on a National            settlement and DMPs on consumers’
                                             Foundation for Credit Counseling report for the                                                                     Several debt settlement commenters
                                             74% figure. A 2003 NCLC report actually cites a
                                                                                                      creditworthiness, a significant factor in               also argued that their programs help
                                             79% dropout rate, citing to an earlier report            determining under which type of
                                             published in 1999. National Consumer Law Center          program a consumer would obtain a                          252 JH (Oct. 24, 2009) at 40 (see attached Briesch
                                             & Consumer Federation of America, Credit                 better ‘‘outcome.’’251 Indeed, Dr. Briesch              paper at 22). As stated above, according to the
                                             Counseling in Crisis 23 (April 2003). However, the
                                             dropout rates on DMPs are not comparable to
                                                                                                      employed very optimistic                                TASC survey results, based on information from 14
                                                                                                      assumptions in the debt settlement                      debt settlement companies, the average debt
                                             dropout rates on debt settlement plans, as the initial                                                           reduction for those consumers who obtained
                                             fees are generally much lower for DMPs, and              examples – either the consumer can                      settlements was approximately 45.5% of the
                                             consumers have received the promised service – a         afford monthly payments of $625 for                     original debt amount in 2008, and 49.4% of the
                                             creditor-approved plan that allows them to pay                                                                   original debt amount in 2009. TASC (Mar. 15, 2010)
                                             modified amounts if they make all of the required                                                                at 3.
                                             payments.                                                and reinforcement from the counseling agency’’);
                                                                                                                                                                 253 As an example, a debt settlement provider
                                                247 JH (Oct. 24, 2009) at 39 (see attached Briesch
                                                                                                      Cambridge (Oct. 26, 2009) at 1.
                                                                                                         250 See GP (Jan. 15, 2010) at 2.                     calculated that a consumer with $39,000 in credit
                                             paper at 21).                                                                                                    card debt could settle that debt for $30,038 in less
                                                                                                         251 The record does not contain conclusive
                                                248 Dr. Briesch assumes the savings are based on
                                                                                                      evidence on this issue. The GAO reported that           than five years by making monthly payments of
                                             the debt owed at the time of enrollment.                                                                         about $500, given specific assumptions set forth in
                                                249 GP (Oct. 22, 2009) at 2 (‘‘With a DMP, the
                                                                                                      according to FICO, stopping payments to creditors
                                                                                                      as part of a debt settlement program can decrease       the comment; by comparison, the same consumer
                                             consumer is receiving ongoing benefits each month        credit scores anywhere between 65 to 125 points.        on a DMP would have to pay $775 per month and
                                             in the form of waived fees, lower interest rates and     GAO Testimony, supra note 50, at 10. In addition,       total payments of $51,150. The stated assumptions
                                             lower balances. In debt settlement, the consumer         missed payments leading up to a debt settlement         were: (i) a 60 month program, (ii) no interest rate
                                             does not receive any benefits until a settlement is      can remain on a consumer’s credit report for seven      adjustments by creditors (that is, the interest rate
                                             actually made, if it occurs at all.’’).                  years, even after a debt is settled. Id. A consumer     stays at 24.9%), (iii) the consumer obtained a 40%
                                                Additionally, Dr. Briesch’s comparison of the         testified that her credit score was harmed due to her   debt reduction ‘‘on current balance,’’ and (iv) the
                                             relative costs to consumers of credit counseling and     enrollment in a debt settlement program. Haas           following fee structure: first two months payments
                                             debt settlement was skewed. In calculating the           Testimony, supra note 73, at 4 (‘‘Our credit scores     of $34.95 per month, plus 25% of the savings
                                             ‘‘total fees paid’’ for credit counseling, he included   had gone from excellent to poor. All credit             amount negotiated. DMB (Oct. 29, 2009) at 3 nn. 7
                                             the full amounts of fair share payments that             extended to us now is at a higher rate – if at all.     & 11. Putting aside the question of whether the
                                             creditors make to the agency. JH (Oct. 24, 2009) at      Banks who once gladly financed our cars won’t look      provider’s assumptions were unbiased and realistic,
                                             39 (see attached Briesch paper at 21); see also CSA      at us. Insurance companies have given us higher         it appears that the provider may not have followed
                                             at 9; Loeb at 2-3. Consumers do not make these           quotes due to our credit history.’’). According to a    its own assumptions in doing its calculations.
                                             payments, however. Moreover, the author offered          CCA commenter, the presence of settled accounts         Specifically, the assumptions included an interest
                                             no evidence that fair share payments are equivalent      on a credit report is ‘‘clearly a danger sign.’’        rate on the debt of 24.9% that continues to accrue
                                             to the forgiven principal balance either in terms of     Cambridge (Oct. 26, 2009) at 1.                         throughout the program, as would typically be the
                                             dollar amounts or in overall benefits to the creditor.      In contrast, a debt settlement industry commenter    case. With that assumption, however, the
                                             Nor did he consider whether creditors place value        asserted that debt settlement may lead to improved      calculation for the debt settlement plan yields a
                                             on the educational services that most credit             creditworthiness and improved credit scores, as         monthly payment of $1,650 with a total payment
                                             counseling services provide, such as advice on           compared to bankruptcy or credit counseling. JH         over 60 months of over $96,800, substantially more
                                             budgeting. CU at 3; see also Consumer Federation         (Oct. 24, 2009) at 15. However, the NERA Economic       costly than the DMP. The Commission asked the
                                             of America, American Express, & Georgetown               Consulting report cited and attached to the             commenter whether it had assumed that interest
sroberts on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES




                                             University Credit Research Center, Evaluating the        foregoing comment does not address the                  and fees stopped accruing for a consumer enrolled
                                             Effects of Credit Counseling, (2006) (finding that       creditworthiness of consumers who completed             in debt settlement, but the commenter did not
                                             effective debt management plans contain a                credit counseling. Id. at 47-54. In addition, the       respond to that question. DMB (Feb. 12, 2010) at 8.
                                             meaningful educational component, ‘‘significantly        comment acknowledges that the initial effect of a       Alternatively, the commenter actually may have
                                             improved credit profiles,’’ and a reduced risk of        debt settlement program on a consumer’s credit          assumed a 40% debt reduction from the balance at
                                             bankruptcy filing, which the report attributed to        score will be negative; it then focuses on              the time of enrollment, not on the ‘‘current balance,’’
                                             ‘‘the DMP experience itself, e.g., budgeting to make     creditworthiness after completion of the program.       which presumably would be the balance at the time
                                             regular DMP payments, continued interaction with         Id. at 47-48.                                           of settlement.



                                        VerDate Mar<15>2010   16:17 Aug 09, 2010   Jkt 220001   PO 00000   Frm 00020   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10AUR2.SGM     10AUR2
                                                                Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations                                                      48477

                                             consumers avoid bankruptcy, which,                        c. Point 3: Numerous Debt Settlement                    Commission finds this analysis
                                             they assert, has consequences that are                    Companies Will Go Out of Business                       unpersuasive for at least three reasons.
                                             worse for consumers.254 One commenter                         Representatives and members of the                     First, TASC assumes that providers
                                             submitted a research paper stating that                   debt settlement industry argued that                    will find it profitable to continue to
                                             debt settlement may result in a better                    many providers will go out of business                  follow the same marketing strategy that
                                             credit rating for the consumer than                                                                               many of them follow today. Many debt
                                                                                                       if the FTC imposes an advance fee
                                             would bankruptcy.255 Even if that were                                                                            settlement providers currently incur
                                                                                                       ban.259 The trade association USOBA
                                             true, however, the relative benefits and                                                                          significant costs to acquire customers
                                                                                                       submitted a survey of its members who
                                             costs of bankruptcy and debt settlement                                                                           through general audience advertising,
                                                                                                       reported that the following would occur
                                             cannot be gauged on the basis of a single                                                                         even though a large portion of the
                                                                                                       if an advance fee ban were imposed:
                                             characteristic. In particular, if a                           ∑ 84% would ‘‘almost certainly’’ or                 consumers drawn in by the
                                             consumer files for bankruptcy, creditors                  ‘‘likely’’ have to shut down their                      advertisements are unsuitable for the
                                             must cease collection efforts.256                         operations;                                             program and subsequently drop out. For
                                                USOBA argued that completion rates                         ∑ 95% would ‘‘certainly’’ or ‘‘likely’’             example, TASC’s analysis assumes that
                                             for debt settlement are better than for                   lay off employees; and                                  sales, general, and administrative
                                             bankruptcy.257 Although many                                  ∑ 85% would stop offering debt                      expenses (‘‘SG&A’’) and ‘‘support’’
                                             consumers do not complete Chapter 13                      settlement services to new and existing                 expenses total $1,326 per consumer in
                                             bankruptcy plans,258 there are many                       customers.260                                           the first two months. It is not clear
                                             reasons for this that are unique to                           The Commission concludes that this                  exactly what costs are included in these
                                             bankruptcy proceedings and are not                        survey is not reliable and is of little                 expense figures, but they appear to be
                                             indicative of a ‘‘failure.’’ In some                      probative value. USOBA did not                          based on an extensive advertising
                                             instances, a Chapter 13 bankruptcy is                     provide the number of its members or                    campaign of the kind that many debt
                                             converted to a Chapter 7; in other cases,                 their employees who responded to the                    settlement providers employ under the
                                             the debtor might not be eligible for a                    survey, what proportion of the industry                 existing business model. Although the
                                             discharge because of previous discharge                   they comprise, or whether they were in                  impact of the advance fee ban in the
                                             or misconduct, or the debtor could have                   any sense a representative sample.261                   rule cannot be predicted with precision,
                                             filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy simply to                   The survey elicited self-reported,                      one reasonable outcome could be that
                                             decelerate and cure a mortgage default                    conclusory, and possibly self-serving                   providers will have to improve the cost-
                                             without intending to seek a discharge of                  statements of opinion without any                       effectiveness of their customer
                                             other debts.                                              evidence to support those opinions,                     acquisition strategies by more narrowly
                                                In short, the relative costs and                                                                               tailoring them to the segment of the
                                                                                                       such as data on the financial impact of
                                             benefits of debt settlement programs and                                                                          population that may be suitable for debt
                                                                                                       a ban. Furthermore, it appears that the
                                             bankruptcy cannot be generalized.                                                                                 settlement services, rather than to the
                                                                                                       survey respondents were reacting to a
                                             Whether one or the other option is best                                                                           general population. In a competitive
                                                                                                       complete advance fee ban, without the
                                             depends entirely on the individual                                                                                market, those providers that are more
                                                                                                       option of requiring consumers to place
                                             consumer’s circumstances, and, most                                                                               efficient in targeting their advertising to
                                             importantly, whether the consumer has                     funds in a dedicated bank account until
                                                                                                       services are performed and receiving                    consumers who are most likely to enroll
                                             sufficient assets to fund settlements.                                                                            and stay in the programs will spend less
                                                                                                       appropriate fees from the account as
                                                254 USOBA (Oct. 20, 2009) at 23-24; Palmiero           each debt is settled, as the Final Rule                 on advertising and, thus, be able to
                                             (employee of Century Negotiations, Inc.) at 1; CSA        permits.                                                make a profit sooner.
                                             at 3; JH (Jan. 12, 2010) at 1; Weinstein (Oct. 26,            The trade association TASC submitted                   Second, the predicted break even
                                             2009) at 8 (see attached Weinstein paper at 7).           a cash flow analysis, presumably based                  point in TASC’s analysis also depends
                                                255 JH (Oct. 24, 2009) at 47-54. In fact, the report
                                                                                                       on its members’ historical experience,                  crucially on what is assumed about the
                                             acknowledges that, because the algorithms used in                                                                 dropout rate and the amount of the
                                             determining a consumer’s credit score are                 that purports to show that it would take
                                             proprietary, the author cannot really determine how       49 months for a provider to break even                  contingency fee. With a lower dropout
                                             debt settlement – or bankruptcy – would affect a          under an advance fee model.262 The                      rate or a higher contingency fee, the
                                             consumer’s credit score.                                                                                          break even point occurs earlier.263 In
                                                256 Filing bankruptcy stays collection efforts,
                                                                                                          259 SDS (Oct. 7, 2009) at 2-3; MD (Oct. 26, 2009)    fact, dropout rates are likely to decrease
                                             including on delinquent mortgage accounts.
                                                257 USOBA (Oct. 26, 2009) at 28; see also
                                                                                                       at 25; RADR at 1; Orion (Oct. 1, 2009) at 2; CDS        once the advance fee ban is in place
                                                                                                       at 1; D&A at 2; see also ULC at 6; CSA at 10 (stating   because, among other reasons, providers
                                             Franklin at 19. Relying on the preliminary TASC
                                                                                                       generally that the advance fee ban ‘‘could put a
                                             study discussed in footnote 194, USOBA stated that
                                                                                                       legitimate company out of business’’); FDR (Oct. 26,
                                                                                                                                                               will have the incentive to carefully
                                             the purported debt settlement completion rate of                                                                  screen borrowers before enrolling
                                                                                                       2009) at 16-17; Hunter at 1; MP at 3; CCC at 1 (for-
                                             45% to 50% exceeds the completion rates for both
                                             Chapter 13 bankruptcy (stated to be 33%) and credit
                                                                                                       profit credit counseling company would go out of        them.264
                                                                                                       business if the Commission promulgates the                 Finally, the model assumes that the
                                             counseling programs (stated to be 21%). USOBA
                                                                                                       advance fee ban). One debt settlement company
                                             (Oct. 26, 2009) at 28. In fact, the revised TASC data
                                                                                                       said that no other businesses can afford to operate
                                                                                                                                                               provider is a new entrant that does not
                                             suggest much lower completion rates for debt                                                                      have any cash flow from existing
                                                                                                       by accepting payment ‘‘only after the customer has
                                             settlement than are stated in TASC’s ‘‘preliminary’’
                                             study submitted in connection with the workshop –         received and agrees to be satisfied with that
                                             an average of 24.6% rather than 45% to 50%. TASC          service.’’ JH (Oct. 24, 2009) at 6 (emphasis in         TASC model. TASC also reports that, if providers
                                             (Oct. 26, 2009) at 10.                                    original).                                              cannot collect their fees until the last installment
                                                                                                          260 USOBA (Oct. 26, 2009) at 20.                     payment is received, the cumulative breakeven
                                                258 Scott F. Norberg & Andrew J. Velkey, Debtor

                                             Discharge and Creditor Repayment in Chapter 13,
                                                                                                          261 Cf. infra note 576.                              would not occur until month 74. However, as
                                             39 Creighton L. Rev. 473, 505 & n.70 (2006) (‘‘The           262 TASC (July 1, 2010) at 1-2. Specifically, TASC   noted, the Final Rule imposes no such restriction,
                                             overall discharge rate for the debtors in the seven       states that its model shows that the cumulative         so this cumulative breakeven point is inapplicable.
sroberts on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES




                                                                                                                                                                  263 For instance, the provider’s cash flow would
                                             districts covered by the Project was exactly the oft-     breakeven (which is the point at which the net of
                                             repeated statistic of one-third.’’); Gordon Bermant &     all losses as compared to gains in the prior months     change significantly if it increased the fee amount
                                             Ed Flynn, Measuring Projected Performance in              turns from negative to positive) occurs at 49 months    to 40% of savings or experienced a 3% dropout rate
                                             Chapter 13: Comparisons Across the States, 19 Am.         if, where settlements involve multiple payments,        in each of the first three months instead of a 6%
                                             Bankr. Inst. J. 22, 22 & 34-35 (July–Aug. 2000);          providers collect their fee for each settlement after   dropout rate.
                                             Henry E. Hildebrand, III, Administering Chapter           the first installment payment. See id. n.3. Providers      264 CU (July 1, 2010) at 4; ACCORD (Feb. 5, 2010)

                                             13—At What Price?, 13 Am. Bankr. Inst. J. 16, 16          may do so under the Final Rule and, thus, this is       at 3 (‘‘the more the fee structure is weighted toward
                                             (July–Aug. 1994).                                         the applicable cumulative breakeven point in the        the settlement fee, the higher the completion rate.’’).



                                        VerDate Mar<15>2010   16:17 Aug 09, 2010   Jkt 220001   PO 00000    Frm 00021   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10AUR2.SGM     10AUR2
                                             48478             Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

                                             customers. The model does not show                      significant costs well before obtaining                  month would cover these services.275
                                             what the impact of the advance fee ban                  settlements and need advance fees to                     The commenter also pointed to the
                                             would be on existing companies.                         pay for those services. Several                          significant costs involved in negotiating
                                             Presumably, an existing company would                   commenters stated that debt settlement                   settlements, stating that it may make as
                                             already have significant monthly                        is labor-intensive and that a substantial                many as 50 phone calls to negotiate
                                             revenue associated with its current                     amount of a debt settlement company’s                    with a single creditor.276 Another
                                             customers, and therefore would have a                   work occurs before the first settlement                  provider submitted an analysis showing
                                             more favorable cumulative cash flow                     is finalized.269 For example, a large debt               that 22% of its expenses were dedicated
                                             than a new entrant.                                     settlement company stated that it                        to the intake of new customers. These
                                                More generally, there is little reliable             employs approximately 500 people, 150                    expenses included marketing, payroll,
                                             evidence in the record to substantiate                  of whom are responsible for                              office and related occupancy expenses,
                                             the concerns raised by debt settlement                  communicating with consumers,                            other general and administrative
                                             providers about their future viability.                 compared to 130 who are responsible                      expenses, professional fees,
                                             Certainly, under an advance fee ban,                    for negotiating with creditors.270                       depreciation, and taxes.277
                                             providers would have to capitalize their                Another debt settlement provider stated                     The comments indicate that a large
                                             businesses, at least initially, until they              that the vast majority of its expenses are               percentage of the pre-settlement costs
                                             began settling debts and collecting their               incurred within the first 12 months of                   incurred by providers is for marketing
                                             fees. After that initial period, however,               the program to attain new customers                      and other customer acquisition
                                             providers presumably could fund their                   and provide customer service.271                         efforts.278 One provider estimated that
                                             ongoing operations with the earnings                       Several commenters provided                           marketing costs range from $500 to
                                             from prior transactions.265 This is not an              estimates of debt settlement providers’                  $1,200 per customer.279 A researcher
                                             unusual business model; for example,                    pre-settlement costs. A researcher                       stated that average marketing costs per
                                             many professionals, such as realtors,                   estimated that a provider’s average                      customer at the company he studied
                                             obtain payment only after they have                     administrative cost to enroll a consumer                 were $987.50.280 Overall, the record
                                             completed their services to the client.266              is $112.53.272 A provider estimated that                 shows that advertising and marketing
                                             These professionals often must expend                   the combined cost to acquire a customer                  constitute the largest portion – and in
                                             considerable time and resources to                      and engage in required administrative                    many cases a substantial majority – of
                                             perform those services. One debt                        work to set up the account ranges from                   upfront costs for debt settlement
                                             settlement company commenter stated                     $715 to $1,365, depending on the                         providers.
                                             that, in its experience, using a business               advertising and marketing media                             Some industry commenters also
                                             model that does not rely on advance                     used.273 According to this commenter,                    claimed that they provide services to
                                             fees is feasible for well-managed and                   in order to properly service a customer                  customers other than settling debt.281
                                             well-capitalized firms,267 and other                    on an ongoing basis, the provider must                   One provider asserted that it provides
                                             commenters agreed.268 Thus, the                         handle basic customer inquiries, input                   education and support to consumers
                                             Commission is not persuaded that an                     data entry changes to the customer’s                     well before any debt settlements are
                                             advance fee ban would make it                           file, provide assistance on creditor                     finalized.282 USOBA asserted that its
                                             infeasible for legitimate debt settlement               harassment concerns, call customers to
                                             providers to operate their businesses.                  assist them in fulfilling their                            275    Id.
                                                                                                     commitment to the program, handle                          276    Id. at 2; see also CSA at 8 (‘‘The settlement
                                             d. Point 4: Debt Settlement Companies                                                                            of one account with one creditor may require more
                                             Incur Significant Costs in Providing Pre-               calls involving emotionally distraught                   than 30, 40, or 50 phone calls.’’).
                                             Settlement Services                                     customers, and provide access to an                          277 Confidential Comment at 10.
                                                                                                     attorney network to advise about                             278 USDR (Oct. 20, 2009) at 11; CRN at 2 (60%
                                                Related to the financial viability                   possible violations of the FDCPA.274                     to 70% of fees support the sales side of the
                                             questions discussed in the previous                     The commenter estimated that $50 per                     business); CDS at 1; TASC, Study on the Debt
                                             section, many commenters addressed                                                                               Settlement Industry 4 (2007) (‘‘One of the primary
                                                                                                                                                              costs is the client acquisition. . . . Since the concept
                                             the issue of the types and quantity of                     269 CDS at 1; Figliuolo at 5; ART at 1; Orion (Oct.
                                                                                                                                                              of debt settlement is not well-known to the public,
                                             services that debt settlement providers                 1, 2009) at 2; Franklin at 24-25; MD (Mar. 22, 2010)     debt settlement companies must spend more time,
                                             must perform, and the costs they must                   at 4-6; see also ULC at 5. However, in investigations    effort and money marketing their services. The lead
                                             finance, before settling a debt. Industry               by state attorneys general, debt settlement              cost for acquiring one debt settlement client ranges
                                                                                                     companies have not demonstrated any justification        from $300 to $400. Once the intake costs associated
                                             commenters asserted that they provide                   for advance fees based on the effort required to set     with contacting the potential clients and the
                                             substantial services and incur                          up an account. NAAG (Oct. 23, 2009) at 10.               overhead costs are factored into the lead costs, the
                                                                                                        270 FDR (Oct. 26, 2009) at 6.                         cost to acquire and set up a single debt settlement
                                               265 In addition to funding ongoing operating             271 According to this commenter, the expenses         client can range from approximately $425 to $1,000.
                                             expenses, providers may have to fund debt               include personnel costs for the following                The data reveals that most debt settlement
                                             payments if they borrowed money to pay costs            employees: the representative who explains all of        companies report this cost at $700 to $1,000 range.
                                             before they began collecting their fees.                the options to the customer, a second representative     This necessitates debt settlement companies to
                                               266 See ACCORD (Noonan), Tr. at 21.                   who reviews the program a final time with the            charge a greater portion of fees during the initial
                                               267 FCS (Oct. 27, 2009) at 4.                         customer, the processors who handle the paperwork        phase of the program.’’).
                                               268 ACCORD (Oct. 9, 2009) at 1; CareOne at 5;         and help establish the account, the assigned                 279 Orion (Oct. 1, 2009) at 2.

                                             Summary of Communications (June 30, 2010) at 1          negotiator who reviews the accounts and formulates           280 NWS (Oct. 22, 2009) at 10 (see attached Walji

                                             (assistant state attorney general stated that some      a plan, and the representatives who conduct a 30         paper at 10); see also CRN (Bovee), Tr. at 28 (lead
                                             companies that do not charge advance fees are           to 60 minute ‘‘Welcome Call’’ and bi-weekly              generators receiving commissions of more than 25%
                                             doing business in North Carolina); see also Terry       coaching calls thereafter. CDS at 1. CDS did not         of revenue).
                                             Savage, Debt Manager Put to the Test, Chicago Sun       provide any breakdown of the cost by individual              281 Summary of Communications (June 14, 2010)
sroberts on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES




                                             Times, June 28, 2010, available at (http://             service.                                                 at 1 (industry groups stated that providers conduct
                                                                                                        272 This amount is comprised of $59.45 for
                                             www.suntimes.com/business/2439574,terry-savage-                                                                  a budget analysis of each consumer to determine
                                             debt-manager-062810.article) (discussing provider       processing the enrollment paperwork, $16.05 for          ‘‘fit’’ with the debt settlement model and provide
                                             that collects a relatively small amount of 3% of the    the Welcome Packet, and $37.02 for three                 budgeting advice and educational information
                                             original debt owed over the first two months and        compliance calls. NWS (Oct. 22, 2009) at 11 (see         about consumers’ rights with respect to debt
                                             15% of the original debt owed when a successful         attached Walji paper at 11).                             collection calls and harassment).
                                                                                                        273 ART at 1.                                             282 SDS (Oct. 7, 2009) at 2. It also asserted that
                                             settlement is obtained; the consumer gets a 1%
                                             refund for completing the program).                        274 Id.                                               it speaks with 30 potential customers (that it does



                                        VerDate Mar<15>2010   16:17 Aug 09, 2010   Jkt 220001   PO 00000   Frm 00022   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10AUR2.SGM      10AUR2
                                                               Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations                                                       48479

                                             members offer budgeting advice,                         performing them appear to vary widely.                   e. Point 5: Advance Fees Are Necessary
                                             financial literacy information, emotional               Frequently, the nonmarketing costs are                   to Ensure that Companies Get Paid and
                                             support, and education on debtor                        relatively small.288                                     Consumers Fulfill Their Obligations
                                             rights.283 In a survey commissioned by                     Even accepting the commenters’ cost
                                             USOBA, 86% of employees of debt                                                                                     Industry commenters also contended
                                                                                                     estimates at face value, the record does                 that charging fees in advance is needed
                                             settlement companies reported that they
                                                                                                     not support the assertions by some                       to protect them against the risks of
                                             provide value or service to consumers
                                             other than settling debt, and 72% stated                industry members that initial costs are                  nonpayment by consumers after
                                             that they talk to consumers every day as                so substantial that they could not                       delivery of the services.290 One
                                             part of their job.284                                   operate without collecting their fees in                 commenter stated that relegating the
                                                Based on the above and other                         advance. Charging large advance fees is                  debt settlement provider to the position
                                             evidence in the record, the Commission                  not the only business model in the debt                  of other unsecured creditors would
                                             has reached the following conclusions                   settlement industry. Several providers                   hinder its ability to service its
                                             about the cost issues:                                  use payment schedules that are less                      customers.291
                                                ∑ Debt settlement providers must                     front-loaded and entail payments over a                     The risk of nonpayment may be
                                             perform certain tasks prior to settling                 longer term, require no advance fees at                  significant given the precarious
                                             their customers’ debts, ranging from                    all, or tie payments to successful                       financial situation of consumers who
                                             customer acquisition to recordkeeping                   outcomes for consumers.289 The record                    enroll in debt relief programs.
                                             to customer support. These tasks entail                 shows that these business models are                     Accordingly, the Final Rule permits
                                             costs.285                                               feasible and that at least some debt                     debt relief providers to require
                                                ∑ In most cases, the largest component                                                                        consumers to make payments into a
                                                                                                     settlement providers have adopted such
                                             of pre-settlement costs that providers                                                                           dedicated bank account, assuming
                                                                                                     models successfully.
                                             incur is for customer acquisition, i.e.,                                                                         certain conditions are satisfied, from
                                             advertising and marketing.286                              As noted, the bulk of the upfront costs               which the consumer can pay the
                                                ∑ Some providers may offer ancillary                 that providers incur are for advertising                 provider’s fee as each of the consumer’s
                                             services such as education and financial                and customer acquisition, which are                      debts is settled. The specific operation
                                             advice, but there is no reliable evidence               within the control of the provider and                   of this provision of the Final Rule is
                                             in the record to establish how many                     do not confer any direct benefit on                      explained in Section III.C.5.c. below.
                                             providers offer these services, how                     consumers. To a large extent, providers                     Other commenters expressed concern
                                             extensive they are, or what they cost.287               have funded their marketing efforts with                 that, under an advance fee ban,
                                                ∑ The types and amounts of services                  money forfeited by consumers who                         consumers could avoid having to pay
                                             providers perform and the costs of                      enrolled in these programs as a result of                the provider by refusing reasonable
                                                                                                     that marketing, paid large advance fees,                 settlement offers, failing to save money,
                                             not accept) for every one it accepts and spends at
                                             least 45 minutes with each of these consumers           and then dropped out, because they                       or otherwise taking actions to prevent
                                             providing free advice. Id. at 3.                        were financially unsuitable to be in a                   settlements.292 Although this may be
                                                283 USOBA (Oct. 26, 2009) at 30, 33. Industry
                                                                                                     debt settlement program in the first                     theoretically possible, most consumers
                                             groups also argued that if the Commission imposes       place. The Commission has concluded                      would have an incentive to agree to
                                             an advance fee ban, the companies that provide
                                             customers with extensive counseling, coaching, and      that the interests of providers in                       reasonable settlement offers. In any
                                             assistance during the period in which they              obtaining advance fees primarily to fund                 event, providers can take these risks
                                             accumulate sufficient savings to enter into debt        their marketing efforts is outweighed by                 into account in their screening
                                             settlements will be at a competitive disadvantage                                                                procedures and pricing policies.293
                                             compared to companies that do not provide these         the likelihood of substantial injury to
                                             additional services. Id. at 34; Summary of              many of these financially-distressed                     f. Point 6: The Advance Fee Ban
                                             Communications (June 14, 2010) at 1. The                consumers from paying hundreds or                        Violates the First Amendment
                                             Commission believes, however, that companies will
                                             have incentives to provide customers with
                                                                                                     thousands of dollars without obtaining
                                                                                                                                                                An industry association argued that
                                             counseling and other assistance so that they stay in    a commensurate benefit, or any benefit
                                                                                                                                                              an advance fee ban would run afoul of
                                             the program and receive settlements, at which time      at all.
                                             the provider will get paid.                                                                                      the First Amendment.294 The
                                                284 USOBA (Oct. 26, 2009) at 31; see also
                                                                                                        288 CDS at 1; NWS (Oct. 22, 2009) at 11 (see
                                                                                                                                                              association stated that the ban targets
                                             Palmiero (employee of Century Negotiations, Inc.)
                                                                                                     attached Walji paper at 11); ART at 1.
                                                                                                                                                              protected speech, preventing debt relief
                                             at 1 (‘‘I hear the tears of relief that someone is                                                               providers from receiving fees for
                                                                                                        289 FDR (Oct. 26, 2009) at 14 (fees are collected
                                             available to listen as well as offer options and
                                             solutions to the concerns as they arise.’’). As         over the first 18 months or longer of the program);      speaking to their customers and
                                             discussed above, the USOBA survey consists of self-     JH (Jan. 12, 2010) at 4 (entire first payment is         providing educational, coaching, and
                                             reported and potentially self-serving responses from    collected as a fee; the remainder is collected in        counseling information.295
                                             an unspecified sampling of employees of an              installments over one-half of the program); Hunter
                                             undefined sampling of providers. Thus, the              at 3 (‘‘[I]t is becoming more common for companies
                                                                                                                                                                 290 See, e.g., Patel at 1; Orion (Oct. 1, 2009) at 2;
                                             Commission does not accord this survey significant      to charge a one-time, flat enrollment fee and prorate
                                             weight.                                                 the remaining percentage of the fee over at least half   Loeb at 6-7; CSA at 9.
                                                                                                                                                                 291 RADR at 1.
                                                285 FDR (Oct. 26, 2009) at 6; CDS at 1; NWS (Oct.    the life of the program.’’); CRN (Jan. 21, 2010) at 4
                                                                                                     (company charges an ‘‘initial membership fee’’ of           292 CSA at 9; D&A at 2.
                                             22, 2009) at 11 (see attached Walji paper at 11);
                                             ART at 1.                                               $495 and, for consumers seeking additional                  293 Other service providers who charge upon
                                                286 USDR (Oct. 20, 2009) at 10-11; CRN at 2; CDS     assistance, $100.00 per account, a $50 monthly           delivery of results experience the same risk. For
                                             at 1; MD AG (Sakamoto-Wengel), Tr. at 105 (‘‘And        membership fee, and 15% of savings for any debt          example, realtors may spend considerable time and
                                             in complaints and the investigations that we have       settled); FCS (Oct. 27, 2009) at 1 (‘‘FCS has two        money unsuccessfully trying to sell a client’s home
                                             had, at the state level, what we have found is that     program types, a blended fee approach and a              and never get paid for those efforts.
sroberts on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES




                                             rather than the trained counselors . . . a lot of the   settlement fee-only approach. The Debt Negotiation          294 USOBA (Oct. 26, 2009) at 43-47.

                                             people that are hired as counselors are really          Company is a registered trade name of Financial             295 Id. at 43 (‘‘advice or legal assistance’’ is
                                             salespeople, without counseling experience,             Consulting Services. It offers only The Simple Plan,     communication entitled to full First Amendment
                                             without financial experience, but they’re there to      the settlement fee-only program.’’); see also            protection, especially because information
                                             sell a product.’’); TASC, Study on the Debt             ACCORD (Feb. 25, 2010) at 2-3 (‘‘ACCORD supports         regarding statutory rights is ‘‘vital’’). It is worth
                                             Settlement Industry 4 (2007).                           the collection of a fee after a creditor agrees to a     noting that this ‘‘communication’’ portion of the
                                                287 See TASC (Oct. 26, 2009) at 18; USOBA (Oct.      negotiated settlement amount and when the                service is a relatively minor part of a commercial
                                             26, 2009) at 30.                                        consumer transmits the funds to the creditor’’).         transaction.



                                        VerDate Mar<15>2010   16:17 Aug 09, 2010   Jkt 220001   PO 00000   Frm 00023   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10AUR2.SGM      10AUR2
                                             48480              Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

                                                The Commission concludes that the                      substantial governmental interest.302                    advance fee ban provides enforcement
                                             advance fee ban adopted here is                           Hundreds of thousands of financially                     authorities an efficient and essential law
                                             permitted under the First Amendment.                      distressed consumers have lost large                     enforcement tool to ensure that
                                             The advance fee ban does not restrain                     sums of money to debt relief providers                   practices in this burgeoning industry do
                                             advertising, educational services, or                     engaged in such practices.303 Second,                    not continue to harm consumers.307
                                             other forms of communications, but is                     the advance fee ban directly advances                    Accordingly, the advance fee ban, even
                                             simply a restriction on the timing of                     this interest by protecting consumers                    if it is considered a regulation of
                                             payment. In denying a similar challenge                   from paying fees for services that are not               ‘‘speech,’’ is an appropriate restriction
                                             to an advance fee ban in the TSR for                      rendered as promised. Thus, it will                      under the First Amendment.
                                             certain offers of credit, a federal court                 prevent the substantial harm, described
                                                                                                                                                                g. Point 7: State Regulation Is Preferable
                                             found that it merely regulated ‘‘when                     in detail in this SBP, that arises when
                                                                                                                                                                to Federal Regulation
                                             payment may be collected’’ and did not                    consumers pay in advance for debt relief
                                             impair the sale of educational materials                  services.304 Finally, the advance fee ban                   Several commenters discussed
                                             produced by the company.296                               is narrowly tailored to protect                          whether the Commission should forgo
                                                Even assuming the advance fee ban                      consumers from abuse, while                              federal regulation and leave regulation
                                             were a restriction on speech, it would be                 nonetheless permitting legitimate firms                  of the debt relief industry to state
                                             scrutinized under the commercial                          to receive timely payment for services                   governments. USOBA argued that the
                                             speech test. Commercial speech is                         they provide to consumers. Without the                   Commission should not impose an
                                             communication related solely to the                       carefully crafted advance fee ban                        advance fee ban because it would usurp
                                             economic interests of the speakers, in                    adopted here, vulnerable consumers                       state regulatory prerogatives and
                                             this case for-profit debt relief                          who enroll in debt settlement programs                   prevent states from experimenting with
                                             companies.297 The First Amendment                         must pay hundreds or thousands of                        diverse approaches to fee regulation.308
                                             accords a lesser degree of protection to                  dollars in fees months or years before                   On the other hand, several commenters
                                             commercial speech than to other                           they receive any benefit from those                      asserted that FTC regulation was
                                             constitutionally guaranteed                               payments, if they ever receive a benefit                 preferable to state regulation because
                                             expression.298 In Central Hudson, the                     at all. This constitutes substantial                     (1) the FTC, with its regulatory expertise
                                             Supreme Court established an analytical                   consumer injury. As discussed below,                     regarding advertising and telemarketing
                                             framework for determining the                             therefore, charging an advance fee for                   claims, is in a better position than state
                                             constitutionality of a regulation of                      debt settlement services is an abusive                   regulators to regulate debt relief firms,
                                             commercial speech that is not false or                    practice.305 The modified advance fee                    especially in that such marketing
                                             misleading, and does not otherwise                        ban, crafted to be no broader than                       frequently crosses state lines;309 (2) state
                                             involve illegal activity.299 Under that                   absolutely necessary to remedy the                       law enforcement activity is uneven;310
                                             framework, the regulation (1) must serve                  identified significant consumer harm,                    and (3) a state that finds a law violation
                                             a substantial governmental interest; (2)                  will stop that abuse.306 In addition, the                can only protect and provide restitution
                                             must directly advance that interest; and                                                                           to that state’s residents, unless the
                                             (3) may extend only as far as the interest                   302 See Edenfield v. Fane, 507 U.S. 761, 768-69       company happens to reside within the
                                             it serves – that is, it must be ‘‘narrowly                (1993) (‘‘[T]here is no question that [the               enforcing state.311
                                                                                                       government’s] interest in ensuring the accuracy of          The Commission believes that state
                                             tailored to achieve the desired                           commercial information in the marketplace is
                                             objective.’’300 In explaining the                         substantial.’’); FTC v. Mainstream Mktg. Servs., Inc.,   law enforcement agencies play a
                                             framework, the Court has said that the                    345 F.3d 850, 854 (10th Cir. 2003); see also TSR         valuable role in enforcing state laws
                                             fit between the restriction’s purpose and                 Amended Rule; 68 FR at 4635 n.669 (‘‘In some             against deceptive or abusive debt relief
                                                                                                       instances, the ‘do-not-call’ registry provisions will    providers. A number of states have
                                             the means chosen to accomplish it must                    also serve another substantial governmental
                                             be ‘‘reasonable’’ but ‘‘not necessarily the               interest—prevention of fraud and abuse, as in cases      enacted laws or regulations restricting
                                             least restrictive means’’ available to                    where elderly consumers are signed up on the             industry members in various ways,
                                             achieve the desired objective.301                         registry to protect them from exploitative or            including setting maximum fees and, in
                                                                                                       fraudulent telemarketers.’’).                            some cases, even banning certain debt
                                                The advance fee ban in the Final Rule                     303 GAO Testimony, supra note 50, at 21 (‘‘We
                                             comports with this test. First,                           identified allegations of fraud, deception and other     relief services. The Commission agrees
                                             preventing abusive sales practices is a                   questionable activities that involve hundreds of         with the commenters who noted the
                                                                                                       thousands of consumers.’’).                              advantages of a federal standard that is
                                                                                                          304 Infra Section III.C.3.a.
                                               296 In re Nat’l Credit Mgmt. Group, 21 F. Supp.                                                                  enforceable both by the FTC and the
                                                                                                          305 Infra Section III.C.3.
                                             2d 424, 457 (D.N.J. 1998). USOBA’s comment in
                                                                                                          306 CFA at 10 (‘‘[D]esperate consumers will tend
                                                                                                                                                                states, in particular the ability to obtain
                                             this proceeding criticized the court’s reasoning and                                                               nationwide injunctive relief and
                                             instead cited to a case invalidating fee regulations      to focus most on the representations made in the
                                             applicable to for-profit companies soliciting money       advertisements about how these services can relieve      consumer redress.312
                                             on behalf of nonprofit charities. USOBA (Oct. 26,         them of their debt worries. We see the required
                                             2009) at 44 (citing Riley v. Nat’l Fed’n of the Blind,    disclosures and prohibited misrepresentations as         recovery services, and guaranteed loans or other
                                             Inc., 487 U.S. 781, 789 n.5 (1988)). USOBA ignored        good complements to, but not substitutes for, the        extensions of credit even though the Rule also bans
                                             the distinction, however, between the established         proposed ban on advance fees.’’); CareOne at 4 (the      deceptive claims and requires disclosures in
                                             speech interests at stake when charitable                 advance fee ban ‘‘is likely to have the greatest         marketing those products and services. See TSR, 16
                                             solicitations are at issue (see Riley, 487 U.S. at 788)   impact.’’); Summary of Communications (June 24,          CFR 310.1.
                                             as opposed to what is entirely commercial speech          2010) at 1 (state attorney general representatives          307 NAAG (Oct. 23, 2009) at 10.
                                             relating to the sale of debt relief services. See Bd.     said that an advance fee ban is the most important          308 USOBA (Oct. 26, 2009) at 36; see also
                                             of Trs v. Fox, 492 U.S. 469, 474-75 (1989) (where         provision in the FTC’s proposed rule and is
                                                                                                       necessary to stop abusive practices of debt relief       Weinstein (Oct. 26, 2009) at 12 (see attached
                                             speech proposing a commercial transaction touched                                                                  Weinstein paper at 11) (state regulation ‘‘is a better
                                             on educational subjects, such speech was not              companies). Disclosures are often of limited benefit
                                                                                                       in inoculating consumers from being deceived. See,       approach because it preserves the states’ traditional
                                             converted into educational speech).
sroberts on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES




                                                                                                       e.g., FTC, Letter to Jennifer L. Johnson, Secretary,     prerogatives of overseeing the provision of financial
                                               297 Cent. Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Pub. Serv.
                                                                                                       FRB, in response to a request for public comments        services while establishing a flexible regulatory
                                             Comm’n, 447 U.S. 557, 561 (1980).                         regarding the ‘‘Home Equity Lending Market,’’            structure for an evolving industry’’).
                                               298 Fox, 492 U.S. at 475; Fla. Bar v. Went for It,                                                                  309 ULC at 4.
                                                                                                       Docket No. OP-1253, Sept. 14, 2006, available at
                                             515 U.S. 618, 623 (1995).                                 (http://www.ftc.gov/os/2006/09/docketop-                    310 SOLS at 2.
                                               299 Cent. Hudson, 447 U.S. 557.
                                                                                                       1253commentfedreservehomeeqlenditextv.pdf).                 311 SBLS at 9-10.
                                               300 Id. at 566.
                                                                                                          The TSR prohibits the collection of advance fees         312 Where, as here, Congress has not totally
                                               301 Fox, 492 U.S. at 480.                               by purveyors of credit repair services, money            foreclosed state regulation, a state statute is



                                        VerDate Mar<15>2010    16:17 Aug 09, 2010   Jkt 220001   PO 00000   Frm 00024   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10AUR2.SGM      10AUR2
                                                               Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations                                                      48481

                                             h. Point 8: The TSR Is Not the                           switch to an entirely online business                   the record in this proceeding –
                                             Appropriate Vehicle for Regulating Debt                  model.317                                               including the Commission’s law
                                             Relief Services                                             The Commission has determined that                   enforcement experience,322 actions by
                                                Some commenters argued that debt                      regulation of the deceptive and abusive                 state law enforcement agencies,323
                                             relief services should not be regulated                  practices of debt relief providers can be               consumer complaints,324 the public
                                             through the TSR. One commenter stated                    accomplished appropriately through                      comments, and the GAO study –
                                             that amending the TSR is not warranted                   amendments to the TSR. The record                       demonstrates that, in fact, debt relief
                                             ‘‘merely because the industry uses                       shows that debt relief companies                        providers commonly fail to produce the
                                             telephones in its business.’’313 It also                 primarily sell their services through                   results they promise, causing substantial
                                             stated that the FTC had brought all of its               national telemarketing campaigns as                     consumer injury.325 Indeed, the
                                             enforcement actions against debt relief                  defined in the TSR.318 Currently,                       industry’s own data show that most
                                             companies under Section 5 of the FTC                     prevalent forms of advertising                          consumers who enroll in debt relief
                                             Act and, thus, that any rules should be                  (television, radio, Internet, and direct                services covered by the Final Rule exit
                                             promulgated under that section as                        mail) instruct consumers to call a toll-                the program in worse financial
                                             well.314 This statement is incorrect. The                free number for more information.319                    condition than when they started.326
                                             Commission and other law enforcement                     Debt relief service providers then utilize                Further, some commenters asserted
                                             agencies have investigated and charged                   telemarketing to conduct the full sales                 that the Commission should not adopt
                                             a number of debt relief providers with                   pitch and obtain consumers’ consent to                  the ban on advance fees because the
                                             violations of the Telemarketing Act and                  purchase their services.320 Thus, the                   services are not ‘‘fundamentally bogus,’’
                                             the TSR.315                                              Commission concludes that the abusive                   the phrase that the Commission used
                                                Two commenters recommended that                       and deceptive practices in the debt                     when promulgating the advance fee
                                             the FTC expand the scope of its                          relief services industry should be                      bans for credit repair services, recovery
                                             proposed regulations to cover Internet                   addressed through amendments to the                     services, and offers of certain loans.327
                                             and face-to-face transactions.316 A third                TSR.                                                    Nothing in the Commission’s statements
                                             commenter questioned whether issuing                     i. Point 9: Very Few Debt Relief                        suggests, however, that advance fee bans
                                             these rules as part of the TSR might                     Companies Are Engaged in Abuse, and                     are legally permissible only when the
                                             encourage debt relief providers to                       the Services Are Not ‘‘Fundamentally                    services at issue are ‘‘fundamentally
                                                                                                      Bogus’’                                                 bogus.’’ The Telemarketing Act does not
                                             preempted if it conflicts with a federal statute. Ray                                                            require that the Commission meet any
                                             v. Atl. Richfield Co., 435 U.S. 151, 158 (1978). State      Industry representatives have argued                 standard other than ‘‘abusive,’’ and the
                                             laws are preempted only to the extent there is a         that the Commission should not impose
                                             conflict – compliance with both federal and state                                                                Commission uses the unfairness test to
                                             regulations is impossible or the state law is an         an advance fee ban because only a few                   determine which practices are
                                             obstacle to effectuating the purposes and objectives     ‘‘bad actors’’ have engaged in deceptive                abusive.328 Here, the Commission has
                                             of Congress. Id. The Commission has emphasized           or abusive practices.321 To the contrary,               determined that the practice of charging
                                             that state laws can impose additional requirements
                                             as long as they do not directly conflict with the           317 Loeb (Mallow), Tr. at 155-56 (acknowledging
                                                                                                                                                              advance fees for debt relief services
                                             TSR. TSR Final Rule, 60 FR at 43862-63; 16 CFR
                                                                                                      that he had not personally seen debt relief             satisfies the unfairness standard based
                                             310.7(b). State laws regulating debt relief services
                                             that contain fee caps permit, rather than mandate,       companies operating solely online, but some clients     on the rulemaking record.
                                             that fees for debt relief services be collected before   had told him that they were aware of companies
                                                                                                      conducting most, if not all, of their marketing         j. Point 10: An Advance Fee Ban Will
                                             the promised services are provided. See supra note
                                             86. As a result, there is no conflict with the Rule      online).                                                Not Establish the Proper Incentives for
                                             and no conflict preemption. Therefore, providers
                                                                                                         318 CFA (Grant), Tr. at 157; NFCC (Binzel), Tr. at
                                                                                                                                                              Debt Settlement Companies
                                             may not charge initial or monthly fees in advance        157. Similarly, other industries regulated by the
                                             of providing the services, even if state laws            TSR, such as credit repair services, may market           Certain commenters argued that an
                                             specifically authorize such fees.                        their services through other media in some cases,       advance fee ban will only serve to
                                                313 TASC (Oct. 26, 2009) at 3.                        although the predominant business model at
                                                                                                      present relies on telemarketing.                        motivate debt settlement providers to
                                                314 Id. at 4. The FTC has the general authority to

                                             promulgate rules addressing unfair or deceptive
                                                                                                         319 Supra note 52. As a result of the Final Rule     enroll as many consumers as possible,
                                             practices under Section 18 of the FTC Act, 15            in this proceeding, these calls are inbound calls       regardless of their suitability for a debt
                                             U.S.C. 57a. The Commission also enacts rules             covered by the TSR.                                     settlement program, in the hope that at
                                                                                                         320 See, e.g., FTC v. Debt-Set, Inc., No. 1:07-cv-
                                             pursuant to specific Congressional mandates, as it                                                               least some will complete the program
                                             did with the TSR.                                        00558-RPM (D. Colo. filed Mar. 19,
                                                315 See FTC Case List, supra note 27. While the       2007)(Complaint, ¶¶ 16-19); FTC Case List, supra        and pay the fees.329 There is no
                                             Commission has sued credit counselors and debt           note 27; CU (Hillebrand), Tr. at 183 (‘‘We heard the
                                             negotiators under the Telemarketing Act and the          TASC folks say four phone calls over two weeks to       ‘‘predicated upon the experience, as described in
                                             TSR, it has not specifically brought such actions        sign up the client, we heard the Freedom Debt folks     the NPR, of a very few ‘bad actors’ and a
                                             against debt settlement providers. Nevertheless,         in the prior panel say eight phone calls. Phone         disproportionately small number of injured
                                             some state law enforcement agencies have done so.        conversations, signing up the client, telemarketing     consumers.’’); USOBA (Oct. 26, 2009) at 27; DRS
                                             See, e.g., Press Release, Florida Attorney General,      and telephone communications are a big piece of         (Sept. 29, 2009) at 1; DS at 12; Franklin at 23.
                                             Attorney General Announces Initiative to Clean Up        how consumers get signed up.’’).                           322 See FTC Case List, supra note 27.
                                             Florida’s Debt Relief Industry (Oct. 15, 2008),             In addition, USOBA asserted that the                    323 See State Case List, supra note 27.
                                             available at (http://myfloridalegal.com/newsrel.nsf/     Commission does not have authority to regulate fees        324 See infra Section III.C.3.a.
                                             newsreleases/                                            through the Telemarketing Act, stating that the            325 The GAO identified allegations of fraud,
                                             BD3AB29E6DDAF150852574E3004DFACD)                        Telemarketing Act focuses on communications that
                                             (subpoenas served by Florida on debt settlement          are harmful because of their content, and those         deception, and other questionable activities
                                             firms as part of a sweep to assess violations, among     issues are distinct from concerns relating to           involving hundreds of thousands of consumers.
                                             others, of Florida laws regulating telephone             payment or other parts of the commercial                GAO Testimony, supra note 50, at 21. Moreover,
                                             solicitations, telemarketing, credit counseling          relationship. USOBA (Oct. 26, 2009) at 40-41. The       GAO’s own survey of 20 debt settlement firms
sroberts on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES




                                             organizations, and credit service organizations); In     Commission believes, however, that regulating the       found that 17 of them were making highly dubious
                                             re PDM Int’l (Assurance of Voluntary Compliance          timing of fee collection constitutes a reasonable       success rate and other claims. Id. at 9-21.
                                                                                                                                                                 326 See supra Sections III.C.1. & III.C.2.a.(1)-(2).
                                             filed May 29, 2008) (case brought by the West            exercise of authority under the Telemarketing Act
                                                                                                                                                                 327 CSA at 12; TASC (Oct. 26, 2009) at 16; Smith,
                                             Virginia Attorney General alleging, among other          under these facts. See 16 CFR 310.4(a); Nat’l Credit
                                             things, that defendant engaged in telemarketing          Mgmt. Group, 21 F. Supp. at 457 (upholding              Tr. at 263; see TSR Amended Rule, 68 FR at 4614.
                                             sales without a business license or surety bond).        advance fee ban on credit repair services).                328 TSR Amended Rule, 68 FR at 4614.
                                                316 ULC at 6; Orion (Oct. 1, 2009) at 1; see also        321 See, e.g., TASC (Apr. 30, 2010) at 2 (arguing       329 Summary of Communications (June 16, 2010)

                                             GP (Oct. 22, 2009) at 2.                                 that a possible advance fee ban would be                at 2.



                                        VerDate Mar<15>2010   16:17 Aug 09, 2010   Jkt 220001   PO 00000   Frm 00025   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10AUR2.SGM      10AUR2
                                             48482             Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

                                             evidence in the record to support this                  and (3) the injury is not reasonably                  Attorney General. The evidence shows
                                             assertion. Given that enrolling and                     avoidable by consumers. Based on the                  that the number of injured consumers is
                                             servicing consumers entails at least                    record in this proceeding, the                        substantial. First, the FTC’s cases have
                                             some costs, it is more likely that, under               Commission concludes that the                         helped over 475,000 consumers who
                                             an advance fee ban, providers will be                   collection of advance fees by debt relief             have been harmed by deceptive and
                                             more discriminating in enrolling those                  services meets the unfairness test and,               abusive practices by debt relief
                                             consumers most likely to be successful                  thus, is an abusive practice.                         companies.338 Moreover, with respect to
                                             and thus generate fees.330 This would                                                                         debt settlement companies alone,
                                                                                                     a. Advance Fees Charged by Debt Relief
                                             represent an improvement over the                                                                             federal and state law enforcement
                                                                                                     Services Cause or Are Likely to Cause
                                             predominant fee structure in place                                                                            agencies have brought actions
                                                                                                     Substantial Injury
                                             currently – in which providers get paid                                                                       challenging the practices of dozens of
                                             no matter how, or if, they perform –                       The record shows that collecting fees              companies with, in the aggregate,
                                             which provides little incentive for                     for debt relief services prior to                     hundreds of thousands of customers.339
                                             providers to expend the resources                       delivering services causes or is likely to            Twenty-nine states have brought at least
                                             necessary to obtain settlements quickly                 cause substantial injury to consumers.                236 enforcement actions against debt
                                             or effectively.                                         Consumers in the midst of financial                   relief companies.340 These cases
                                                Debt settlement industry                             distress suffer monetary harm – often in              consistently have alleged that the
                                             representatives also stated that an                     the hundreds or thousands of dollars –                defendants employed deception in order
                                             advance fee ban would encourage                         when, following sales pitches frequently              to enroll consumers, and then did not
                                             employees of debt settlement                            characterized by high pressure and                    produce the results they promised.341
                                             companies, when negotiating with                        deception, they use their scarce funds to             As an example, the New York Attorney
                                             creditors or debt collectors, to accept the             pay in advance for promised results                   General filed cases against two debt
                                             first offer extended, regardless of                     that, in most cases, never materialize.335            settlement companies alleging that these
                                             whether it is the best possible offer for               Further, in the case of debt settlement               entities had provided the represented
                                             the consumer.331 They further argued                    as currently structured, providers often              services to only one percent and one-
                                             that banning advance fees would result                  instruct or advise consumers to stop                  third of one percent (0.33%),
                                             in a power shift to the creditors and                   paying their creditors and begin paying               respectively, of their customers.342
                                             debt collectors, who would be able to                   the provider’s fees instead.336 These                 Undoubtedly, many more consumers
                                             offer less favorable settlements on the                 consumers not only suffer direct                      have been injured by providers that
                                             assumption that the debt settlement                     monetary injury from the late charges                 have not been the subject of formal law
                                             provider would take any settlement in                   and interest that accrue when creditors               enforcement action. Thus, the
                                             order to get paid.332 Again, there is no                are not paid, but they also suffer lasting            Commission has determined that debt
                                             evidence in the record to substantiate                  harm to their creditworthiness such that              relief companies engage in widespread
                                             these predictions. Moreover, it is based                future efforts to obtain credit, insurance,           deception, frequently fail to produce the
                                             on the unsupported assumption that it                   or other benefits will become more                    results they promise, and have caused
                                             is the provider, rather than the                        difficult and more expensive.                         injury to a large number of consumers.
                                             consumer, who makes the decision on                        The Commission received many                         Second, a significant and growing
                                             whether a particular settlement offer is                comments on the unfairness analysis in                number of consumers have filed
                                             acceptable and affordable. Creditors and                the NPRM. These comments are                          complaints about debt relief companies.
                                             debt collectors should still have                       discussed in the following sections as                Complaints to the FTC about debt relief
                                             substantial incentives to settle debts at               they relate to consumer injury.                       increased approximately 18% from 2008
                                             amounts that consumers can afford.                      (1) Consumers are injured because they                to 2009, rising from 1,073 to 1,263.343
                                             3. The Commission’s Conclusion that                     pay for services that are promised but
                                             Advance Fees for Debt Relief Meet the                   not provided                                             338 Debt Settlement: Fraudulent, Abusive, and

                                                                                                                                                           Deceptive Practices Pose Risk to Consumers:
                                             Test for Unfairness                                       Many commenters supported the                       Hearing on The Debt Settlement Industry: The
                                                The Commission uses the unfairness                   injury analysis in the NPRM,                          Consumer’s Experience Before the Sen. Comm. On
                                                                                                     contending that most consumers who                    Commerce, Science, & Transportation, 111th Cong.
                                             test set forth in Section 5(n) of the FTC                                                                     (2010) (testimony of the Federal Trade Commission)
                                             Act to determine whether an act or                      purchase debt relief services pay in                  at 2.
                                             practice is ‘‘abusive’’ under the                       advance for promised benefits they                       339 GAO Testimony, supra note 50, at 21 (tallying

                                             Telemarketing Act.333 An act or practice                never receive.337 The Commission also                 customers of debt settlement companies subject to
                                             is unfair if: (1) it causes or is likely334             has considered federal and state law                  enforcement actions, not all types of debt relief
                                                                                                     enforcement actions, consumer                         companies); see FTC and State Case Lists, supra
                                             to cause substantial injury to                                                                                note 27; supra Section III.C.1.
                                             consumers, (2) the injury is not                        complaints received by government and                    340 Supra Section III.C.1.

                                             outweighed by any countervailing                        private organizations, and certain                       341 NAAG (Oct. 23, 2009) at 2-5.

                                             benefits to consumers or competition,                   statewide data reported to the Colorado                  342 Press Release, New York Attorney General,

                                                                                                                                                           Attorney General Cuomo Sues Debt Settlement
                                                330 See ACCORD (Oct. 9, 2009) at 3 (‘‘The debt
                                                                                                       335 Supra Section III.C.2.a. According to TASC,     Companies for Deceiving and Harming Consumers
                                                                                                     the median fee under the predominant debt             (May 20, 2009), available at (http://
                                             settlement company will bear the risk that the          settlement model calls for a consumer to pay the      www.oag.state.ny.us/media_center/2009/may/
                                             consumer will not see the program through to the        equivalent of 14% to 18% of the debt enrolled in      may19b_09.html). Similarly, in one FTC case, the
                                             settlement of her debts.’’); NAAG (Oct. 23, 2009) at    the program; thus, a consumer with $20,000 in debt    Commission alleged that only 1.4% of consumers
                                             9.                                                      would pay between $2,800 and $3,600 for debt          enrolled in the defendants’ debt settlement plan
                                                331 Summary of Communications (June 16, 2010)
                                                                                                     settlement services. Consumers complaining to the     obtained the results defendants promised. See FTC
sroberts on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES




                                             at 2.                                                   FTC have reported paying fees in very substantial     v. Nat’l Consumer Council, Inc., No. SACV04-0474
                                                332 Id.
                                                                                                     amounts – often $2,500 to $11,000, depending on       CJC(JWJX) (C.D. Cal. filed Apr. 23, 2004)
                                                333 TSR Amended Rule, 68 FR at 4614.                 the company, the amount of the debt, and the          (calculating completion rates over a 40-month
                                                334 Thus, the Commission need not demonstrate        length of time the consumer participated in the       period without controlling for the time of
                                             actual consumer injury, but only the likelihood of      program.                                              enrollment).
                                                                                                       336 Supra note 73.
                                             substantial injury. In this proceeding, however,                                                                 343 Commission staff used the following method

                                             there is sufficient evidence that the practice of         337 Supra Section III.C.1. (citing NAAG (Oct. 23,   to analyze debt relief complaints in the
                                             collecting advance fees causes actual injury.           2009) at 2-5; MN AG at 1; CFA at 4; AFSA at 4).       Commission’s Consumer Sentinel database. FTC



                                        VerDate Mar<15>2010   16:17 Aug 09, 2010   Jkt 220001   PO 00000   Frm 00026   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10AUR2.SGM   10AUR2
                                                                 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations                                                       48483

                                             NAAG reported that the number of                            reported that complaints against debt                    enforcement resources and identifying
                                             complaints the states have received                         consolidation and negotiation                            targets for prosecution. In this matter,
                                             against debt relief companies,                              companies had risen by almost 19% in                     the sheer number and consistency of the
                                             particularly debt settlement companies,                     2008 over the previous year.347 Based                    complaints received by the Commission
                                             has been rising and has more than                           on the complaints it had received, the                   and others, in the context of the
                                             doubled since 2007.344 Moreover,                            BBB concluded that debt settlement and                   Commission’s overall Consumer
                                             consumers have filed numerous                               negotiation companies often charge                       Sentinel database, raise, at minimum, a
                                             complaints with the Better Business                         substantial advance fees, make promises                  strong inference of widespread
                                             Bureaus (‘‘BBB’’) about debt settlement                     that cannot be fulfilled, mislead                        consumer protection problems in the
                                             and debt negotiation companies.345 The                      consumers about the impact of the                        debt relief industry, including frequent
                                             BBB categorizes these companies as                          services on their credit scores, and                     misrepresentations and, ultimately,
                                             ‘‘Inherently Problematic Businesses,’’                      exaggerate the negative effects of                       nonperformance, and that the collection
                                             indicating that it has fundamental                          bankruptcy to make their own services                    of advance fees causes substantial injury
                                             concerns about the industry as a                            seem more appealing.348 The BBB also                     to large numbers of consumers.
                                             whole.346 In March 2009, the BBB                            found that some customers of debt                        Therefore, the Commission relies on the
                                                                                                         negotiation and debt settlement                          consumer complaint data as
                                             staff identified all complaints coded under ‘‘Debt          providers stopped communicating with                     corroborative of the other types of
                                             Management/Credit Counseling’’ that were received           their creditors only to find that the                    evidence in the record.
                                             directly by the Commission and limited those
                                             search results to only those complaints that
                                                                                                         providers, even after accepting payment,                    Finally, as part of its injury analysis,
                                             included specified key words in the complaint               never contacted their creditors.349                      the Commission considered the
                                             comments field. Staff also excluded complaints                 The Commission recognizes that                        evidence regarding consumer outcomes
                                             with certain keywords that produced false hits,             consumer complaints do not constitute                    in the record. Debt negotiation
                                             such as ‘‘credit repair’’ and ‘‘foreclosure,’’ as well as
                                             those that were coded as Do Not Call registry and
                                                                                                         a statistically representative sample of                 companies, which often operate through
                                             Identity Theft complaints.                                  the population of purchasers of debt                     robocalls offering purported interest rate
                                                In preparing the NPRM, FTC staff utilized the            relief services. At the same time, such                  reductions, did not provide any data at
                                             same method, reviewing a computer-generated                 complaints usually are the ‘‘tip of the                  all. Consumers who accept these offers
                                             sample of 100 debt relief complaints received               iceberg’’ in terms of the actual levels of               are confronted with advance fees of
                                             between April 1, 2008, and March 31, 2009, that
                                             met the search criteria above. TSR Proposed Rule,           consumer dissatisfaction.350 In any                      hundreds or thousands of dollars and
                                             74 FR at 42001 n.166. In its comment, AADMO                 event, the conclusion that collecting                    typically do not receive any services
                                             stated that the ‘‘evidence in the record’’ upon which       advance fees causes substantial                          beyond placement of a single call to a
                                             the FTC based its proposed rule was flawed. Via a           consumer injury is not based on this                     creditor or providing a document
                                             Freedom Of Information Act request, AADMO
                                             obtained all complaints coded under ‘‘Debt                  body of evidence alone. The                              instructing the consumer to accelerate
                                             Management/Credit Counseling’’ for January 1,               Commission has decades of experience                     their debt payments.351
                                             2008, through August 2009, and pointed out that             in drawing inferences from the number                       Similarly, no member of the for-profit
                                             many of the complaints in the Consumer Sentinel             and types of consumer complaints it                      credit counseling industry submitted
                                             database were incorrectly designated as debt relief.
                                             AADMO at 2; see also CSA at 18. FTC staff did not           receives. Complaint trends often are                     any kind of comprehensive data on the
                                             merely rely on the Consumer Sentinel designations           used for purposes of focusing law                        extent to which members of their
                                             to determine the number and substance of relevant                                                                    industry provide the promised
                                             complaints, but substantially refined its analysis as       www.boston.com/business/personalfinance/                 counseling services, or the extent to
                                             described.                                                  articles/2009/11/06/beware_debt_settlement_
                                                344 NAAG (Oct. 23, 2009) at 4; NAAG (July 6,
                                                                                                                                                                  which they endeavor to screen out
                                                                                                         firms_often_promise_more_
                                             2010) at 2 (‘‘We previously commented that the              than_they_can_deliver/).
                                                                                                                                                                  consumers for whom a DMP is
                                             number of consumer complaints the States have                  347 Better Business Bureau, BBB on Differences        unsuitable.352 In fact, statewide data
                                             received against debt relief companies, particularly        Between Debt Consolidation, Debt Negotiation and         from Colorado suggest that most
                                             debt settlement companies, have consistently risen.         Debt Elimination Plans, supra note 62.                   consumers who start DMPs do not finish
                                             This trend has continued.’’).                                  348 Better Business Bureau, Debt Settlement and
                                                345 According to data provided to the GAO, the                                                                    them. In its comment, the Colorado
                                                                                                         Debt Negotiation: Buyer Beware, It’s a Jungle Out
                                             BBB has received thousands of complaints about              There, May 21, 2009, available at (http://               Attorney General submitted data
                                             debt settlement companies in recent years, with the         louisville.bbb.org/article/debt-settlement-and-debt-     collected directly from debt relief
                                             number increasing from eight in 2004 to nearly              negotiation–buyer-beware-its-a-jungle-out-there-         providers, as required by statute. Of
                                             1,800 in 2009. GAO Testimony, supra note 50, at             10569); see also Orion (Jan. 12, 2010) at 1-2
                                             12; see also Better Business Bureau, BBB on
                                                                                                                                                                  Colorado consumers who had been on
                                                                                                         (acknowledging that, after contact from the BBB, it
                                             Differences Between Debt Consolidation, Debt                sought to eliminate systemic sales issues such as        DMPs for two to three years, less than
                                             Negotiation and Debt Elimination Plans, supra note          (1) selling a ‘‘Client Service Agreement’’ as an         nine percent had completed them.353
                                             62; BBB at Attachment A. The BBB defines debt               application; (2) guaranteeing or over-promising the      The data do not distinguish between for-
                                             negotiation and debt settlement companies as those          product; (3) failing to fully disclose service fees;
                                             claiming to negotiate with creditors to lower the           and (4) discussing only positive effects on
                                                                                                                                                                  profit and nonprofit credit counseling
                                             total amount of a consumer’s debt in exchange for           consumer credit scores).                                 providers, however.
                                             an upfront fee.                                                349 Better Business Bureau, BBB on Differences           With respect to debt settlement, as
                                                346 NAAG (Oct. 23, 2009) at 4 n.5. According to          Between Debt Consolidation, Debt Negotiation and         described at length above, the data that
                                             information provided to the GAO, the BBB’s rating           Debt Elimination Plans, supra note 62.                   industry members provided showed that
                                             system incorporates information known to the BBB               350 See, e.g., Dennis E. Garrett, The Frequency
                                             and its experience with the industry under                  and Distribution of Better Business Bureau                 351 NAAG (Oct. 23, 2009) at 3; CFA at 4, 8-10;
                                             assessment. Companies can apply to be removed               Complaints: An Analysis Based on Exchange
                                             from the category by demonstrating they deliver             Transactions, 17 Journal of Consumer Satisfaction,       SBLS at 4; QLS at 2; SOLS at 2; MN AG at 2 (‘‘many
                                             what they promise, make certain disclosures to              Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior 88, 90          debt relief services companies have no intention of
                                             consumers, have adequate procedures for screening           (2004) (noting that only a small percentage of           delivering the services that they promise.’’); see FTC
                                             out customers who are not appropriate candidates            dissatisfied consumers complain to third-party           and State Case Lists, supra note 27.
sroberts on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES




                                                                                                                                                                    352 Supra note 195 (describing data from one for-
                                             for debt settlement, and that a majority of its             entities or agencies); Jeanne Hogarth et al., Problems
                                             customers successfully complete its program. No             with Credit Cards: An Exploration of Consumer            profit credit counseling company about the number
                                             debt settlement firm had successfully demonstrated          Complaining Behaviors, 14 Journal of Consumer            of consumers who called for counseling assistance
                                             that it met these criteria as of March 2010. GAO            Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining            and the number who enrolled in DMPs).
                                             Testimony, supra note 50, at 12-13; see also                Behavior 88, 98 (2001) (finding that only 7% of            353 Of the remaining consumers, 43.87% were

                                             Candice Choi, Beware: Debt-Settlement Firms Often           consumers having problems with their credit card         categorized as still active, and 47.78% had dropped
                                             Promise More Than They Can Deliver, The Boston              company complained to third party entities or            out of the program. CO AG at 4. The average
                                             Globe, Nov. 6, 2009, available at (http://                  agencies).                                               program length was 40 months. Id.



                                        VerDate Mar<15>2010    16:17 Aug 09, 2010    Jkt 220001   PO 00000    Frm 00027   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10AUR2.SGM      10AUR2
                                             48484             Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

                                             most consumers drop out of these                        their debts and restore their financial                  may garnish consumers’ wages, forcing
                                             programs before receiving benefits                      health.359 Debt settlement providers, for                consumers to abandon their debt relief
                                             commensurate with the fees they pay at                  example, represent the settlement                        programs.364 Charging advance fees thus
                                             the outset.354 For example, the industry-               process as a way to pay off each                         impedes the goal of debt relief and
                                             sponsored TASC survey concluded that                    unsecured debt with a one-time, lump                     contributes to consumers having to drop
                                             over 65% of consumers dropped out of                    sum payment as the consumer                              out of programs and forfeit the fees
                                             the respondents’ programs within the                    accumulates sufficient money to fund                     already paid.365
                                             first three years.355 Based on the data                 the settlement. Financially distressed                      Commenters also stated that in debt
                                             collected by the Colorado Attorney                      consumers generally will find it                         settlement programs, significant
                                             General, of those consumers who had                     difficult, if not impossible, to pay large               numbers of consumers drop out once
                                             been in a debt settlement program for                   advance fees while accumulating the                      they realize, contrary to many
                                             two to three years, barely 8% had                       necessary funds for a settlement and                     telemarketers’ representations, that their
                                             completed their programs.356                            enduring extended creditor collection                    initial payments are going to the
                                                Thus, consumers have suffered                        efforts.360 The practice of taking                       provider’s fees, not to pay off their
                                             substantial injury by paying in advance                 substantial advance fees makes it far                    debts.366 Once they drop out, these
                                             for debt relief services that were                      more difficult for consumers to save the                 consumers often end up with higher
                                             promised but not provided.                              money necessary for settlements.361 In                   debt balances than they had before,
                                                                                                     many cases, providers misrepresent or                    among other detrimental results, thereby
                                             (2) The amount and timing of front-
                                                                                                     fail to disclose material aspects of their               suffering substantial injury.367 An
                                             loaded fees in the debt relief context
                                                                                                     programs, causing consumers to make                      organization of nonprofit credit
                                             cause significant injury
                                                                                                     payments to the providers for several                    counselors reported that, in most cases,
                                               The record demonstrates that                          months, not realizing that most of the                   after dropping out of a debt settlement
                                             collecting fees in advance of providing                 payments go towards fees, rather than                    service, the consumer’s financial
                                             the represented services is the most                    settlement offers.362 Moreover, not                      position has been so badly damaged that
                                             common business model in the debt                       paying creditors leads to late fees,                     nonprofit CCAs are unable to provide
                                             negotiation, for-profit credit counseling,              penalties, impaired credit ratings,                      assistance, and often bankruptcy is the
                                             and debt settlement industries.357 The                  lawsuits and other negative                              consumer’s only option.368 Similarly,
                                             record, including the Commission’s law                  consequences.363 Moreover, creditors                     legal services lawyers reported that low-
                                             enforcement experience, further                                                                                  income consumers often are more in
                                             demonstrates that advance fees have                        359 See ULC at 5 (‘‘The UDMSA drafting                debt with their original creditors when
                                             been an integral part of the widespread                 committee likewise recognized that debt settlement       they leave the debt relief program than
                                             deception and abuse in the debt                         firms often charge excessive up-front fees, to the
                                                                                                     detriment of consumers and to the viability of their
                                                                                                                                                              before they enrolled.369 In sum, debt
                                             settlement industry. In the context of                  efforts to avoid bankruptcy.’’).                         settlement is a high-risk financial
                                             debt relief transactions, advance fees                     360 SBLS at 2-4; CFA at 9; CareOne at 4.              product that requires consumers
                                             create incentives for providers that                       361 USDR (Oct. 20, 2009) at 5 (‘‘The proposed Rule    simultaneously to pay significant fees,
                                             fundamentally are at odds with the                      change would have the effect of allowing the             save hundreds or thousands of dollars
                                             interests of consumers: (1) to enroll as                consumer to save and settle debt faster since the
                                                                                                     predatory upfront fees charged by settlement
                                                                                                                                                              for potential settlements, and meet other
                                             many applicants as possible, without                    companies would not be restricting of or                 obligations such as mortgage payments.
                                             adequate regard to their suitability, (2)               burdensome to settlement activity.’’); USDR              Failure leads to grave consequences –
                                             to deceive consumers about                              (Johnson), Tr. at 188; see also CFA at 9.                increased debt, impaired credit ratings,
                                                                                                        362 Summary of Communications (June 30, 2010)
                                             fundamental aspects of the program in                                                                            and lawsuits that result in judgments
                                                                                                     (teleconference with state attorneys general
                                             order to entice them to enroll, and (3)                 representatives); QLS at 4; see also, e.g., FTC v.       and wage garnishments.370
                                             to direct more resources to promotion                   Better Budget Fin. Servs., Inc., No. 04-12326 (WG4)
                                             and marketing rather than settling                      (D. Mass. filed Nov. 2, 2004) (alleging that             consumer’s credit score has suffered. See supra note
                                             debts.358                                               defendant obfuscated the total costs for the             179. The comparable figure for accounts in a DMP
                                                                                                     products and services by separately reeling off          was 16%. ABA at 4.
                                               Indeed, the advance fee requirement                   various fees, such as retainer fees, monthly fees,          364 SBLS at 2-4; CFA at 4; NFCC at 4, 6.
                                             impedes the ultimate purpose of the                     and fees correlated to the percentage of money that         365 QLS at 3; SBLS at 3.
                                             service – helping consumers resolve                     a customer saves using the services, without ever           366 NAAG (Oct. 23, 2009) at 7; SOLS at 2.
                                                                                                     disclosing the total cost, which sometimes was in
                                                                                                                                                                 367 See, e.g., FTC v. Edge Solutions, Inc., No. CV-
                                                                                                     the thousands of dollars); FTC v. Debt-Set, No. 1:07-
                                               354  Supra Section III.C.2.a.                         cv-00558-RPM (D. Colo. filed Mar. 19, 2007)              07-4087 (E.D.N.Y. filed Sept. 28, 2007); see also
                                               355  Id.; infra III.C.2.a. The evidence shows that    (alleging that, in numerous instances, defendants        FTC v. Debt-Set, Inc., No. 07-558, Mem. Supp. Mot.
                                             consumers generally dropped out before receiving        represented that there would be no upfront fees or       T.R.O. at 16-19 (D. Colo. Mar. 20, 2007); FTC v.
                                             savings commensurate with the fees, if they             costs for their debt settlement program, when in fact    Express Consolidation, No. 06-cv-61851-WJZ, Pls.
                                             received any savings at all.                            the defendants required consumers to pay an              Mem. Law Supp. T.R.O. at 17 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 11,
                                               356 Of the remaining consumers, 39% were
                                                                                                     upfront fee of approximately 8% of the consumer’s        2006); FTC v. Better Budget Fin. Servs., Inc., No. 04-
                                             categorized as still active, and 53% had dropped        total unsecured debt); see also, e.g., Illinois v. SDS   12326 (WG4), Pls. Mem. Law Supp. T.R.O. at 8-9
                                             out of the program. CO AG at 5. The average             West Corp., No. 09CH368 (Cir. Ct. of 7th Jud. Dist.,     (D. Mass. filed Nov. 2, 2004); see also State Case
                                             program length was 32.3 months. Id. Debt                Sangamon Cty. filed May 4, 2009); Illinois v. Debt       List, supra note 27.
                                             settlement plans are typically 36 months in length.     Relief USA, Inc., No. 09CH367 (Cir. Ct. of 7th Jud.         368 AICCCA at 3.

                                             DSA/ADE at 8.                                           Dist., Sangamon Cty. filed May 4, 2009); North              369 See, e.g., SOLS at 1.
                                               357 Supra Section I.C.; CFA at 9; CRN at 2; GAO       Carolina v. Commercial Credit Counseling Servs.,            370 NAAG (Oct. 23, 2009) at 8 (‘‘[C]onsumers may
                                             Testimony, supra note 50, at 7 (discussing debt         Inc., No. 06CV014762 (Sup. Ct. Wake Cty. filed Oct.      be led to believe debt settlement is a relatively risk
                                             settlement); see also, e.g., FTC v. Debt Solutions,     9, 2006); North Carolina v. Cambridge Credit             free process with little or no negative consequences,
                                             Inc., No. 06-0298 JLR (W.D. Wash. filed Mar. 6,         Counseling Corp., No. 04CVS005155 (Sup. Ct. Wake         when in fact consumers risk growing debt,
                                             2006) (alleging that consumers paid an advance fee      Cty. filed Apr. 15, 2004); North Carolina v. Knight      deteriorating credit scores, collection actions, and
sroberts on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES




                                             of between $329 and $629 before any debt                Credit Servs., Inc., No. 04CVS8345 (Sup. Ct.             lawsuits that may lead to judgments and wage
                                             negotiation was attempted); FTC v. Integrated           Cumberland Cty. filed Feb. 17, 2004).                    garnishments.’’); see NC AG Testimony, supra note
                                             Credit Solutions, Inc., No. 06-806-SCB-TGW(M.D.            363 NAAG (Oct. 23, 2009) at 3; CFA at 4-5; QLS        25, at 4 (‘‘Three months of nonpayment and non-
                                             Fla. filed May 2, 2006) (alleging that defendants       at 3; SBLS at 3; SOLS at 1; see also USDR (Johnson),     communication lead not only to increased debt, but
                                             charged between $99 and $499 as an initial fee for      Tr. at 188. Notably, a banking trade group               also increased collection efforts and legal action.’’);
                                             credit counseling services that were not, in fact,      commented that an average of 63% of accounts             Haas Testimony, supra note 73, at 4 (‘‘We joined the
                                             provided).                                              known to be part of a debt settlement program            program on March 10, 2008. In 6 months time we
                                               358 See CU (July 1, 2010) at 4.                       ultimately are charged off, likely indicating that the   were about $13K behind from where we started.’’).



                                        VerDate Mar<15>2010   16:17 Aug 09, 2010   Jkt 220001   PO 00000   Frm 00028   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10AUR2.SGM     10AUR2
                                                               Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations                                                        48485

                                                Consumers drop out of debt relief                     typically include a power of attorney                     Moreover, only the provider knows the
                                             programs for many reasons, but the                       form, which providers use to cut off                      historic dropout rate for the service, as
                                             record shows that providers’ practice of                 communication between the consumers                       providers do not disclose their actual
                                             charging substantial advance fees is a                   and their creditors or debt collectors.                   success rates. Thus, providers are better
                                             significant cause.371 The injury that                       Third, as Congress recognized in                       situated than individual consumers to
                                             results from consumers paying in                         enacting the Telemarketing Act,                           know which consumers are likely to be
                                             advance for promised services that                       telemarketing calls are more susceptible                  able to complete the programs. The
                                             frequently do not materialize is                         to deception than face-to-face                            Commission long has held that
                                             substantial.                                             transactions because consumers do not                     consumers are injured by a system that
                                                                                                      have the opportunity to assess                            forces them to bear the full risk and
                                             (3) The context in which debt relief                     credibility or visual cues.376 Indeed, the                burden of sales-related abuses,
                                             services are offered has contributed to                  record shows that there has been a high                   particularly, as in this context, where
                                             the substantial injury                                   level of deception in the telemarketing                   the seller is in a better position to know
                                                The Commission concludes that                         of debt relief services. For example, in                  and understand the risks.381
                                             several aspects of debt relief                           its investigation, the GAO found
                                             transactions have contributed to the                     numerous instances of companies                           b. The Harm to Consumers Is Not
                                             substantial injury caused by advance                     providing fraudulent or deceptive                         Outweighed by Countervailing Benefits
                                             fees in the debt relief context. First, debt             information in telemarketing sales calls,                    The second prong of the unfairness
                                             relief services are directed to financially              such as debt reduction guarantees or                      test recognizes that costs and benefits
                                             distressed consumers, who are                            government affiliation claims.377 As                      attach to most business practices, and it
                                             particularly vulnerable to the providers’                described above, the Commission has                       requires the Commission to determine
                                             claims.372 The Commission has long                       charged 23 debt relief firms with                         whether the harm to consumers is
                                             recognized that sellers may exercise                     deceptive practices in recent years, and                  outweighed by countervailing benefits
                                             undue influence over highly susceptible                  the states have charged numerous                          to consumers or competition.382 In this
                                             classes of purchasers.373 For this reason,               additional firms with such violations.378                 proceeding, no debt negotiator provided
                                             the TSR prohibits advance fees for                       Thus, the manner in which debt relief                     any comments or evidence of
                                             credit repair services and certain loan                  services have been sold has impeded the                   countervailing benefits from advance
                                             offers, services that also target                        free exercise of consumer                                 fees. For-profit credit counselors
                                             financially distressed consumers.374                     decisionmaking. The Commission                            provided only minimal evidence that
                                                Second, debt relief services, as they                 historically has viewed such an                           they provide the promised services.383
                                             are currently marketed, frequently take                  impediment as one of the hallmarks of
                                             place in the context of high pressure                    an unfair practice.379                                    his company employs ‘‘25 to 30 people who do
                                             sales tactics, contracts of adhesion, and                   A final factor in the injury calculation               nothing more than analyze the information we
                                                                                                                                                                receive from consumers regarding the
                                             deception. For example, many                             with respect to this industry is that                     appropriateness of the program for these
                                             Commission cases have alleged that                       charging an advance fee requires                          consumers’’).
                                             telemarketers of debt relief services have               consumers to bear the full risk of the                       381 See Cooling Off Period For Door-to-Door

                                             exhorted consumers to fill out the                       transaction, when the seller is in a better               Sales; Trade Regulations Rule and Statement of
                                             enrollment documents and return the                                                                                Basis and Purpose, 37 FR 22934, 22947 (Oct. 26,
                                                                                                      position to assume that risk. Consumers                   1972) (codified at 16 CFR 429); Preservation of
                                             papers as quickly as possible.375                        often have limited means to evaluate                      Consumers’ Claims and Defenses, Statement of
                                             Notably, these enrollment documents                      whether they are good candidates for                      Basis and Purpose, 40 FR 53,506, 53,523 (Nov. 18,
                                                                                                      debt relief, and therefore, consumers                     1975) (codified at 16 CFR 433) (same); In re Orkin
                                                                                                                                                                Exterminating, 108 F.T.C. at 263, 364 (‘‘By raising
                                                371 Supra note 213 and accompanying text; SBLS
                                                                                                      rely on the sellers’ claims. Providers                    the fees, Orkin unilaterally shifted the risk of
                                             at 2-4; CFA at 9; CareOne at 4; QLS at 3.                frequently hold themselves out as
                                                372 CFA at 10.
                                                                                                                                                                inflation that it had assumed under the pre-1975
                                                373 Unfairness Policy Statement, supra note 162,
                                                                                                      experts in determining the right course                   contracts to its pre-1975 customers.’’); In re
                                                                                                      of action for the indebted consumer.380                   Thompson Medical Co., Inc., 104 F.T.C. 648 (1984)
                                             at 1074.                                                                                                           (noting that marketers must provide a high level of
                                                374 See 16 CFR 310.4(a).
                                                                                                                                                                substantiation to support ‘‘claim[s] whose truth or
                                                375 FTC v. Debt-Set, Inc., No. 1:07-CV-00558-RPM
                                                                                                        376  TSR Amended Rule, 68 FR at 4655.                   falsity would be difficult or impossible for
                                             (D. Colo. filed Mar. 19, 2007); FTC v. Better Budget       377  GAO Testimony, supra note 50, at 13.               consumers to evaluate by themselves’’).
                                                                                                         378 See FTC and State Case Lists, supra note 27.
                                             Fin. Servs., Inc., No. 04-12326 (WG4) (D. Mass. filed                                                                 382 Unfairness Policy Statement, supra note 162,
                                             Nov. 2, 2004) (complaint alleging that ‘‘[d]uring           379 Unfairness Policy Statement, supra note 162,       at 1073-74 (‘‘The Commission also takes account of
                                             sales conversation, consumers are instructed to          at 1074; In re Amrep, 102 F.T.C. 1362 (1983), aff’d,      the various costs that a remedy would entail. These
                                             immediately stop making any payments to their            768 F.2d 1171 (10th Cir. 1985) (‘‘[A] 100% forfeiture     include not only the costs to the parties directly
                                             unsecured creditors’’); FTC v. Edge Solutions, Inc.,     clause, appearing in an adhesion contract for the         before the agency, but also the burdens on society
                                             No. CV-07-4087, Mem. Supp. Mot. T.R.O., Exs. PX-         sale of land, signed in an atmosphere of high             in general in the form of increased paperwork,
                                             2 – PX-4 (E.D.N.Y. filed Oct. 1, 2007) (telemarketer     pressure sales tactics, unequal bargaining power          increased regulatory burdens on the flow of
                                             pressuring FTC investigators to quickly sign and         and deceptive misrepresentations, violated Section        information, reduced incentives to innovation and
                                             return written contracts – e.g., within 24 to 48 hours   5’s proscription of unfair practices.’’); In re Horizon   capital formation, and similar matters.’’); see also J.
                                             – and misrepresenting aspects of the debt relief         Corp., 97 F.T.C. 464 (1981) (same); In re Sw.             Howard Beales III, The FTC’s Use of Unfairness
                                             program); FTC v. Debt Solutions, Inc., No. 06-0298       Sunsites, 105 F.T.C. 7, 340 (1985), aff’d, 785 F.2d       Authority: Its Rise, Fall, and Resurrection, available
                                             JLR, App. T.R.O. at 9-10 (W.D. Wash. filed Mar. 6,       1431 (9th Cir. 1986) (‘‘Respondents’ practices            at (http://www.ftc.gov/speeches/beales/
                                             2006) (in a debt negotiation case, alleging that the     resulted in substantial monetary injury to                unfair0603.shtm) (noting that ‘‘[g]enerally, it is
                                             defendants’ telemarketers ‘‘aggressively push            consumers, because they induced consumers to              important to consider both the costs of imposing a
                                             consumers to agree to scripted language, spoken          continue paying substantial amounts. . . through a        remedy (such as the cost of requiring a particular
                                             very quickly, that either contradicts or omits           variety of continuing misrepresentations.’’).             disclosure in advertising) and any benefits that
                                             material representations . . . made in their sales          380 See FTC v. Debt-Set, No. 1:07-cv-00558-RPM         consumers enjoy as a result of the practice, such as
                                             pitches.’’); FTC v. Group One Networks, Inc., No.        (D. Colo., final order Apr. 11, 2008); FTC v. Nat’l       the avoided costs of more stringent authorization
sroberts on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES




                                             8:09-cv-352-T-26-MAP, Mem. Supp. Mot. T.R.O. at          Consumer Council, Inc., No. ACV04-0474CJC                 procedures and the value of consumer
                                             9-10 (M.D. Fla. filed Feb. 27, 2009) (in a debt          (JWJX) (C.D. Cal., final order Apr. 1, 2005). A debt      convenience’’).
                                             negotiation case, alleging that, in order to obtain      settlement industry association stated that, based on        383 CareOne was the only for-profit provider that

                                             consumers’ consent to enroll, defendants play            its members’ experiences, there are certain               submitted data; it stated that: (1) over 700,000
                                             consumers a ‘‘difficult to understand pre-recorded       characteristics that make it more likely that a           consumers have called the company for counseling
                                             verification [that] contains additional information      consumer will be able to achieve the benefits             assistance; (2) over 225,000 customers enrolled in a
                                             that is not part of defendants’ telemarketing sales      offered by a debt settlement program. TASC (Apr.          DMP; (3) nearly 700,000 customer service calls have
                                             pitch,’’ including information on fees).                 30, 2010) at 3; FDR (Linderman), Tr. at 96 (stating                                                    Continued




                                        VerDate Mar<15>2010   16:17 Aug 09, 2010   Jkt 220001   PO 00000      Frm 00029   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10AUR2.SGM    10AUR2
                                             48486             Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

                                             The bulk of the comments and data                       service;388 (2) they may not get paid for                 makes at least one payment.397 With
                                             submitted relating to the second prong                  the services they rendered given their                    respect to debt settlement, if
                                             of the unfairness test came from the debt               customers’ already precarious financial                   information submitted by commenters is
                                             settlement industry which essentially                   condition;389 and (3) scam operators                      accurate, providers often can start
                                             made two arguments.                                     would ignore the advance fee ban,                         settling debts as early as five or six
                                                First, members of the debt settlement                profiting at the expense of debt                          months into the program.398
                                             industry commented that many                            settlement companies that complied                           The Commission acknowledges that
                                             consumers receive substantial benefits                  with the law.390 Other commenters                         the ban on advance fees will shift some
                                             from debt settlement programs. In fact,                 posited that no new companies would                       of the transactional risk from the
                                             as explained in Section III.C.2. above,                 enter the market, further injuring                        consumer to the provider. At present,
                                             the record shows that most consumers                    competition.391                                           however, consumers bear the full risk –
                                             do not obtain a net benefit from debt                     Although the Commission cannot                          they must pay hundreds or thousands of
                                             settlement services. In any event, the                  predict with precision what impact the                    dollars with no assurance that they will
                                             Final Rule does not ban debt settlement                 advance fee ban will have on the debt                     ever receive any benefit in return.399
                                             services or restrict the amount of debt                 relief industry, the Commission                           Moreover, the transaction inherently is
                                             settlement company fees; it only bars                   concludes, based on the record                            one in which many consumers are
                                             collection of advance fees.384 There is                 evidence, that any injury to competition                  doomed to fail, because they are already
                                             no empirical evidence in the record that                resulting from the elimination of any                     financially distressed and cannot afford
                                             paying large advance fees has any                       companies unable to succeed under the                     to pay the large advance fees, make
                                             benefits for consumers.385 Given the                    modified advance fee prohibition                          payments to creditors, and save enough
                                             large percentage of consumers who drop                  adopted here would be outweighed by                       money to fund settlements. The record
                                             out of debt settlement programs – in                    the benefits to consumers that would                      in this proceeding bears this out – a
                                             large part due to having to pay advance                 result from this provision. The record                    large majority of consumers drop out of
                                             fees – the Commission concludes that                    suggests that legitimate providers of                     the program, in most cases before they
                                             any countervailing benefits to                          debt relief services can operate their                    receive savings commensurate with the
                                             consumers that might possibly derive                    businesses without collecting advance                     fees and other costs they paid.400
                                             from paying advance fees is greatly                     fees.392 The record contains scant                           In any event, the Final Rule
                                             outweighed by the substantial injury                    evidence about the costs debt relief                      substantially mitigates the provider’s
                                             that practice causes.386                                providers typically incur prior to                        risk of nonpayment. As described in
                                                Second, several commenters,                          settling debt, and the estimated costs                    more detail below, providers will be
                                             principally from the debt settlement                    appear to vary widely.393 The large bulk                  able to require customers to make
                                             industry, predicted that significant                    of those costs, however, are for                          payments into a dedicated bank
                                             numbers of debt relief companies would                  marketing and customer acquisition.394                    account. As each debt is settled, the
                                             be harmed or go out of business if the                  As in many other lines of business, debt                  consumer can pay the provider’s fee
                                             advance fee ban were implemented,387                    relief companies would have to                            from that account.401
                                             because (1) they would not have the                     capitalize their businesses adequately in
                                             cash flow necessary to administer                       order to fund their initial operations.                     397  Id.
                                             settlement plans and provide customer                   Further, the record indicates that they                     398  CRN (Bovee), Tr. at 28; see CSA at 6 (almost
                                                                                                     could start recouping their expenses                      78% percent of consumers receive at least one
                                                                                                                                                               settlement offer in the first six months).
                                             been made; (4) over nine million creditor payments      relatively quickly. Providers only need                      399 See WV AG (Googel), Tr. at 43; NC AG
                                             were processed; (5) nearly $650 million in payments     sufficient capitalization to operate until                Testimony, supra note 25, at 4 (‘‘Consumers are
                                             have moved from consumers to their creditors; and       they begin receiving fees generated by                    taking a big risk, while interest charges mount and
                                             (6) fewer than 35 Better Business Bureau complaints     performance of the promised                               the debt settler’s fees are being collected, that they
                                             were filed in the previous year on approximately                                                                  will eventually get relief from all their debts,’’ and
                                             70,000 new customers, and all had been                  services.395 The Final Rule allows
                                                                                                                                                               the debt settlement company ‘‘profits whether or not
                                             successfully resolved. CareOne at 1-2.                  providers to receive fees as they settle                  it accomplishes anything for its client.’’). Consumers
                                                384 In any event, as explained in Section III.C.2.   each debt.396 CCAs generally will be                      clearly are injured by a system that forces them to
                                             above, the record shows that, in fact, most             able to collect fees at the beginning of                  bear the full risk and burden of sales related abuses.
                                             consumers do not obtain a net benefit from debt                                                                   See Cooling Off Period For Door-to-Door Sales;
                                             settlement services.
                                                                                                     the DMP, after the consumer enrolls and
                                                                                                                                                               Trade Regulations Rule and Statement of Basis and
                                                385 According to one commenter, research                                                                       Purpose, 37 FR 22934, 22947 (Oct. 26, 1972).
                                                                                                        388 Supra Section III.C.2.d. Moreover, a
                                             indicates that consumers have higher success rates                                                                   400 As discussed above, industry data show that
                                             when they pay some fees upfront and thereby have        commenter argued that if existing providers’ costs        at least 65% of consumers drop out of debt
                                             a ‘‘‘stake in the game.’’’ Loeb at 5-6. Another         increase, they could be forced to increase the prices     settlement programs. Supra Section III.C.2.a.1.
                                             commenter expressed concern that without advance        they charge consumers for their services in order to         401 Infra Section III.C.5.c. Under the Final Rule,
                                             fees, consumers may be more likely to misrepresent      remain solvent. CSA at 9.
                                                                                                        389 Supra Section III.C.2.e.
                                                                                                                                                               consumers will own the account and be permitted
                                             their financial status to get into the program and to                                                             to recoup the money they paid into it if they
                                                                                                        390 USOBA (Oct. 26, 2009) at 35; CSA at 10.
                                             drop out because of a lack of commitment. DMB                                                                     terminate their enrollment. Thus, some consumers
                                             (Feb. 12, 2010) at 5. Neither of these commenters          391 CSA at 9; Able (Oct. 21, 2009) at 28; SDS (Oct.
                                                                                                                                                               may drop out of the program before receiving any
                                             cited any empirical data demonstrating that             7, 2009) at 3; CRN (Oct. 8, 2009) at 5; TASC              settlements, causing the provider to lose the value
                                             consumers who pay upfront fees have higher              (Young), Tr. at 186-87.                                   of its services up to that point. Providers can limit
                                             success rates than those who do not. In any event,         392 Supra Section III.C.2.d.
                                                                                                                                                               that risk, however, by more carefully screening
                                             even if upfront fees strengthened consumers’               393 Id.
                                                                                                                                                               prospective customers to ensure that they are
                                             commitment to the program, requiring consumers to          394 Orion (Oct. 1, 2009) at 2 (marketing costs can     financially suitable for the program and by
                                             put fees into a dedicated bank account likely would     be $500 to $1,200 per enrolled consumer); NWS at          obtaining settlements more quickly. There is no
                                             have the same effect.                                   10 (see attached Walji paper at 10) (marketing costs      reason to believe that consumers would attempt to
                                                386 Supra Section III.C.2.a. Similarly, in           at one company averaged $987.50 per enrolled              ‘‘game’’ the system by dropping out of the program
sroberts on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES




                                             considering the Holder In Due Course Rule, the          consumer).                                                and getting their money back before the provider
                                             Commission determined that readily available               395 See infra Section III.C.5.a. Some states already   obtains any settlements; since the purpose of
                                             credit from a ‘‘‘fly-by-night’ salesperson who does     impose licensing and bonding requirements on              enrolling in the first place is to obtain settlements,
                                             not perform as promised does not benefit                companies and thus require some capitalization.           consumers would have no incentive to drop out
                                             consumers.’’ Preservation of Consumers’ Claims and      See, e.g., Kan. Stat. Ann. § 50-1116, et seq.; Me. Rev.   prior to obtaining them. Moreover, to the extent that
                                             Defenses, Statement of Basis and Purpose, 40 FR at      Stat. Ann. Tit. 17 § 701, et seq. & tit. 32 §§ 6171-      consumers must pay fees to the bank or other entity
                                             53,520.                                                 82, 1101-03; S.C. Code Ann. § 37-7-101, et seq.           holding their accounts, they will stand to lose at
                                                387 Supra Section III.C.2.c.                            396 See infra Section III.C.5.a.                       least some money if they later quit the program and



                                        VerDate Mar<15>2010   16:17 Aug 09, 2010   Jkt 220001   PO 00000   Frm 00030   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10AUR2.SGM      10AUR2
                                                                Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations                                                      48487

                                               Given that most consumers who pay                       services407 and because purchasers of                     d. Public Policy Concerning Advance
                                             advance fees receive little, if any,                      debt relief services typically are in                     Fees
                                             benefit from the debt relief services                     serious financial straits and are thus
                                             covered by the Final Rule, any injury to                  particularly vulnerable to the providers’                    The Commission’s unfairness analysis
                                             individual providers resulting from the                   glowing claims.408 Relying on the                         permits it to consider established public
                                             advance fee ban does not outweigh the                     representations made in advertisements                    policies in determining whether an act
                                             consumer injury resulting from current                    and in telemarketing calls, these                         or practice is unfair, although those
                                             fee practices.                                            vulnerable consumers have every reason                    policies cannot be the primary basis for
                                                                                                       to expect to receive the promised                         that determination.412 In this regard,
                                             c. Consumers Cannot Reasonably Avoid                      benefits from those who purport to be                     nearly all states have adopted laws that
                                             the Injury                                                experts and have no way of knowing                        regulate the provision of some or all
                                                The third and final prong of the                       that, in fact, they are unlikely to receive               debt relief services. In fact, six of these
                                             unfairness analysis precludes a finding                   those benefits, if they receive any                       laws ban receiving any payment as a for-
                                             of unfairness in cases where the                          benefits at all.409 Consumers are                         profit debt settlement company.413
                                             substantial injury is one that consumers                  unaware that when they purchase debt                      Consistent with these statutes and its
                                             reasonably can avoid.402 The extent to                    relief services, they are at high risk of                 law enforcement experience, NAAG
                                             which a consumer can reasonably avoid                     failure and the concomitant loss of                       filed comments strongly advocating that
                                             injury is determined in part by whether                   hundreds or thousands of dollars that                     the Commission issue a rule prohibiting
                                                                                                       they can ill afford to lose.410 As                        the charging of advance fees for debt
                                             the consumer can make an informed
                                                                                                       described earlier, debt relief programs                   relief services.414 These state laws
                                             choice. In this regard, the Unfairness
                                                                                                       with large advance fees force consumers                   provide further support for the
                                             Policy Statement explains that certain
                                                                                                       in financial distress to do what most of                  Commission’s finding that this practice
                                             types of sales techniques may prevent
                                                                                                       them cannot do: simultaneously pay the                    is unfair.
                                             consumers from effectively making their
                                                                                                       provider, save for settlements, and meet
                                             own decisions, and that corrective                                                                                     Accordingly, the Commission
                                                                                                       other obligations such as mortgage
                                             action may then become necessary.403                                                                                concludes that the practice of charging
                                                                                                       payments.
                                             The Commission finds a practice unfair                       Moreover, consumers typically cannot                   advance fees is an abusive practice
                                             ‘‘not to second-guess the wisdom of                       mitigate their harm by seeking a refund.                  under the Telemarketing Act because it
                                             particular consumer decisions, but                        Debt relief providers often advertise                     meets the statutory test for unfairness –
                                             rather to halt some form of seller                        generous refund policies, but frequently                  it causes or is likely to cause substantial
                                             behavior that unreasonably creates or                     consumers lose much of their money.411                    injury to consumers that is not
                                             takes advantage of an obstacle to the free                                                                          outweighed by countervailing benefits
                                             exercise of consumer                                         407 See In re Sw. Sunsites, 105 F.T.C. 7, 81-93        to consumers or competition and is not
                                             decisionmaking.’’404                                      (1985) (holding that land sale companies engaged          reasonably avoidable.
                                                                                                       in an unfair practice by continuing to collect
                                                Consumers can reasonably avoid                         payments on land sales contracts, and refusing to         4. Recommendations to Restrict Other
                                             harm only if they understand the risk of                  make refunds, for consumers who agreed to                 Abusive Practices
                                             injury from an act or practice.405 In the                 purchase land based on deceptive representations
                                             context of debt relief service fees,                      made by the companies), aff’d, 785 F.2d 1431 (9th
                                                                                                       Cir. 1986).
                                                                                                                                                                   A number of commenters proposed
                                             consumers can avoid the injury only if                       408 As the Commission has noted with respect to        additional remedial provisions, as
                                             they understand the payment                               another group of vulnerable consumers desperate           discussed below. The Commission
                                             arrangement, and its implications, and                    for a solution to their woes – individuals trying to      declines to adopt these additional
                                             are aware of the risks of paying in                       lose weight – ‘‘the promises of weight loss without       remedies in the Final Rule.
                                             advance. Consumers are unlikely to                        dieting are the Siren’s call, and advertising that
                                                                                                       heralds unrestrained consumption while muting the         a. Suitability Analysis
                                             know that the services do not benefit                     inevitable need for temperance if not abstinence
                                             most consumers who enroll and that                        simply does not pass muster.’’ In re Porter &
                                                                                                                                                                    A coalition of consumer groups and
                                             they are at significant risk of losing the                Dietsch, Inc., 90 F.T.C. 770, 865 (1977), aff’d, 605
                                                                                                       F.2d 294, 297 (7th Cir. 1979) (approving FTC order        other commenters recommended that
                                             large sums of money they pay in
                                                                                                       with ‘‘minor exceptions’’).                               the Commission require providers to
                                             advance fees.406 This is especially true                     409 See supra Sections I.C.2. & III.C.2.; CFA at 10;
                                             because of the widespread deception                                                                                 employ a suitability or screening
                                                                                                       CCCS CNY at 1; QLS at 2.
                                             surrounding the marketing of debt relief                     410 Having paid in advance and having not
                                                                                                                                                                 analysis of prospective customers to
                                                                                                       received a refund, the only remaining recourse            ensure that only those who meet the
                                                                                                       consumers would have for a nonperforming debt             financial requirements to successfully
                                             withdraw their money. Ultimately, the risk of
                                             nonpayment will have to be factored into providers’
                                                                                                       relief service provider is to file a lawsuit for breach   complete the offered debt relief program
                                                                                                       of contract, hardly a viable option for financially
                                             pricing decisions. This should lead to a more
                                                                                                       distressed consumers. Orkin, 108 F.T.C. at 379-80
                                             competitive market. Providers that do better                                                                        Credit Solutions, No. 401225 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. N.Y.
                                                                                                       (Oliver, Chmn., concurring) (suing for breach of
                                             screening and are more effective in obtaining                                                                       Cty. 2009 filed May 19, 2009); QLS at 3; CFA at 5,
                                                                                                       contract is not a reasonable means for consumers
                                             settlements quickly should be able to minimize                                                                      9; WV AG (Googel), Tr. at 84. Moreover, a
                                                                                                       to avoid injury). The cost of litigating makes it
                                             their losses from dropouts. Such firms may choose                                                                   requirement that debt relief services honor refund
                                                                                                       impossible or impractical for many consumers to
                                             to lower their prices and gain a competitive                                                                        requests is not sufficient to address this harm
                                                                                                       seek legal recourse. Many consumers who are in
                                             advantage.                                                                                                          because obtaining a refund has a cost to consumers.
                                                402 15 U.S.C. 45(n); see also Unfairness Policy
                                                                                                       financial distress may not even be aware that filing
                                                                                                       an action against the provider for breach of contract     FTC v. Think Achievement Corp., 312 F.3d 259, 261
                                             Statement, supra note 162, at 1073.                       is available as an alternative. Therefore, the            (7th Cir. 2002) (‘‘This might be a tenable argument
                                                403 Unfairness Policy Statement, supra note 162,                                                                 if obtaining a refund were costless, but of course it
                                                                                                       possibility of taking legal action does not
                                             at 1074.                                                  sufficiently mitigate the harm to consumers from          is not. It is a bother. No one would buy something
sroberts on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES




                                                404 Id.
                                                                                                       paying an advance fee.                                    knowing that it was worthless and that therefore he
                                                405 See id.; In re Orkin Exterminating Co., 108           411 MN AG at 2 (attaching complaints in cases          would have to get a refund of the purchase price.’’).
                                                                                                                                                                    412 15 U.S.C. 45(n).
                                             F.T.C. 263, 366-67 (1986), aff’d, 849 F.2d 1354 (11th     against Priority Direct Marketing, Inc., Clear
                                             Cir. 1988); In re Int’l Harvester, 104 F.T.C. 949, 1066   Financial Solutions, and Moneyworks, LLC); see,              413 La. Rev. Stat. § 14:331; N.D. Cen. Code § 13-

                                             (1984).                                                   e.g., FTC v. Innovative Sys. Tech., Inc., No. CV04-       06-02; Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 33-14-102; Mass. Gen.
                                                406 CFA at 10; SOLS at 3 (advertisements lack          0728 GAF JTLx (C.D. Cal. filed Feb. 3, 2004)              Laws Ann. Ch. 180 § 4A; N.J. Stat. Ann. § 17:16G-
                                             specific disclosures; subsequent disclosures are          (defendants advertised money-back guarantees, yet         2; Haw. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 446-2.
                                             buried in fine print contracts).                          allegedly refused to honor them); New York v.                414 NAAG (Oct. 23, 2009) at 1.




                                        VerDate Mar<15>2010   16:17 Aug 09, 2010   Jkt 220001   PO 00000    Frm 00031    Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10AUR2.SGM      10AUR2
                                             48488              Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

                                             are permitted to enroll.415 Several                        Commission will continue to monitor                     c. Fee Caps
                                             commenters asserted that providers’                        the industry to ensure that debt relief                    Industry representatives also have
                                             failure to do such analyses contributes                    providers establish and maintain                        argued that, instead of prohibiting
                                             to consumers’ inability to stay in the                     reasonable policies and procedures to                   advance fees, the Final Rule should set
                                             program, and thus to the injury they                       screen prospective customers for                        limits or caps on such fees similar to
                                             suffer when they drop out.416                              suitability. If it finds that significant               those currently imposed by many
                                                The Commission has concluded that                       numbers of providers continue to enroll                 states.421 The Commission declines to
                                             it is unnecessary at this time to institute                consumers who are unsuitable for their                  set fee limits in this proceeding. While
                                             explicit suitability requirements in the                                                                           the Commission concludes that the
                                                                                                        programs, the Commission may
                                             Final Rule. The existing provisions of                                                                             collection of advance fees by debt relief
                                                                                                        consider further amendments to the TSR
                                             the Final Rule should provide                                                                                      providers is an abusive practice, it does
                                             incentives for providers to screen out                     to solve the problem.
                                                                                                                                                                not believe that the Telemarketing Act
                                             consumers who cannot afford both to                        b. Right of Rescission or Refund                        authorizes the Commission to regulate
                                             save funds for settlement and to pay the                   Provision                                               the amount of fees a provider charges,
                                             provider’s fee, because if a consumer                                                                              absent some other type of deceptive or
                                             cannot do both and drops out before                           Several commenters also
                                                                                                                                                                abusive conduct that interferes with a
                                             settling or otherwise resolving any                        recommended that the Final Rule grant                   competitive market.422 In general, fee-
                                             debts, the provider cannot collect its                     consumers a right to rescind their                      setting is best done by a competitive
                                             fees.417 Certainly the Commission                          contracts within a certain period of time               market, and the Commission’s role is to
                                             regards it as a best practice to                           and receive a refund of fees paid to debt               remove obstacles to consumers making
                                             implement screening procedures to                          relief providers.418 They argue that such               the informed choices that are necessary
                                             maximize the likelihood that enrollees                     a requirement would provide consumers                   to a properly functioning market. The
                                             will have the wherewithal to complete                      with more time to assess whether the                    provisions of the Final Rule, including
                                             and benefit from a service. The                            service is beneficial for them and also                 the narrowly tailored ban on advance
                                                                                                        discourage providers from enrolling                     fees, are designed to ensure that the debt
                                                 415 See CFA at 21 (‘‘[D]ebt relief providers should

                                             be required to conduct an individual financial
                                                                                                        consumers who are unlikely to benefit                   relief market functions properly and to
                                             analysis for all potential customers to determine          from their services. The Commission                     eliminate the risk that consumers will
                                             whether the service is suitable for and will provide       also considered whether requiring                       pay thousands of dollars and receive
                                             a tangible net benefit to them before enrolling            providers to give consumers refunds for                 little or nothing in return.423 In any
                                             them.’’); CareOne at 7 (‘‘Providers should be
                                             required to . . . attest to and document the suitability   a certain period of time would mitigate                 event, the Commission believes that any
                                             of the service sold to the consumer.’’); TASC (Apr.        any harm consumers suffered from                        decision to set fees is made more
                                             30, 2010) at 1-2; see also RDRI (Manning), Tr. at          advance fees.                                           appropriately by legislative bodies, as
                                             220-21.                                                                                                            several states have done with respect to
                                                 416 See NAAG (Oct. 23, 2009) at 2 (‘‘The primary          The Commission concludes that the
                                                                                                                                                                debt relief services.424
                                             consumer protection problem areas that have given          modified advance fee restrictions in
                                             rise to the States’ action include . . . lack of           § 310.4(a)(5) adequately address these                     421 See, e.g., TASC (Apr. 30, 2010) at 1-2, 7-9.
                                             screening and analysis to determine suitability of
                                             debt relief programs for individual debtors.’’);           concerns. A consumer who receives no                    Additionally, TASC recommended that the
                                             CareOne at 7 (‘‘One of the greatest concerns about         benefit from a program will not be                      Commission mandate that companies spread their
                                             abuse of consumers in the debt relief industry                                                                     collection of fees over a specified period of months.
                                                                                                        required to pay a fee and can simply                    This fee structure, however, allows providers to
                                             relates to whether consumers are appropriately
                                             placed into plans that represent the most suitable
                                                                                                        terminate the program. Because any                      collect fees regardless of whether they have
                                             approach for addressing their debt problems.’’); MP        funds that the consumer pays into a                     achieved results and therefore suffers from the
                                             at 2 (‘‘The reality is that the majority of consumers      dedicated bank account remain the                       flaws discussed in this subsection and results in the
                                             being enrolled into traditional debt settlement                                                                    abuse described in Section III.C.3. See SOLS at 2
                                                                                                        property of the consumer until the debts                (recommending fee caps in addition to an advance
                                             programs are not suitable candidates for this
                                             strategy.’’); NACCA (Keiser), Tr. at 66 (‘‘I think one     are settled, enabling the consumer to                   fee ban).
                                             problem might be is too many people might be               cancel the program and recoup his                          422 The purpose of the FTC’s unfairness doctrine

                                             getting into programs that aren’t appropriate for          money, the advance fee ban effectively                  is not to permit the Commission to obtain better
                                             them that they cannot afford, and that’s where you                                                                 bargains for consumers than they can obtain in the
                                             hear the horror stories.’’); WV AG (Googel), Tr. at
                                                                                                        provides a right of rescission and                      marketplace. Am. Fin. Servs. Ass’n v. FTC, 767 F.2d
                                             84 (‘‘[T]he classic complaint that I think most states     refund. Moreover, a rescission or refund                957, 964 (D.C. Cir. 1985). Instead, it is to prohibit
                                             have received is consumers who have paid                   right on its own leaves significant risk                acts and practices that may unreasonably create or
                                             thousands and thousands of dollars up front, who                                                                   take advantage of an obstacle to the ability of
                                                                                                        with consumers that the provider will                   consumers to make informed choices. See id. at 976.
                                             probably weren’t even suitable candidates for debt
                                             settlement.’’). But see, e.g., TASC (Housser), Tr. at      not respond to a request for rescission                    423 Simply capping the fees might reduce the

                                             224 (‘‘I do want to point out that we think we do          or refund, or it will be out of business                amount of consumer injury, but, so long as
                                             a pretty good job and TASC members think they do           before providing the contract rescission                consumers are induced to pay some amount of
                                             a pretty good job of suitability analysis of                                                                       money for services that may never be rendered,
                                             consumers’’); FDR (Linderman), Tr. at 95 (arguing
                                                                                                        or refund.419 Finally, if a refund right                would not eliminate the injury.
                                             that ‘‘we take the time to do a thorough suitability       only lasts until the consumer receives                     424 Moreover, any federally established maximum
                                             analysis’’).                                               the first settlement, the company would                 advance fee might well become the de facto actual
                                                 417 Final Rule, § 310.4(a)(5). See, e.g., ACCORD                                                               fee for debt relief services. F. M. Scherer, Industrial
                                                                                                        have the incentive to settle a small debt
                                             (Noonan), Tr. at 275-76 (‘‘[I]f you have a ban on                                                                  Market Structure and Economic Performance 190-
                                             advance fees . . . no one will have an incentive to
                                                                                                        very quickly in order to extinguish the                 93, 204 (1980); F.M. Scherer, Focal Point Pricing
                                             have a high drop-out rate, they won’t be paid for          refund right, which does not provide a                  and Conscious Parallelism, in Competition Policy,
                                             those clients. . . . [E]veryone will continue to have      substantial benefit to the consumer.420                 Domestic and International, 89-97 (2000). Further,
                                             an incentive, as we do now, to do a proper                                                                         fee caps can quickly become obsolete, as changes
                                             suitability study, because we won’t want unsuitable                                                                in market conditions and technologies render the
sroberts on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES




                                                                                                           418 See, e.g., CFA at 19; CFA (Grant), Tr. at 209;
                                             people in our plans.’’); WV AG (Googel), Tr. at 222                                                                fixed maximum fee too low (e.g., if the costs of
                                             (‘‘[O]ne of the best ways to require or to bring about     NFCC at 13; CRN at 7; TASC (Apr. 30, 2010) at 6-        providing the service rise) or too high (e.g., if new
                                             a suitability analysis, without even specifically          7.                                                      technology lowers the cost of providing the service
                                                                                                           419 Summary of Communications (June 16, 2010)
                                             requiring it, would be the advance fee ban, because                                                                or if market participants would compete on price
                                             then there would be that, you know, meeting of             (meeting with consumer groups); see supra note          absent regulation). U.S. v. Trenton Potteries Co., 273
                                             interest, it would be in everybody’s interest to do        411.                                                    U.S. 392, 397 (1927) (‘‘The reasonable price fixed
                                             it.’’); CRN (Bovee), Tr. at 120; CU (July 1, 2010) at         420 Summary of Communications (June 16, 2010)        today may through economic and business changes
                                             4.                                                         at 1 (meeting with consumer groups).                    become the unreasonable price of tomorrow.’’).



                                        VerDate Mar<15>2010    16:17 Aug 09, 2010   Jkt 220001   PO 00000    Frm 00032   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10AUR2.SGM     10AUR2
                                                               Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations                                                     48489

                                             5. The Advance Fee Ban – Final Rule                     a. The Contractual Agreement                             negotiation, an executed contract
                                             Amendment                                                  The Final Rule specifies that, in order               showing that a creditor has agreed to the
                                                The amended Rule § 310.4(a)(5)(i)                    to collect a fee, providers must have                    concession (e.g., a lower interest rate for
                                             would prohibit:                                         obtained a settlement or other alteration                a particular credit card), along with
                                                (i) Requesting or receiving payment of               of a debt, pursuant to a settlement                      evidence that the consumer has made at
                                             any fee or consideration for any debt                   agreement, DMP, or other valid                           least one payment under the new terms,
                                             relief service until and unless:                        contractual agreement between the                        would suffice. For a DMP, the CCA must
                                                (A) the seller or telemarketer has                   consumer and the creditor or debt                        provide a debt management plan
                                             renegotiated, settled, reduced, or                      collector that is executed by the                        containing the altered terms and
                                             otherwise altered the terms of at least                 customer. The provider may obtain an                     executed by the customer that is binding
                                             one debt pursuant to a settlement                       oral or written execution of the                         on all applicable creditors. The CCA
                                             agreement, debt management plan, or                     agreement in order to allow providers to                 also must have evidence that the
                                             other such valid contractual agreement                  proceed efficiently. The consumer must                   consumer has made the first payment to
                                             executed by the customer;                               execute the specific agreement,                          the CCA for distribution to creditors.431
                                                (B) the customer has made at least one               however; a contract signed at the outset                 In the case of debt settlement, the
                                             payment pursuant to that settlement                     specifying, for example, that any offer                  provider must obtain documentation
                                             agreement, debt management plan, or                     that involves the payment of a certain                   showing that the account at issue has
                                             other valid contractual agreement                       amount will be deemed acceptable to                      been successfully settled and at least
                                             between the customer and the creditor                   the consumer is not sufficient to comply                 one payment has been made toward the
                                             or debt collector; and                                  with the Rule.427 Moreover, the provider                 settlement, before receiving the fee for
                                                (C) to the extent that debts enrolled in             may not rely on authority obtained                       that debt.432 Examples of such
                                             a service are renegotiated, settled,                    through a power of attorney to execute                   documentation include a letter or
                                             reduced, or otherwise altered                           the contract on the consumer’s behalf.                   receipt from the creditor or debt
                                             individually, the fee or consideration                  The requirement that consumers
                                                                                                                                                              collector stating that the debt has been
                                             either:                                                 execute the agreements is necessary to
                                                                                                                                                              satisfied, or a payment has been made
                                                (1) bears the same proportional                      ensure that the offers are legitimate,
                                                                                                                                                              toward satisfaction and the amount of
                                             relationship to the total fee for                       final, and acceptable to the
                                                                                                                                                              the payment received.433 Once the
                                             renegotiating, settling, reducing, or                   consumers.428 The Rule further specifies
                                             altering the terms of the entire debt                   that the provider cannot collect its fee                 consumer executes the agreement, the
                                             balance as the individual debt amount                   until the consumer makes at least one                    debt relief entity may collect the fee
                                             bears to the entire debt amount. The                    payment to the creditor or debt collector                associated with the individual debt and
                                             individual debt amount and the entire                   to resolve the debt. This provision,                     need not wait until all debts have been
                                             debt amount are those owed at the time                  which was not included in the proposed                   settled or otherwise altered.
                                             the debt was enrolled in the service; or                rule but was recommended by
                                                                                                                                                                 431 CCAs renegotiate all of the consumer’s eligible
                                                (2) is a percentage of the amount                    commenters, will help ensure that the
                                                                                                                                                              debts at one time, and creditors generally grant
                                             saved as a result of the renegotiation,                 consumer has the necessary funds to                      concessions immediately upon enrolling consumers
                                             settlement, reduction, or alteration. The               satisfy the offer.429                                    in the DMP. GP (Mar. 5, 2010) at 1. Thus, CCAs do
                                             percentage charged cannot change from                      In order to collect its fee, the provider             not renegotiate debts individually, and Final Rule
                                             one individual debt to another. The                     must have documentation evidencing                       § 310.4(a)(5)(i)(C) does not apply to them. CCAs
                                                                                                                                                              commonly charge consumers not only an initial set-
                                             amount saved is the difference between                  the debt resolution, as specified by                     up fee, but also periodic (usually monthly) fees
                                             the amount owed at the time the debt                    § 310.4(a)(5)(i)(A) of the Final Rule.430                throughout the consumer’s enrollment in the DMP.
                                             was enrolled in the service and the                     Different types of debt relief services                  Laws in most states cap these fees. Final Rule
                                             amount actually paid to satisfy the                     may generate different types of                          § 310.4(a)(5) prohibits CCAs from charging a set-up
                                                                                                                                                              or other fee before the consumer has enrolled in a
                                             debt.425                                                documentation. With regard to debt                       DMP and made the first payment, but it would not
                                                The Final Rule places no restriction                                                                          prevent the CCA from collecting subsequent
                                             on the amount of fees that providers can                  427  See CFA at 17.                                    periodic fees for servicing the account.
                                             charge or mandate a formula for                           428  Commenters supported such a requirement.             432 The ‘‘at least one payment’’ provision applies
                                                                                                     See CFA at 15-16; SOLS at 2.                             specifically to the case of bona fide installment
                                             calculating fees,426 but does establish                    429 FCS (Oct. 27, 2009) at 4 (‘‘If a company is       settlements, in which a creditor or debt collector
                                             rules about when they can collect them.                 permitted to collect its fee after merely negotiating    contracts to accept the settlement amount in
                                             In short, the Rule prohibits providers                  a settlement, but before the creditor receives           installments over time. If the creditor or debt
                                             from charging any fee in advance of                     payment from the consumer, consumers may find            collector requires a single payment to satisfy the
                                             providing the debt relief services. If the              themselves paying fees regardless of their ability to    debt, the provider cannot divide the settlement into
                                                                                                     meet the settlement payment obligations to their         separate parts and collect its fees upon a payment
                                             provider settles, renegotiates, reduces,                creditors. This provision should be changed to           from the consumer that only partially satisfies the
                                             or alters debts sequentially, it may                    allow the debt settlement company to collect its fee     debt. The Commission will monitor fee practices
                                             collect part of its fee after each                      only when the consumer’s payment is sent to the          relating to installment settlements to ensure that
                                             individual settlement or other                          creditor.’’); ACCORD (Oct. 9, 2009) at 2.                providers are not manipulating settlement offers to
                                                                                                        430 16 CFR 310.4(a)(5)(i)(A) (‘‘the seller or         collect their fee to the detriment of consumers.
                                             alteration. Four issues arising from this               telemarketer has renegotiated, settled, reduced, or         433 See CRN (Jan. 12, 2010) at 7 (‘‘All creditors
                                             provision merit further discussion: the                 otherwise altered the terms of at least one debt         and their assignees provide documentation of
                                             contractual agreement, fee requirements,                pursuant to a settlement agreement, debt                 settlement and/or payment agreements.’’). A letter
                                             bank account practices, and effective                   management plan, or other such valid contractual         containing an offer to settle by itself does not meet
                                                                                                     agreement executed by the customer’’) (emphasis          the Rule’s requirements, but may be one part of the
                                             date.                                                   added). See AFSA at 10 (‘‘It is appropriate to require   necessary documentation. Some commenters stated
sroberts on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES




                                                                                                     provision of documents proving that a debt has, in       that some creditors or debt collectors may not
                                               425 The provisions currently contained in
                                                                                                     fact, been renegotiated, settled, reduced or             provide a document confirming that the payment
                                             §§ 310.4(a)(5)-310.4(a)(7) will be renumbered to        otherwise altered.’’); Weinstein (Oct. 26, 2009) at 8    has been accepted and the debt has been satisfied.
                                             accommodate the new § 310.4(a)(5) and will shift to     (see attached Weinstein paper at 7) (‘‘When a            MD (Oct. 26, 2009) at 53 (some collection agents
                                             §§ 310.4(a)(6)-310.4(a)(8), respectively.               consumer and a creditor reach a mutual agreement,        refuse to provide documentation that clearly
                                               426 The Final Rule does require providers to          the debt settlement company provides a written           establishes the debt has been extinguished); ART at
                                             clearly and prominently disclose their fees. 16 CFR     agreement to the consumer and assists with               2 (some creditors do not provide timely
                                             310.3(a)(1).                                            arranging the consumer’s payment to the creditor.’’).    documentation).



                                        VerDate Mar<15>2010   16:17 Aug 09, 2010   Jkt 220001   PO 00000     Frm 00033   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10AUR2.SGM   10AUR2
                                             48490             Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

                                             b. Fee Requirements                                      Rule does not set fee maximums or                       provided certain conditions are met.
                                                The purpose of the advance fee ban                    dictate a formula for calculating fees but              Once a settlement agreement is executed
                                             could be thwarted if debt settlement                     simply governs when the fees can be                     and the payment (or first payment, in
                                             providers collect a disproportionately                   collected. The provisions of the Final                  the case of an installment agreement) is
                                             large percentage, or even the entire                     Rule, including the required                            made, the provider may require that the
                                             amount, of the fee after settling a single               disclosures, prohibitions on                            appropriate fee payment be sent from
                                             debt. The Final Rule addresses this                      misrepresentations, and advance fee                     the account to the company. This
                                             concern: in situations in which                          ban, should spur price competition in                   provision will assure providers that,
                                             providers settle debts individually over                 the market.439                                          once they settle a consumer’s debt, they
                                             time, the fee collected by the provider                                                                          will receive the appropriate fee.
                                                                                                      c. Dedicated Bank Accounts
                                             must bear the same proportional                                                                                     To ensure that consumers are
                                                                                                         In the NPRM, the Commission stated                   protected, the Final Rule specifies five
                                             relationship to the total fee as the                     that it did not intend the proposed rule
                                             individual debt bears to the entire debt                                                                         conditions that the provider must meet
                                                                                                      to prohibit consumers from using                        if it wishes to require the consumer to
                                             amount. Further, the Final Rule requires                 dedicated bank accounts, and it
                                             that, in calculating this proportion, the                                                                        set aside funds for its fee and for
                                                                                                      requested comments on this issue.440 In                 payment to creditors or debt collectors
                                             provider must use the amount of the                      response, some commenters expressed
                                             individual debt and the entire debt at                                                                           in a dedicated bank account.444 First,
                                                                                                      views, assuming the Final Rule                          the account must be located at an
                                             the time the consumer enrolls in the                     included an advance fee ban, on
                                             program (i.e., before any interest or                                                                            insured financial institution.445 Second,
                                                                                                      whether the Rule should permit                          all funds in the account must remain the
                                             creditor fees have accrued).434                          consumers, or allow providers to require
                                                Alternatively, the provider can collect                                                                       property of the consumer, and, if the
                                                                                                      consumers, to put funds into a                          money is held in an interest-bearing
                                             a percentage of savings achieved.435 In                  dedicated bank account until the
                                             that case, the fee for each debt settled or                                                                      account, all interest that accrues must
                                                                                                      services are delivered. A coalition of                  be paid to the consumer.446 Third, the
                                             otherwise altered must be an                             consumer groups stated that an advance
                                             unchanging percentage of the amount                                                                              agent holding the funds must be
                                                                                                      fee ban should allow consumers to use                   independent – that is, not under the
                                             saved as a result of the service.436 The                 legitimate bank accounts that they
                                             amount saved must be based on the                                                                                control of or affiliated with the debt
                                                                                                      control.441 An industry member stated                   relief provider.447 Fourth, to further
                                             difference between the amount of debt                    that allowing providers to require
                                             at the time the consumer enrolls in the                                                                          ensure that the account provider is truly
                                                                                                      consumers to set money aside in a                       independent, the debt relief provider
                                             program and the amount of money                          dedicated bank account is ‘‘absolutely
                                             required to satisfy the debt. Using either                                                                       may not give or accept any money or
                                                                                                      necessary’’ to ensure that the money                    other compensation in exchange for
                                             fee structure, the fee or consideration                  available is adequate to cover the
                                             must be accurately disclosed in                                                                                  referrals of business involving the debt
                                                                                                      settlement amount and the provider’s                    relief service.448 The Commission
                                             compliance with § 310.3(a)(1)(i).437                     fee.442 Additionally, a municipal
                                                Two commenters recommended that                                                                               intends this provision to be read broadly
                                                                                                      consumer protection agency stated that                  to prohibit all fee splitting between the
                                             the Commission require that the amount                   dedicated bank accounts would ensure
                                             of the provider’s fee be based on the                                                                            entity or entities administering the
                                                                                                      that a debt settlement company could
                                             percentage of savings realized by the                    collect its fees once it has settled a                     444 If a provider is going to require a dedicated
                                             consumer.438 As stated earlier, the Final                consumer’s debt.443                                     bank account, it may not require the use of a
                                                                                                         Section 310.4(a)(5)(ii) of the Rule                  dedicated bank account solely to set aside funds for
                                                434 In other words, if the amount of the debt that
                                                                                                                                                              the provider’s fees.
                                             is settled is one-third of the entire debt amount        permits debt relief providers to require                   445 This requirement does not prevent an
                                             enrolled in the program, the provider can collect        consumers to place funds designated for                 intermediary that is not an insured financial
                                             one-third of its total fee.                              the company’s fees and for payment to                   institution from providing services in connection
                                                For the purposes of calculating a proportional fee,   the consumer’s creditors or debt                        with the account as well. For example, GCS and
                                             the provider must include as part of the entire debt                                                             Noteworld Servicing Center provide account
                                             amount any additional debts that the consumer
                                                                                                      collectors in a dedicated bank account,
                                                                                                                                                              management and transaction processing services
                                             enters into the program after the original date of                                                               relating to special purpose bank accounts that
                                             enrollment. Further, the provider must use the           amount of the fee from the value the consumer           clients of debt settlement companies use. See GCS
                                             amount of the additional individual debt at the time     receives. In contrast, success-based fees ensure the    at 1. If such an intermediary is used, the bank and
                                             the consumer entered that debt into the program.         fee is proportionate to the benefit and still allow     the nonbank both are ‘‘entities administering the
                                             For example, suppose that a consumer enrolls in a        debt settlement companies to compete on price.’’).      account’’ under the Final Rule.
                                             debt settlement program with a total of two $10,000      Several companies use a contingency fee model,             446 See Summary of Communications (June 24,
                                             debts – totaling $20,000. Six months after enrolling     charging consumers a specific percentage of savings     2010) at 2 (state attorney general representative
                                             in the program, the consumer places one additional       that they obtain. CRN (Jan. 21, 2010) at 4 (15% of      stated that consumers could be injured if they were
                                             debt with a balance of $10,000 into the program.         savings); FCS (Oct. 27, 2009) at 2; ACCORD (Oct.        not able to use money in the accounts for living
                                             Under § 310.4(a)(5)(ii)(C)(1), the consumer’s entire     9, 2009) at 2-3; TBDR at 1; see also SBLS at 4. One     expenses if necessary; a second state attorney
                                             debt amount is now $30,000. Thus, if the provider        commenter raised concerns whether assessing fees        general representative stated that if providers own
                                             settles any one of the consumer’s three debts, it may    based on settlement activity would lead to the best     the accounts, the money could be subject to claims
                                             only collect one-third of its total fee ($10,000         outcomes for consumers. FDR (Oct. 26, 2009) at 15-      by the company’s creditors); Summary of
                                             divided by $30,000).                                     16 (‘‘Where fees are based exclusively on settlement    Communications (July 9, 2010) at 1 (consumer
                                                435 This alternative can be used when the             activity or on the timing of achieving settlements,     group representative stated that the consumer
                                             provider uses a contingency-based fee model.             the debt settlement services provider has an            should have control over the account, and it should
                                                436 This requirement explicitly prevents              incentive to complete settlements with the creditor     be in the consumer’s name).
                                             providers from front-loading the fee by collecting a     and on the account that creates the most revenue.’’).      447 See Summary of Communications (June 24,
                                                                                                         439 See USDR (Oct. 20, 2009) at 2.
                                             disproportionately large percentage of savings for                                                               2010) at 2 (a state attorney general representative
sroberts on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES




                                                                                                         440 TSR Proposed Rule, 74 FR 41988, 42017 (Aug.
                                             any debts settled early in the program.                                                                          described risks of service provider collusion with
                                                437 16 CFR 310.3(a)(1)(i).                            19, 2009).                                              fraudulent companies).
                                                438 CareOne at 5; FCS (Oct. 27, 2009) at 4 (‘‘We         441 CFA at 17; CFA (Plunkett), Tr. at 141.              448 See Summary of Communications (June 24,
                                                                                                         442 CRN (Bovee), Tr. at 142 (stating that his
                                             also urge the Commission to consider requiring fee                                                               2010) at 2 (a state attorney general representative
                                             structures that are based on the savings the             company does not use escrow accounts and has            stated that the rule should ensure that debt
                                             company negotiates for the consumer. . . . Allowing      outstanding uncollected fees of more than               settlement companies do not split fees with the
                                             companies to collect flat fees (even fees that are       $100,000).                                              account providers or charge unreasonable fees for
                                             capped, as some states provide) disconnects the             443 NYC DCA at 2.                                    the accounts).



                                        VerDate Mar<15>2010   16:17 Aug 09, 2010   Jkt 220001   PO 00000   Frm 00034   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10AUR2.SGM     10AUR2
                                                                Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations                                                    48491

                                             account and the debt relief service                       providers an additional month after the                     ∑ that any savings from the debt relief
                                             provider.                                                 effective date of the other provisions of                 program may be taxable income
                                                Fifth and finally, the provider must                   the Rule, because compliance with the                     (proposed Section 310.3(a)(1)(viii)(F));
                                             allow the consumer to withdraw from                       advance fee ban may entail adjustments                    and
                                             the debt relief service at any time                       to many providers’ operations. The                          ∑ that not all creditors will accept a
                                             without penalty; thus, the provider may                   Final Rule does not apply retroactively;                  reduction in the amount owed
                                             not charge a termination fee or similar                   thus, the advance fee ban does not apply                  (proposed § 310.3(a)(1)(viii)(c)).
                                             fee. The provider also must ensure that                   to contracts with consumers executed                        The Final Rule also modifies the
                                             the consumer receives, within seven                       prior to the effective date.                              preamble to the general disclosure
                                             business days of the consumer’s request,                                                                            requirements in § 310.3(a)(1) to clarify
                                             all funds in the account, less any money                  D. Section 310.3: Deceptive                               that sellers or telemarketers must make
                                             that the provider has earned in fees in                   Telemarketing Acts or Practices                           disclosures before a consumer consents
                                             compliance with the Rule’s provisions,                       The Final Rule mandates four debt                      to pay for the goods or services offered.
                                             as a result of having settled a debt prior                relief-specific disclosures, which                          This section discusses: (1) the debt
                                             to the consumer’s withdrawal from the                                                                               relief-specific disclosure obligations
                                                                                                       complement the existing, generally
                                             program.449 Therefore, the Rule allows                                                                              added as a result of this proceeding,
                                                                                                       applicable disclosures currently in the
                                             the consumer to cancel the program and                                                                              (2) the disclosures in the proposed rule
                                                                                                       TSR.452 The Final Rule requires debt
                                             recoup the money in the account at any                                                                              that were not adopted in the Final Rule,
                                                                                                       relief service providers to disclose,
                                             time to ensure that the consumer does                                                                               (3) the general disclosure obligations
                                                                                                       clearly and conspicuously, before the
                                             not pay in advance for services that are                                                                            under the TSR, (4) the timing of the
                                                                                                       consumer consents to pay: (1) the
                                             not performed.                                                                                                      required disclosures, and (5) additional
                                                                                                       amount of time necessary to achieve the
                                                Moreover, the Commission’s law                                                                                   disclosures that commenters
                                                                                                       represented results; (2) the amount of
                                             enforcement cases show that there is a                                                                              recommended, but which the
                                                                                                       savings needed before the settlement of
                                             risk that providers will utilize funds in                                                                           Commission did not adopt in the Final
                                                                                                       a debt; (3) if the debt relief program                    Rule.
                                             consumers’ accounts for their own
                                                                                                       includes advice or instruction to
                                             purposes.450 Thus, the Rule includes                                                                                1. Amendments to Section 310.3(a)(1):
                                                                                                       consumers not to make timely payments
                                             five specific safeguards discussed in this                                                                          Debt Relief-Specific Disclosure
                                                                                                       to creditors, that the program may affect
                                             section to guard against such illegal                                                                               Obligations
                                                                                                       the consumer’s creditworthiness, result
                                             activity.451
                                                The Rule does not prohibit an                          in collection efforts, and increase the                      In assessing the six new disclosures in
                                             independent entity that holds or                          amount the consumer owes due to late                      the proposed rule, the Commission
                                             administers a dedicated bank account                      fees and interest; and (4) if the debt                    considered whether omitting the
                                             meeting the above criteria from charging                  relief provider requests or requires the                  information would cause consumers to
                                             the consumer directly for the account.                    customer to place funds in a dedicated                    be misled, the need for those
                                             However, the Commission will be                           bank account at an insured financial                      disclosures, and their likely
                                             monitoring practices related to these                     institution, that the customer owns the                   effectiveness. The Commission applies
                                             fees, and it may take further action, if                  funds held in the account and may                         its deception standard in determining
                                             needed, to address any deceptive or                       withdraw from the debt relief service at                  the legal basis for disclosures: an act or
                                             abusive fee practices in connection with                  any time without penalty, and receive                     practice is deceptive if (1) there is a
                                             the accounts.                                             all funds in the account. Together, these                 representation or omission of
                                                                                                       disclosure requirements will ensure that                  information that is likely to mislead
                                             d. Effective Date                                         consumers have the material                               consumers acting reasonably under the
                                                The advance fee ban provision,                         information they need to make an                          circumstances; and (2) that
                                             § 310.4(a)(5) of the Final Rule, takes                    informed decision about whether to                        representation is material to
                                             effect on October 27, 2010. The                           enroll in a debt relief program.                          consumers.453 Injury is likely if
                                             Commission is allowing debt relief                           Section 310.3(a)(1)(viii) of the                       inaccurate or omitted information is
                                                                                                       proposed rule contained three other                       material.454 A claim is deceptive if it
                                                449 See Summary of Communications (July 9,
                                                                                                       debt relief-specific disclosures. After                   either misrepresents or omits a material
                                             2010) at 1 (consumer group representative stated          consideration of the record, the                          fact such that reasonable consumers are
                                             that the consumer should be able to withdraw all
                                             funds from the account at any time).                      Commission has decided to delete those                    likely to be misled.455 Application of
                                                450 See, e.g., FTC v. Jubilee Fin. Servs., Inc., No.   disclosures:
                                                                                                                                                                    453 Federal Trade Commission Policy Statement
                                             02-6468 ABC (Ex) (C.D. Cal. filed Aug. 19, 2002)             ∑ that creditors may pursue collection
                                             (alleging that defendants regularly withdrew money                                                                  on Deception, appended to In re Cliffdale Assocs.,
                                             from consumers’ trust accounts to pay their
                                                                                                       efforts pending the completion of the                     103 F.T.C. 110, 174-83 (1984) (‘‘Deception Policy
                                             operating expenses); FTC v. Edge Solutions, Inc.,         debt relief service (proposed Section                     Statement’’); see also FTC v. Tashman, 318 F.3d
                                             No. CV-07-4087, First Interim Report of Temporary         310.3(a)(1)(viii)(D)), which has been                     1273, 1277 (11th Cir. 2003); FTC v. Gill, 265 F.3d
                                             Receiver at 3 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 23, 2007) (noting that                                                                 944, 950 (9th Cir. 2001).
                                                                                                       combined with another required                               454 Deception Policy Statement, supra note 453,
                                             ‘‘customer funds in the amount of $601,520 were
                                             missing from the receivership defendants’ accounts
                                                                                                       disclosure;                                               at 171.
                                             and unaccounted for by the receivership                                                                                455 FTC v. Simeon Mgmt. Corp., 532 F.2d 708, 716

                                             defendants’’); see also GAO Testimony, supra note           452 Pursuant to the pre-existing TSR, in an             (9th Cir. 1976); FTC v. Pharmtech Research, Inc.,
                                             50, at 27 (discussing a case study in which the U.S.      outbound telephone call or an internal or external        576 F. Supp. 294, 300 (D.D.C. 1983).
                                             Department of Justice prosecuted a debt settlement        upsell, sellers and telemarketers of debt relief             In some circumstances, silence also may be
                                             company for using funds in customer escrow                services must promptly disclose several key pieces        deceptive. Silence associated with the appearance
                                             accounts to cover overdrafts from the defendant’s         of information: (1) the identity of the seller; (2) the   of a particular product, the circumstances of a
sroberts on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES




                                             operating account and make payments to his wife).         fact that the purpose of the call is to sell goods or     specific transaction, or ordinary consumer
                                                451 The safeguards appear to be consistent with        services; and (3) the nature of the goods or services     expectations represents that the product is
                                             the practices of many industry members. For               being offered. 16 CFR 310.4(d). They must also, in        reasonably fit for its intended purpose. Deception
                                             example, a service provider stated that it is an          any telephone sales call, disclose cost and certain       Policy Statement, supra note 453, at 170. For
                                             independent firm and the ‘‘special purpose’’ or           other material information before consumers pay.          example, in connection with the sale of a car,
                                             dedicated bank accounts that its system manages           16 CFR 310.3(a)(1). As discussed in Section III.D.2.,     consumers assume in the absence of other
                                             are owned and controlled by consumers. GCS at 1-          the Commission received very few comments                 information that the car can go fast enough for
                                             2.                                                        addressing these disclosures.                                                                       Continued




                                        VerDate Mar<15>2010    16:17 Aug 09, 2010   Jkt 220001   PO 00000   Frm 00035    Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10AUR2.SGM      10AUR2
                                             48492             Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

                                             this analysis leads the Commission to                    likely to complete it successfully,460 and              offers466 to customers’ creditors, the
                                             conclude that each of the four items of                  because the disclosures would make it                   specific time by which the provider will
                                             information that the provisions adopted                  more difficult for fraudulent companies                 make a bona fide settlement offer to
                                             herein require to be disclosed are                       to operate.461                                          each creditor or debt collector;467 and
                                             material and that, absent disclosure of                     A comment submitted by an                               ∑ to the extent that the service may
                                             these items of information, consumers                    association of credit counseling agencies               include a settlement offer to any of the
                                             seeking debt relief draw reasonable but                  also supported the proposed disclosures                 customer’s creditors or debt collectors,
                                             incorrect conclusions about the benefit                  for debt relief services.462 An individual              the amount of money, or the percentage
                                             of purchasing such service, and are                      nonprofit CCA commented that the                        of each outstanding debt, that the
                                             therefore likely to be misled. Thus,                     proposed disclosures are necessary to                   customer must accumulate before the
                                             failure to disclose any of these four                    ensure that consumers understand that                   provider will make a bona fide
                                             items of information is a deceptive                      some of the money they pay to the                       settlement offer to each creditor or debt
                                             practice.                                                provider goes towards the provider’s                    collector.468
                                                                                                      fees rather than to pay creditors.463                      These disclosures were designed to
                                             a. Need for Debt Relief-Specific                                                                                 prevent deception by ensuring that
                                             Disclosures                                              b. Debt Relief-Specific Disclosures                     consumers understand the time and
                                               Commenters generally supported the                        As explained in the NPRM and in                      monetary commitment necessary for the
                                             proposed rule’s approach of requiring                    Section I above, consumers often do not                 plan to succeed, and thus the risks
                                             debt relief-specific disclosures in                      understand the mechanics of debt relief,                involved in enrolling in a debt relief
                                             connection with the telemarketing of                     making them more susceptible to                         program in which the provider may not
                                             debt relief services or programs. NAAG                   deception.464 The debt relief-specific                  begin to negotiate relief for months or
                                             supported the proposed disclosures,                      disclosures are intended to ensure that                 even years.
                                             stating that although they alone might                   consumers have accurate information,                       The Commission received several
                                             not be sufficient to curb abusive                        thereby enabling them to make informed                  comments on these two disclosures.
                                             conduct by debt relief providers,                        purchasing decisions and that they are                  Several commenters and forum
                                             consumers are entitled to the basic                      not misled by the omission of key                       participants recommended modifying
                                             information that the proposed                            information. As modified in the Final                   the disclosures to allow estimates or
                                             disclosures provide.456 A coalition of 19                Rule and discussed herein, § 310.3(a)(1)                projections of the time for program
                                             consumer advocacy groups ‘‘strongly’’                    explicitly mandates that all of the                     completion and the amount a consumer
                                             supported the proposed disclosures,                      required disclosures be made ‘‘[b]efore a               would have to save.469 One industry
                                             noting that they will ensure that                        customer consents to pay for goods or                   trade association explained that it likely
                                             consumers understand how debt relief                     services offered.’’ Language added to the               would be impossible for a provider to
                                             services work and whether the program                    existing Footnote 1 of the Rule clarifies               state with certainty the time by which
                                             will satisfy their needs.457                             that the provider must make the                         it will achieve settlements or the
                                               Most debt relief providers also                        required disclosures before the                         amount of money the consumer would
                                                                                                                                                              have to accumulate before the provider
                                             supported the proposed disclosures.458                   consumer enrolls in an offered
                                                                                                                                                              made a settlement offer.470 Similarly, a
                                             One debt relief industry trade                           program.465
                                                                                                                                                              debt relief provider objected to the time
                                             association recommended that the Rule                       After review and analysis of the
                                                                                                                                                              disclosure in proposed
                                             require ‘‘full and complete disclosure’’ to              record, the Commission has adopted
                                                                                                                                                              § 310.3(a)(1)(viii)(A) because it failed to
                                             consumers of the risks of debt                           three of the six proposed disclosures in
                                                                                                                                                              account for market conditions that are
                                             settlement before a consumer enters a                    the Final Rule, having determined that
                                                                                                                                                              ‘‘beyond anyone’s range of knowledge
                                             plan, noting that the FTC’s proposed                     the remaining three are duplicative or
                                                                                                                                                              other than a best guess.’’471 Other
                                             new disclosures were similar to the                      likely to detract from the efficacy of the
                                                                                                                                                              commenters echoed these views.472
                                             model disclosures contained in trade                     required disclosures. It also has adopted
                                             association guidelines.459 Individual                    one additional disclosure regarding the                    466 A settlement offer is an offer to extinguish an
                                             debt relief providers expressed support                  use of dedicated bank accounts.                         unsecured debt for less than what the debtor owes
                                             for the proposed disclosures because                        The next three sections discuss the                  the creditor or debt collector. See Weinstein (Oct.
                                             consumers who fully understand all                       four disclosures adopted in the Final                   26, 2009) at 6 (see attached Weinstein paper at 5).
                                                                                                                                                                 467 TSR Proposed Rule, 74 FR at 42019. In so
                                             aspects of a debt relief program are more                Rule.
                                                                                                                                                              doing, the provider would have to disclose the fact
                                                                                                      (1) Sections 310.3(a)(1)(viii)(A) and (B)               that negotiations will not take place with all
                                             ordinary use on a freeway. If the car cannot, the                                                                creditors simultaneously but rather sequentially, if
                                             seller’s silence on this point may have been               The proposed rule would have                          such is the case. The record supports disclosure of
                                             deceptive.                                               required telemarketers of debt relief                   this information because consumers may not
                                                456 NAAG (Oct. 23, 2009) at 11.                                                                               understand the amount of time necessary to achieve
                                                457 CFA at 2-3, 20; see also MN AG at 2.
                                                                                                      services to make the following                          the represented results or that there may be
                                                458 FCS (Oct. 29, 2009) at 3; Able (Oct. 21, 2009)
                                                                                                      disclosures:                                            prerequisites to obtaining debt relief. See CFA
                                             at 30; CareOne at 4; CSA at 1; DS at 18; DMB (Oct.         ∑ the amount of time necessary to                     (Grant), Tr. at 175.
                                                                                                                                                                 468 TSR Proposed Rule, 74 FR at 42019.
                                             29, 2009) at 5; DSA/ADE at 1-2.                          achieve the represented results and, if
                                                                                                                                                                 469 Loeb (Mallow), Tr. at 204; TASC (Housser), Tr.
                                                459 TASC (Oct. 26, 2009) at 15. TASC, however,        the service entails making settlement
                                             objected to the proposed disclosures on the ground                                                               at 202; CFA (Grant), Tr. at 207; USOBA (Oct. 26,
                                             that they were targeted primarily to the risks of debt                                                           2009) at 15-17; FCS (Oct. 29, 2009) at 3.
                                                                                                        460 FCS (Oct. 29, 2009) at 3.                            470 USOBA (Oct. 26, 2009) at 15-16; see also FCS
                                             settlement and did not inform consumers                    461 CSA at 1.                                         (Oct. 29, 2009) at 3; DS at 19 (‘‘the exact amount
                                             adequately of the risks of nonprofit credit                462 AICCCA at 2; see also CCCS CNY at 2 (full
                                             counseling and bankruptcy. Id. As explained above,                                                               a given creditor will settle a debt account for and
sroberts on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES




                                             the FTC does not have jurisdiction to regulate the       disclosures will give consumers accurate                the precise time the same will be accomplished
                                             activities of bona fide nonprofit credit counselors.     information on which they can base their financial      varies.’’).
                                             Moreover, the Commission believes that the revised       decisions and possibly help consumers put money            471 Able (Oct. 21, 2009) at 26.

                                             debt relief-specific disclosures in the Final Rule       they would have spent on debt relief toward more           472 FCS (Oct. 29, 2009) at 3 (‘‘We support these

                                             adequately address the most harmful conduct by           pressing bills).                                        disclosures, in principle, but recommend revision
                                                                                                        463 GP (Oct. 22, 2009) at 1.
                                             debt relief providers, including debt settlement                                                                 to the extent they would require a company to
                                                                                                        464 TSR Proposed Rule, 74 FR at 42001.
                                             providers, for-profit credit counselors, and debt                                                                determine in advance the timing and order in
                                             negotiators.                                               465 16 CFR 310.3(a)(1) & n.1.                         which each specific debt will be settled. Creditors



                                        VerDate Mar<15>2010   16:17 Aug 09, 2010   Jkt 220001   PO 00000      Frm 00036   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10AUR2.SGM   10AUR2
                                                               Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations                                                 48493

                                                Based on the record, the Commission                  The Final Rule deletes the word                        scores raise the cost of obtaining credit –
                                             has determined to require these two                     ‘‘specific,’’ which could have been read               or make it more difficult to obtain it at
                                             disclosures, but is clarifying that                     to require a time certain rather than a                all.479 Another serious and negative
                                             providers may make a good faith                         good faith estimate.474 Paragraph (B) in               consequence that may result from a
                                             estimate of the necessary time and                      the proposed rule required disclosure of               consumer’s decision to enter a debt
                                             money commitments entailed in the                       ‘‘the specific amount of money or the                  relief plan in which he or she stops
                                             service. Providers must have a                          percentage of each outstanding debt that               paying creditors is the accrual of late
                                             reasonable basis to support their                       the customer must accumulate before                    fees or interest on the accounts, which
                                             estimates. With respect to the paragraph                the debt relief service provider will                  can significantly increase the
                                             (A) disclosure, the provider’s estimate of              make a bona fide settlement offer.’’ Like              consumer’s ultimate obligation.480
                                             the amount of time necessary to achieve                 the revision of paragraph (A), the Final               Finally, if a consumer stops making
                                             the represented results should be based                 Rule deletes the word ‘‘specific,’’ which              payments, his likelihood of being sued
                                             on the type of program or service                       could have been read to require a                      by creditors will increase. Indeed, even
                                             offered, the consumer’s particular debts,               disclosure with certainty of the amount                while a consumer is enrolled in a debt
                                             and available historical data regarding                 of money or percentage of debt, rather                 relief program, creditors and debt
                                             similarly-situated consumers’                           than a good faith estimate. As modified,               collectors may continue to make
                                             experiences with creditors. With respect                these provisions will help ensure that
                                             to the paragraph (B) disclosure, the                                                                           collection calls pending resolution of
                                                                                                     consumers are not deceived and have                    the consumer’s debts and may proceed
                                             provider should base its estimate on its                the information they need to make
                                             historical experience and other                                                                                with lawsuits and subsequent
                                                                                                     informed decisions, while recognizing
                                             information indicating the threshold                                                                           enforcement of any judgments, such as
                                                                                                     that certain information may only be
                                             amount of money that, if offered to the                                                                        through garnishment of wages.481
                                                                                                     estimated at the time disclosure is
                                             particular creditor, is reasonably likely                                                                      Disclosure of these potentially serious
                                                                                                     required.
                                             to result in a successful settlement that                                                                      negative consequences is necessary to
                                             is consistent with results represented by               (2) Section 310.3(a)(1)(viii)(C)                       prevent deception and the consumer
                                             the provider.473 Providers should keep                     Section 310.3(a)(1)(viii)(C) of the                 injury that arises from consumers
                                             consumers informed throughout the                       Final Rule adopts the proposed rule’s                  enrolling in debt relief plans and
                                             duration of the program of any changes                  requirement that debt relief providers                 ceasing to pay creditors.482
                                             in creditor policies that may impact the                whose programs entail consumers not                       The Commission received comments
                                             projected time or amount of money                       making timely payments to creditors                    both supporting and opposing this
                                             needed before completion.                               disclose that the program may affect the               proposed disclosure. The American
                                                The Final Rule makes two                             consumer’s creditworthiness; may result                Bankers Association filed a comment in
                                             modifications to the language of the                    in continued collection efforts,                       support, arguing that the disclosure will
                                             proposed rule to accomplish this                        including lawsuits; and may increase                   help consumers understand the
                                             clarification. Paragraph (A) in the                     the amount the consumer owes due to                    increased risks to their creditworthiness
                                             proposed rule would have required                       late fees and interest.475 The adverse                 if they stop communicating with their
                                             disclosure of ‘‘the specific time by                    consequences of not paying creditors                   creditors.483 TASC also voiced support,
                                             which the debt relief service provider                  would be highly material to reasonable                 but expressed concern that the
                                             will make a bona fide settlement offer.’’               consumers in deciding whether to                       disclosure was linked primarily to debt
                                                                                                     purchase the service or, if they do                    settlement programs. TASC therefore
                                             vary in their willingness to make concessions, and
                                             their position often changes with time. Debt
                                                                                                     purchase it, whether to stop paying                    recommended that the Commission
                                             settlement firms must have the latitude to make the     creditors. This disclosure is especially               require bankruptcy providers to make
                                             most favorable settlements for a client, and this       important in the debt settlement context               the same disclosure about the effect of
                                             requires flexibility to determine the order and         where many consumers must choose
                                             timing of settlements.’’); see CRN (Oct. 8, 2009) at
                                             6 (‘‘Amounts and terms of settlement fluctuate and      between paying their creditors or saving               consumers); see also Fair Isaac Corp.,
                                             are hard to predict, so setting a predetermined time    funds for possible settlements.476                     Understanding Your FICO Score, at 7 (noting that
                                             or amount of settlement might prevent debt relief          Debt settlement providers often                     payment history typically is the most important
                                             providers from getting consumers the best                                                                      factor used to determine a consumer’s FICO score),
                                             settlement as quickly as possible. Such a result
                                                                                                     encourage consumers to stop paying
                                                                                                                                                            available at (http://www.myfico.com/Downloads/
                                             could occur if a creditor unexpectedly makes a          creditors, or consumers stop on their                  Files/myFICO_UYFS_Booklet.pdf); see also TSR
                                             settlement offer to a consumer that, if accepted,       own because they simply cannot afford                  Proposed Rule, 74 FR at 42002.
                                             would disrupt the previously disclosed schedule of      simultaneously to make monthly                           479 In addition, as frequently noted by the
                                             time and amount of settlement for the other
                                             enrolled debts.’’); MD (Oct. 26, 2009) at 29-30.        payments to their creditors, set aside                 Commission, a consumer’s credit score can impact
                                                                                                     funds for settlements, and pay fees to                 the availability and/or terms of a wide variety of
                                                One provider objected to the money                                                                          benefits, including loans, employment, rental
                                             accumulation proposed disclosure                        the debt settlement company.477 The                    property, and insurance. See, e.g., FTC, Need Credit
                                             (§ 310.3(a)(1)(viii)(B)) because programs that allow    record shows, however, that consumers’                 or Insurance? Your Credit Score Helps Determine
                                             for payments over time do not require accumulation
                                             of the entire amount needed to settle the debt. Able    credit ratings are harmed, often                       What You’ll Pay, available at (http://www.ftc.gov/
                                                                                                     substantially, as a result of not making               bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/credit/cre24.shtm).
                                             (Oct. 21, 2009) at 26. The Commission believes that                                                              480 The Credit CARD Act of 2009 sets some limits
                                             the disclosure is warranted even if the consumer        payments to creditors.478 Lower credit                 on the fees and penalties that credit card companies
                                             only has to accumulate a lesser amount, since that
                                             amount still may be substantial, especially for                                                                can charge delinquent consumers. Pub. L. No. 111-
                                                                                                        474 The other disclosures required in subsections
                                             consumers who are in financial distress.                                                                       24, § 511(a)(1)&(2), 123 Stat. 1734 (May 22, 2009).
                                                473 Thus, if a debt settlement provider expects
                                                                                                     (A) and (B) do not use the term ‘‘specific.’’          That Act, however, does not prohibit default fees
                                                                                                        475 TSR Proposed Rule, 74 FR at 49019. In the       and thus does not diminish the importance of this
                                             that a creditor will make an initial settlement offer
sroberts on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES




                                                                                                     proposed rule, this was § 310.3(a)(1)(viii)(E).        disclosure.
                                             for 95% of the debt owed, but it knows that                476 See CFA at 9.                                     481 Third party collectors are governed by the
                                             consumers historically settle debts with that
                                             creditor for 60% after a certain amount of time has        477 TSR Proposed Rule, 74 FR at 41995. See WV       FDCPA. 15 U.S.C. 1692a(6), 1692c. Creditors
                                             passed, compliance with this provision requires         AG (Googel), Tr. at 44-45.                             collecting their own debts are not subject to the
                                             disclosure of the estimated time it would take and         478 See AFSA at 2; CFA at 18; CFA (Plunkett),       FDCPA, but are subject to Section 5 of the FTC Act.
                                                                                                                                                              482 TSR Proposed Rule, 74 FR at 49002; see JH
                                             the amount of money the consumer would have to          Workshop Tr. at 102 (noting that the length of time
                                             accumulate before the 60% settlement offer is           it takes to achieve settlement, combined with          (Oct. 24, 2009) at 6.
                                             obtained.                                               withheld payments, has a negative effect on              483 ABA at 4.




                                        VerDate Mar<15>2010   16:17 Aug 09, 2010   Jkt 220001   PO 00000   Frm 00037   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10AUR2.SGM   10AUR2
                                             48494             Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

                                             nonpayment on creditworthiness.484                       provider objected to the disclosure                      consumers know that they have the
                                             The Commission notes that bankruptcy                     because it relates to actions taken by                   right.493
                                             providers who are telemarketers of debt                  creditors against consumers that are not
                                                                                                                                                               2. Proposed Disclosures Not Adopted in
                                             relief services would be subject to the                  directly caused by the consumer’s
                                                                                                                                                               the Final Rule
                                             TSR. Thus they would be required to                      enrollment in the debt relief program.489
                                             make the TSR’s disclosures unless they                   In the NPRM, the Commission                                 After reviewing the record, and as
                                             have a face-to-face meeting with the                     acknowledged that some consumers                         explained below, the Commission has
                                             client.485 Moreover, consumers seeking                   considering debt relief already have                     decided not to adopt in the Final Rule
                                             to file bankruptcy must participate in                   stopped making payments and may be                       three of the disclosures included in the
                                             pre-filing credit counseling with a                      subject to late fees or other charges                    proposed rule, because they are largely
                                             certified credit counselor.486 These                     regardless of whether they enroll in the                 duplicative or likely to detract from the
                                             credit counselors generally inform                       program.490 The record shows, however,                   efficacy of the required disclosures. The
                                             consumers that bankruptcy negatively                     that in a significant number of                          omitted disclosures are: (1) that not all
                                             impacts their credit rating, remains on                  instances, consumers are induced by the                  creditors will accept a reduction in the
                                             their credit report for ten years, and may               provider’s instructions not to make                      amount of debt owed; (2) that creditors
                                             make obtaining credit in the future more                 payments that they otherwise would                       may pursue collection efforts pending
                                             difficult and expensive.                                 have made.491 This is particularly true                  the completion of the debt relief
                                                The Final Rule requires these                         for debt settlement services.492                         services; and (3) that any savings from
                                             disclosures to be made only ‘‘to the                     Moreover, even as to those consumers                     the debt relief program may be taxable
                                             extent that any aspect of the debt relief                who already have ceased paying their                     income.
                                             service relies upon or results in the                    creditors, the provider’s instruction may                a. Proposed Section 310.3(a)(1)(viii)(C)
                                             customer failing to make timely                          persuade them not to resume payments.
                                             payments to creditors or debt                            A disclosure about the adverse                              Section 310.3(a)(1)(viii)(C) of the
                                             collectors.’’ In general, DMPs do not rely               consequences of not paying creditors is                  proposed rule would have required
                                             upon the customer failing to make                        therefore highly material to many                        telemarketers of debt relief services to
                                             timely payments to creditors or debt                     consumers’ purchase or use decisions.                    disclose that ‘‘not all creditors or debt
                                             collectors. Thus, this disclosure                        For these reasons, the Final Rule                        collectors will accept a reduction in the
                                             typically will not apply to debt relief                  includes § 310.3(a)(1)(viii)(C) as                       balance, interest rate, or fees a customer
                                             providers offering DMPs.                                 proposed.                                                owes such creditor or debt collector.’’494
                                                One debt relief provider objected to                                                                           USOBA supported this disclosure,
                                             the required disclosures on the basis of                 (3) New Section 310.3(a)(1)(viii)(D)                     stating it is one of the disclosures that
                                             a ‘‘pilot survey’’ it conducted of its                      Section 310.3(a)(1)(viii)(D) of the                   USOBA encourages its members to
                                             customers that purported to show that                    Final Rule imposes an additional                         make.495 Some creditors refuse to work
                                             the customers’ FICO scores were higher                   disclosure requirement on debt relief                    with third-party debt relief providers in
                                             at completion of the program than at                     providers who request or require the                     certain situations, or not all,496 and
                                             enrollment. Thus, it argued, the                         customer to place money for its fee and                  many consumers may not realize this is
                                             creditworthiness disclosure would be                     for payment to customers’ creditors or                   the case. It is difficult to predict with
                                             inaccurate.487 The survey, however,                      debt collectors, in a dedicated bank                     certainty, however, the circumstances
                                             only included 12 consumers, and the                      account at an insured financial                          under which a particular creditor will or
                                             comment provided no information                          institution. These providers must                        will not be willing to negotiate the debt
                                             indicating that these consumers were                     disclose that the consumer owns the                      with a third party.497 In fact, even those
                                             representative of the universe of                        funds held in the account and may                        creditors that claim not to work with
                                             consumers enrolled in the program.488                    withdraw from the debt relief service at                 debt relief providers may do so in
                                             Moreover, the survey only measured                       any time without penalty and receive all                 certain situations.498 One commenter
                                             FICO scores at enrollment and                            funds currently in the account. This                     explained that, while some creditors
                                             completion, providing no information                     information would be highly material to
                                                                                                                                                                  493 See Summary of Communications (June 16,
                                             regarding whether consumers’ scores                      reasonable consumers in deciding
                                                                                                                                                               2010) at 2 (meeting with consumer groups).
                                             deteriorated during the time that they                   whether to enroll in the service; the                       494 TSR Proposed Rule, 74 FR at 42019.
                                             were enrolled in the debt settlement                     right to cancel and receive a refund is                     495 USOBA (Oct. 26, 2009) at 14.
                                             program and, in many cases, not paying                   a key right for consumers under the                         496 TSR Proposed Rule, 74 FR at 42002; see, e.g.,

                                             their creditors. For these reasons, the                  rule, but it is only meaningful if                       CFA (Plunkett), Workshop Tr. at 101 (‘‘[T]here is no
                                             Commission does not consider the                                                                                  guarantee . . . or reasonable chance of a guarantee of
                                             survey to be reliable or probative.                        489 See Able (Oct. 21, 2009) at 26. The commenter      a reduction in the amount of debt owed by
                                                                                                      noted, however, that his company currently makes         consumers who meet required conditions. In fact,
                                                The Commission addressed in the                                                                                some creditors insist that they won’t settle.’’);
                                                                                                      this disclosure to consumers.
                                             NPRM some of the concerns with this                        490 TSR Proposed Rule, 74 FR at 42002.                 American Express (Flores), Tr. at 164 (‘‘[O]ur policy
                                             disclosure that were raised by the                         491 The stop-payment instruction is especially         is not to . . . accept settlements from debt settlement
                                             comments. Specifically, one debt relief                                                                           companies.’’); see also, e.g., Phil Britt, Debt
                                                                                                      persuasive in those instances when the provider
                                                                                                                                                               Settlement Companies Largely Ignored by Banks,
                                                                                                      misrepresents or obscures the fact that some or all
                                                                                                      of the consumer’s payments to the provider are           Inside ARM, Nov. 3, 2008(noting statement by
                                               484   TASC (Oct. 26, 2009) at 15.                                                                               Discover Financial Services spokesman that ‘‘[w]e
                                                                                                      going towards its fees, rather than the consumer’s
                                               485   See 16 CFR 310.6(b)(3) (exempting                                                                         choose not to work with debt settlement
                                                                                                      debts. See SBLS at 4; FTC v. Debt-Set, No. 1:07-cv-
                                             ‘‘[t]elephone calls in which the sale of goods or                                                                 companies’’), available at (http://
                                                                                                      00558-RPM, Mem. Supp. Mot. T.R.O. at 8-9 (D.
                                             services or charitable solicitation is not completed,                                                             www.insidearm.com/go/arm-news/debt-settlement-
                                                                                                      Colo. Mar. 20, 2007) (‘‘Defendants lead consumers
                                             and payment or authorization of payment is not           to conclude that, once enrolled, the Defendants in       companies-largely-ignored-by-banks).
sroberts on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES




                                             required, until after a face-to-face sales or donation   turn will disburse consumers’ monthly payments to           497 MD (Oct. 26, 2009) at 30; FCS (Oct. 29, 2009)
                                             presentation by the seller or charitable organization,   the appropriate creditors every month.’’); Illinois v.   at 3; ABA at 2; CRN at 6; CFA (Grant), Tr. at 175.
                                             provided, however, that this exemption does not          SDS West Corp., No. 09CH368 (Cir. Ct. of 7th Jud.           498 See USOBA (Ansbach), Tr. at 75-76 (‘‘[O]ne of
                                             apply to the requirements of §§ 310.4(a)(1), (a)(7),     Dist., Sangamon Cty. 2009); Illinois v. Debt Relief      our largest members had a financial institution [that
                                             (b), and (c)’’).                                         USA, Inc., No. 09CH367 (Cir. Ct. of 7th Jud. Dist.,      allegedly does not work with debt settlement
                                                 486 11 U.S.C. 109(h); AICCCA at 1.
                                                                                                      Sangamon Cty. 2009); North Carolina v. Knight            companies] call up and say, we would like to scrub
                                                 487 MD (Oct. 26, 2009) at 30.                        Credit Servs., Inc. (Sup. Ct. Wake Cty. 2004).           our financial data against yours and offered
                                                 488 Id.; MD (Mar. 22, 2010) at E-2.                    492 Supra note 73.                                     [settlements of] cents on the dollar.’’).



                                        VerDate Mar<15>2010   16:17 Aug 09, 2010   Jkt 220001   PO 00000   Frm 00038   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10AUR2.SGM      10AUR2
                                                               Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations                                                      48495

                                             might refuse to negotiate a debt balance                that, if applicable, the customer may be                   accurate for consumers who enroll in a
                                             in the early stages of delinquency, rarely              sued by creditors or debt collectors –                     DMP, which generally does not involve
                                             would they continue to do so as the                     essentially makes the same point:                          debt forgiveness and thus would not
                                             account becomes increasingly                            enrollment in a debt relief program does                   result in a tax liability.512
                                             delinquent. This is the case because the                not prevent creditors and collectors                          After reviewing the record, the
                                             creditor typically collects more from                   from continuing to pursue the debtor.                      Commission has decided not to adopt
                                             negotiation with a debt relief program                  Thus, the Commission has decided not                       proposed § 310.3(a)(1)(viii)(F) as part of
                                             than through other alternatives.499 One                 to adopt proposed                                          the Final Rule. As noted by some of the
                                             debt relief provider commented that it is               § 310.3(a)(1)(viii)(D).506                                 commenters, in many cases this
                                             very rare that an account cannot be                                                                                disclosure might not be accurate.
                                                                                                     c. Proposed Section 310.3(a)(1)(viii)(F)
                                             negotiated, especially after the creditor                                                                          Further, as is true with the other two
                                             charges off the debt and sells it to a debt                Proposed § 310.3(a)(1)(viii)(F) would                   proposed disclosures that are omitted
                                             buyer who, in turn, initiates its own                   have required that a telemarketer of debt                  from the Final Rule, this disclosure
                                             collection efforts.500                                  relief services disclose ‘‘that savings a                  would add verbiage and complexity to
                                                In sum, the record indicates that                    customer realizes from use of a debt                       the information consumers receive, and
                                             many creditors and debt collectors settle               relief service may be taxable income.’’507                 thereby potentially diminish the
                                             at least some debts for some consumers,                 It is likely that many consumers do not                    effectiveness of the more important
                                             and creditor policies and practice may                  understand this fact, which would limit                    disclosures.513
                                             change depending on the length and                      the financial benefits of the service.508
                                             severity of the delinquency, other                      This provision generated only a small                      3. Application of Section 310.3(a)(1) to
                                             features of the debt, or external factors               number of comments. According to one                       Debt Relief Services: General Disclosure
                                             such as the creditor’s need for                         commenter, several of his clients                          Obligations
                                             liquidity.501 Accordingly, the usefulness               claimed that they would not have                              Under the Final Rule, debt relief
                                             of a general disclosure about the fact                  enrolled in the debt relief program if                     service providers that promote their
                                             that not all creditors will negotiate debts             they had been aware of the tax                             services through inbound or outbound
                                             would vary from case to case. In                        consequences.509 Consumer advocates                        telemarketing are subject both to the
                                             addition, eliminating this disclosure                   also supported this disclosure.510                         debt relief-specific disclosure
                                             from the Final Rule reduces the amount                     Other commenters objected to this                       requirements and the existing disclosure
                                             of information consumers must absorb,                   proposed disclosure. One asserted that                     and other provisions of the TSR.
                                             thus making the remaining disclosures                   the information is not relevant to all                     Consumer advocacy groups noted the
                                             more effective, and lessens the burden                  consumers, such as those who are                           importance of applying the TSR’s pre-
                                             on industry.502 Moreover, the Final Rule                insolvent before or at the time of the                     existing disclosure requirements to the
                                             prohibits any misrepresentation by a                    forgiveness of debt.511 NACCA                              telemarketing of debt relief services.514
                                             debt relief provider relating to whether                commented that this disclosure is not                      Three of those pre-existing disclosures
                                             creditors or debt collectors will modify                                                                           would provide critical information for
                                                                                                        506 TSR Proposed Rule, 74 FR at 49019. Some
                                             a debt.503 For these reasons, the                                                                                  consumers in the context of debt relief
                                                                                                     commenters suggested additional disclosures
                                             Commission has decided not to adopt                     related to lawsuits, e.g. that the longer a consumer       services: the total cost of the services;
                                             proposed § 310.3(a)(1)(viii)(C)).                       is enrolled in a debt relief program the more likely       material restrictions, limitations, or
                                                                                                     the consumer is to be sued and possibly have wages         conditions on purchasing, receiving, or
                                             b. Proposed Section 310.3(a)(1)(viii)(D)                or bank accounts garnished. CRN at 6; MN LA at
                                                                                                     1. The Commission believes that the disclosure in
                                                                                                                                                                using the services; and the seller’s
                                                Proposed § 310.3(a)(1)(viii)(D) would                                                                           refund policy.515
                                                                                                     Section 310.3(a)(1)(viii)(C) is adequate to inform
                                             have required debt relief providers to                  consumers of the most common risks involved in                Forum participants agreed that a total
                                             disclose ‘‘that pending completion of the               debt relief, such as the possibility of continuing         cost disclosure is important in the sale
                                             represented debt relief services, the                   collection efforts and lawsuits.
                                                                                                                                                                of debt relief services. This is especially
                                                                                                        507 TSR Proposed Rule, 74 FR at 42019.
                                             customer’s creditors or debt collectors                                                                            true for debt settlement plans, for which
                                                                                                        508 IRS, Publication 525 - Taxable and
                                             may pursue collection efforts, including                                                                           the costs are often substantial and
                                                                                                     Nontaxable Income 19-20 (Feb. 19, 2009)
                                             initiation of lawsuits.’’504 This                       (‘‘Generally, if a debt you owe is canceled or             complex.516 Similarly, in the sale of
                                             information could be valuable to                        forgiven, other than as a gift or bequest, you must        debt management plans, disclosure of
                                             consumers considering whether to                        include the canceled amount in your income.’’),
                                                                                                                                                                total costs is crucial to ensure that
                                             purchase the service and whether to                     available at (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/
                                                                                                     p525.pdf).                                                 consumers are not misled about the
                                             stop paying their creditors.505 However,                   509 RDRI at 5.                                          amount of those costs.517
                                             another of the proposed disclosures –                      510 CFA at 20. See CU (Hillebrand), Tr. at 165-

                                                                                                     66; see also DSUSA (Craven), Workshop Tr. at 91              512 NACCA at 3.
                                               499 Able (Oct. 21, 2009) at 26.                       (‘‘Amounts greater than $600 in savings obtained             513 The Commission encourages debt relief
                                               500 CRN at 6.                                         through a settlement may be reported to the IRS.           providers to advise consumers about the tax
                                               501 USOBA (Ansbach), Tr. at 75-76.                    Again, this has to be disclosed to consumers.’’);          consequences in those cases where such
                                               502 Consumer research shows that consumers’
                                                                                                     AMCA (Franklin), Workshop Tr. at 223 (‘‘Unless             consequences are likely to exist.
                                                                                                     they get that early disclosure that they may have the
                                             ability to process information and make rational        tax consequence, they may opt for the – what
                                                                                                                                                                  514 CFA at 20.

                                             choices may be impaired if the quantity of the          sounds to be the better of the two, which would be
                                                                                                                                                                  515 See 16 CFR 310.3(a)(1)(i)-(iii).
                                             information is too great. See generally, Byung-Kwan     the debt settlement, which might not be the best             516 According to TASC, the median fee under the
                                             Lee & Wei-Na Lee, The Effect of Information             solution for them. So, there has to be some sort of        predominant debt settlement model calls for a
                                             Overload on Consumer Choice Quality in an On-           a disclosure that says look, this is it. If you’re going   consumer to pay the equivalent of 14% to 18% of
                                             Line Environment, 21(3) Psychology & Marketing          to settle a debt for greater than $600, you’re going       the debt enrolled in the program. Using this
                                             159, 177 (Mar. 2004); Yu-Chen Chen et al., The          to have an IRS tax consequence this year.’’).              formula, a consumer with $20,000 in debt would
sroberts on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES




                                             Effects of Information Overload on Consumers’              511 Able (Oct. 21, 2009) at 26; see also Franklin       pay between $2,800 and $3,600 for debt settlement
                                             Subjective State Towards Buying Decision in the                                                                    services. See USOBA (Keehnen), Tr. at 209.
                                                                                                     at 22 (‘‘a large portion of debt settlement clients are
                                             Internet Shopping Environment, 8(1) Electronic          not actually solvent’’); IRS, Publication 525 -              517 See JH (Jan. 12, 2010) at 2. In the FTC cases
                                             Commerce Research and Applications 48 (2009).           Taxable and Nontaxable Income 20 (Feb. 19, 2009)           brought against sham nonprofit credit counselors,
                                               503 16 CFR 310.3(a)(2)(x).
                                                                                                     (‘‘Do not include a canceled debt in your gross            consumers allegedly were misled not only as to the
                                               504 Id. at 42019.
                                                                                                     income . . . [if] the debt is cancelled when you are       total costs, but also that the fees were ‘‘voluntary
                                               505 See AFSA at 2; ABA at 4; TASC (Oct. 26,           insolvent.’’), available at (http://www.irs.gov/pub/       contributions’’ used to offset the operating expenses
                                             2009) at 15.                                            irs-pdf/p525.pdf).                                                                                     Continued




                                        VerDate Mar<15>2010   16:17 Aug 09, 2010   Jkt 220001   PO 00000   Frm 00039   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4700    E:\FR\FM\10AUR2.SGM      10AUR2
                                             48496              Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

                                                Several forum participants stated that                 a result, consumers often enroll in                         apprised that refunds are available or
                                             at least some debt service providers                      programs under a false impression or                        are misled about key limitations and
                                             currently disclose costs to consumers                     are confused about what they have to                        conditions of the refund policy.527
                                             even when they are not required to do                     pay or when they have to pay it.
                                                                                                                                                                   4. Timing of Required Disclosures
                                             so.518 Often, however, fee disclosures                    Bringing inbound calls within the
                                             made in the telemarketing call are                        coverage of § 310.3(a)(1) will help to                         The TSR specifies the point in the
                                             contradicted by the written contract.519                  diminish this problem. Furthermore,                         transaction at which disclosures must
                                             Many providers say little, if anything,                   while § 310.3(a)(1) only requires                           be made. The pre-existing TSR required
                                             about fees or misrepresent the amount                     disclosure of the total fee, the failure to                 all disclosures to be made ‘‘[b]efore a
                                             and/or timing of fee payments.520                         clearly and conspicuously disclose                          customer pays for goods or services
                                             Broadcast advertisements and websites                     material payment terms, such as the fees                    offered.’’528 The proposed rule would
                                             offering debt relief services typically are               for individual settlements, may mislead                     have modified this language by adding
                                             silent as well about how much a                           consumers and thus constitutes a                            the phrase ‘‘and before any services are
                                             consumer must pay for the advertised                      deceptive practice prohibited by Section                    rendered.’’ In the Final Rule, the
                                             service.521 The complexity of the fee                     5 of the FTC Act.                                           Commission has determined to modify
                                             structure used by many debt relief                            In addition to fees, § 310.3(a)(1)(ii) of               the TSR language in a different manner
                                             providers exacerbates the potential for                   the TSR requires providers to disclose                      from the proposed rule. Specifically,
                                             consumer confusion or deception.522 As                    ‘‘[a]ll material restrictions, limitations,                 § 310.3(a)(1) of the Final Rule now
                                                                                                       or conditions to purchase, receive, or                      provides that all required disclosures
                                             of the allegedly nonprofit service provider. See, e.g.,   use the goods or services that are the                      must be made ‘‘[b]efore a customer
                                             FTC v. AmeriDebt, Inc., No. PJM 03-3317 (D. Md.           subject of the sales offer.’’523 Two                        consents to pay.’’ This formulation more
                                             filed Nov. 19, 2003) (alleging that, ‘‘[i]n response to                                                               closely comports with the Commission’s
                                             the question, ‘How much will it cost me to be on
                                                                                                       common conditions that commenters
                                             the Debt Management Program,’ AmeriDebt’s                 suggested should be disclosed are (1)                       intent in the original language to trigger
                                             website . . . stated, ‘Due to the fact that AmeriDebt     the consumer must have a minimum                            the disclosure requirement before any
                                             is a nonprofit organization, we do not charge any         amount of debt to be eligible,524 and (2)                   agreement is executed, when the
                                             advance fees for our service. We do request that                                                                      information is most useful, rather than
                                             clients make a monthly contribution to our
                                                                                                       the debt relief services will extend only
                                             organization to cover the costs involved in handling      to unsecured debt, if that is the case.525                  only after the consumer has made a
                                             the accounts on a monthly basis.’’’ In fact, the          The Commission believes both of these                       payment on that agreement.529
                                             defendants allegedly retained each consumer’s first       conditions are material and must be                         Moreover, the phrase ‘‘consents to pay’’
                                             monthly payment as a fee without notice to the                                                                        encompasses the conduct that the
                                             consumer.).
                                                                                                       disclosed under the TSR.
                                                 518 See USOBA (Keehnen), Tr. at 209.                      Section 310.3(a)(1)(iii) of the TSR                     Commission has previously identified
                                                 519 See, e.g., FTC v. Connelly, No. SA CV 06-701      requires that if the seller has a policy of                 as triggering the disclosure requirement
                                             DOC (RNBx), Opp. to FTC Mot. Summ. J. at 12 (C.D.         not making refunds, cancellations,                          under the pre-existing TSR.530 Under
                                             Cal. filed Aug. 3, 2006) (alleging that defendant         exchanges, or repurchases, it must                          the Final Rule, the disclosures must be
                                             failed to disclose to consumers that they would                                                                       made before any act or communication
                                             have to pay 45% of their total program fees upfront,
                                                                                                       disclose this policy to consumers.526
                                             before any payments would be made to the                  Further, if the seller or telemarketer                      that signifies the consumer’s consent to
                                             consumer’s creditors; telemarketing claims                makes a representation about a refund                       pay, such as sending full or partial
                                             contradicted by subsequent written disclosures).          policy, it must state all material terms                    payment; providing credit card, bank
                                             Even if true, subsequent disclosures generally are                                                                    account or other billing information,
                                             not sufficient to correct misrepresentations made in
                                                                                                       and conditions of the policy.
                                             the initial communications. Resort Car Rental Sys.,       Application of this provision to                            stating agreement to a transaction, or
                                             Inc. v. FTC, 518 F.2d 962, 964 (9th Cir. 1975) (citing    providers of debt relief services is                        invoking an electronic process used to
                                             Exposition Press, Inc. v. FTC, 295 F.2d 869 (2d Cir.      important in light of the record evidence                   electronically sign an agreement. This
                                             1961), cert. denied, 370 U.S. 917, 82 S.Ct. 1554, 8                                                                   change applies to all disclosures
                                             L.Ed.2d 497; Carter Products, Inc. v. FTC, 186 F.2d
                                                                                                       that many consumers either are not
                                             821 (7th Cir. 1951)); Deception Policy Statement,                                                                     required by the TSR, and not just those
                                             supra note 453, at 182; Removatron Int’l Corp. v.         wherever possible. For example, where the contract
                                             FTC, 884 F.2d 1489, 1497 (1st Cir. 1989)                  entails 24 monthly installments of $8.99 each, the             527 See WV AG (Googel), Tr. at 84; CFA at 9; see

                                             (advertisement was deceptive despite written              best practice would be to disclose that the                 also, e.g., FTC v. Select Pers. Mgmt., Inc., No. 07-
                                             qualification); FTC v. Gill, 71 F. Supp. 2d 1030,         consumer will be paying $215.76. In open-ended              CV-0529 (N.D. Ill. Am. Compl. filed Aug. 18, 2007);
                                             1044 (C.D. Cal. 1999) (advertisement was deceptive        installment contracts, it may not be possible to do         FTC v. Connelly, No. SA CV 06-701 DOC (RNBx)
                                             even though a disclaimer in a written contract later      the math for the consumer. In such a case,                  (C.D. Cal. Am. Compl. filed Nov. 27, 2006); FTC v.
                                             signed by consumers contained accurate, non-              particular care must be taken to ensure that the cost       Debt Solutions, Inc., No. 06-0298 JLR (W.D. Wash.
                                             deceptive information).                                   disclosure is easy for the consumer to understand.’’        filed Mar. 6, 2006); FTC v. Innovative Sys. Tech.,
                                                 520 Supra notes 79, 362; see also Loeb (Mallow),      Id. at n.92. (emphasis supplied, internal quotations        Inc., No. CV04-0728 GAF JTLx (C.D. Cal. filed Feb.
                                             Tr. at 206.                                               omitted).                                                   3, 2004); FTC v. Debt Mgmt. Found. Servs., No. 04-
                                                 521 As noted above, supra note 223, FTC staff            523 16 CFR 310.3(a)(1)(ii).                              1674-T-17-MSS (M.D. Fla. filed July 20, 2004).
                                                                                                          524 DMB (Oct. 29, 2009) at 5-6.                             528 16 CFR 310.3(a)(1).
                                             found that only 14 of 100 debt settlement websites
                                             reviewed disclosed the specific fees that a                  525 See MN LA (Elwood), Tr. at 251. Another                 529 In the SBP to its TSR amendments in 2003,

                                             consumer will have to pay upon enrollment in the          commenter proposed modifying § 310.3(a)(1)(ii) to           the Commission interpreted the original TSR
                                             service. An additional 34 out of the 100 websites         require that only ‘‘reasonable’’ material restrictions      language to mean that telemarketers must make
                                             mentioned fees but did not provide specific fee           be disclosed. Able (Oct. 21, 2009) at 25. The               required disclosures ‘‘[b]efore a seller or
                                             amounts.                                                  definition of materiality – ‘‘likely to affect a person’s   telemarketer obtains a consumer’s consent to
                                                 522 The Commission previously has explained           choice of, or conduct regarding, goods or services’’ –      purchase, or persuades a consumer to send any full
                                             compliance obligations when marketing installment         is a well established limiting principle codified in        or partial payment,’’ i.e., before the agreement is
                                             contracts, some of which are particularly applicable      the Commission’s Deception Policy Statement,                executed. TSR Amended Rule, 68 FR at 4599 (citing
                                             to debt relief services. Specifically, in an earlier      supra note 453; see also TSR Final Rule, 60 FR at           the original Rule’s TSR Compliance Guide); see also
                                             amendment to the TSR, the Commission noted that           43845 (citing In re Thompson Med. Co., 104 F.T.C.           Loeb (Mallow), Tr. at 212-13 (‘‘the FTC law of [when
sroberts on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES




                                             ‘‘it is possible to state the cost of an installment      648 (1984), aff’d, 791 F.2d 189 (D.C. Cir. 1986), cert.     a company must make disclosures under the TSR]
                                             contract in such a way that, although literally true,     denied, 479 U.S. 1086 (1987)). The Commission               is pretty clear, it has to be prior to contracting.’’);
                                             obfuscates the actual amount that the consumer is         declines to change it in this Rule.                         CFA at 20.
                                             being asked to pay.’’ TSR Proposed Rule, 67 FR               526 16 CFR 310.3(a)(1)(iii). This requirement               530 See TSR; Final Amended Rule, 68 FR at 4599

                                             4492, 4502 (Jan. 30, 2002). The Commission went           reflects the Commission’s determination that a              (disclosures must be made ‘‘[b]efore a seller or
                                             on to state that ‘‘[t]he Commission believes that the     seller’s unwillingness to provide refunds is a              telemarketer obtains a consumer’s consent to
                                             best practice to ensure the clear and conspicuous         material term about which a consumer must be                purchase, or persuades a consumer to send any full
                                             standard is met is to do the math for the consumer        informed before paying for goods or services.               or partial payment’’).



                                        VerDate Mar<15>2010    16:17 Aug 09, 2010   Jkt 220001   PO 00000   Frm 00040    Fmt 4701    Sfmt 4700    E:\FR\FM\10AUR2.SGM      10AUR2
                                                               Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations                                                   48497

                                             specific to debt relief services. In the                    Second, a commenter recommended                      39 months and who file for bankruptcy
                                             case of debt relief services, a footnote                 that the Rule require that disclosures be               after paying fees to a debt relief
                                             added to the Final Rule clarifies that the               in writing to allow consumers                           provider;543 (7) the percentage of
                                             provider must make the required                          additional time to consider their                       settlements consummated after charge
                                             disclosures before the consumer enrolls                  decision, rather than immediately                       off;544 (8) annual retention rates;545 (9)
                                             in an offered program. Thus, debt relief                 enrolling in a program over the                         the length of time the provider has been
                                             providers must make the disclosures at                   phone.533 Two forum participants, on                    operating;546 and (10) the number of
                                             the time the provider is marketing the                   the other hand, recommended against                     complaints and lawsuits filed against
                                             service and before the consumer signs                    requiring written disclosures, asserting                the company over the prior three
                                             an enrollment contract or otherwise                      that they would come too late in the                    years.547 The Commission has declined
                                             agrees to enroll, and not at the time the                consumer’s decision- making process534                  to adopt any of these additional
                                             consumer executes a debt relief                          and noting that consumers often sign                    disclosures. The disclosures required in
                                             agreement pursuant to the advance fee                    documents with written disclosures                      the Final Rule will provide consumers
                                             ban provision.                                           they do not understand.535                              with the most important material
                                             5. Recommended Additional Changes to                        The Final Rule does not specify the                  information they need to avoid
                                             the Disclosure Provisions Not Adopted                    precise manner or mode in which                         deception and make well-informed
                                             in the Final Rule                                        disclosures must be made.536 The                        choices. Adding more disclosures
                                                                                                      Commission has determined that it is                    would risk overshadowing more
                                                Commenters and forum participants                     unnecessary to require that disclosures                 important information and place a
                                             recommended several additional                           be in writing, but notes that they must                 potentially unnecessary burden on
                                             modifications to the proposed                            be made in a ‘‘clear and conspicuous’’                  providers.
                                             disclosures that the Commission has                      manner, prior to the time that the
                                             decided not to adopt. First, several                                                                             6. Effective Date
                                                                                                      consumer enrolls in the service.537 The
                                             consumer advocates proposed that the                     Commission concludes that these                            This provision will be effective
                                             Final Rule require debt relief providers                 requirements, in conjunction with the                   September 27, 2010. The Commission
                                             to disclose their dropout rate, i.e., the                advance fee ban, will be adequate to                    expects prompt compliance with this
                                             percentage of consumers who enroll in                    protect consumers of debt relief services               provision, as it ensures that consumers
                                             a program but drop out before                            from deceptive or abusive practices.                    receive basic information about the
                                             completing it.531 The Commission                            Commenters and forum participants                    advertised services.
                                             agrees that the dropout rate of a
                                                                                                      recommended that the Commission                         E. Sections 310.3(a)(2) & 310.3(a)(4):
                                             particular program is likely to be
                                                                                                      adopt a variety of additional                           Misrepresentations
                                             valuable information for consumers
                                                                                                      disclosures, including, among others: (1)
                                             considering enrollment in that program.                                                                            The Final Rule supplements the
                                                                                                      identifying contact and other
                                             The Commission has concluded,                                                                                    existing TSR prohibitions against
                                                                                                      background information about the
                                             however, that requiring disclosure of                                                                            misrepresentations with a provision
                                                                                                      provider;538 (2) a list of the consumer’s
                                             dropout rates is unnecessary and would                                                                           specifically intended to target deceptive
                                                                                                      debts to be included in the program;539
                                             be difficult to implement. As discussed                                                                          practices by debt relief service
                                                                                                      (3) a statement that ‘‘other debt relief
                                             in detail in Section III.E.b, providers                                                                          providers.548 As stated above, an act or
                                                                                                      options may be more appropriate for the
                                             making savings claims must use a                                                                                 practice is deceptive if: (1) there is a
                                             calculation that takes into account all of               consumer;’’ 540 (4) a statement that
                                                                                                      consumers will not achieve settlement                   representation or omission of
                                             the provider’s customers, including                                                                              information that is likely to mislead
                                             those who dropped out, in order for the                  results until they have accumulated
                                                                                                      sufficient funds;541 (5) a notice to                    consumers acting reasonably under the
                                             claim to be truthful and non-deceptive.                                                                          circumstances; and (2) that
                                             In addition, there is no single defined                  consumers when they are collecting
                                                                                                      funds for debt settlements at a rate more               representation or omission is material to
                                             way to calculate a dropout rate, and any                                                                         consumers.549
                                             disclosure requirement would have to                     accelerated than a pro rata
                                                                                                                                                                 The new provision prohibits sellers or
                                             be very prescriptive in specifying the                   arrangement;542 (6) the percentages of
                                                                                                                                                              telemarketers of debt relief services from
                                             formula the provider would have to use                   clients who complete the program after
                                                                                                                                                              making misrepresentations regarding
                                             to calculate the rate, including all of the                                                                      any material aspect of any debt relief
                                                                                                        533  CRN at 5; see NACCA at 2.
                                             different variables that must be factored                                                                        service and provides several illustrative
                                                                                                        534  See CU (Hillebrand), Tr. at 211.
                                             in.532                                                      535 See SBLS (Tyler), Tr. at 214.                    examples, including misrepresentations
                                                                                                         536 As stated earlier, after-the-fact written        of:
                                                531 See NACCA (Keiser), Tr. at 217-18; CU
                                                                                                      disclosures do not cure deceptive claims made              ∑ the amount of money or the
                                             (Hillebrand), Tr. at 218-19; QLS at 5; see also CFA      earlier in the transaction. See supra note 519.         percentage of the debt amount that a
                                             (Grant), Tr. at 218 (a dropout rate is very important,      537 16 CFR 310.3(a)(1). If the provider markets to
                                             especially if success claims are permitted and there                                                             customer may save by using such
                                                                                                      consumers in a language other than English, the
                                             is no advance fee ban in place).                         disclosures must be provided in the language the        service;
                                                532 Among other things, the rule would have to
                                                                                                      provider is using for the marketing, in order to meet      ∑ the amount of time necessary to
                                             identify the conditions under which a consumer           the clear and conspicuous requirement. See 16 CFR       achieve the represented results;
                                             would be considered to have dropped out, e.g., at        14.9 (foreign language disclosures in advertising);        ∑ the amount of money or the
                                             what point the consumer would be deemed to have          16 CFR 308.3(a)(1) (foreign language disclosures
                                             completed, or not completed, the program. This           under Pay Per Call Rule); 16 CFR 429.1(a) (foreign
                                                                                                                                                              percentage of each outstanding debt that
                                             could be a difficult determination in that many debt     language disclosure of right to cancel door-to-door
                                             relief services involve payments – and services –        sales); 16 CFR 455.5 (Spanish language version of         543  RDRI at 6.
                                             that take place over time. Thus, for example, if a       FTC’s used car disclosures); 16 CFR 610.4(a)(3)(ii)       544  Id.
sroberts on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES




                                             consumer terminates a debt settlement program            (foreign language disclosures in marketing free            545 Id.
                                             after 80% of his debts were settled, should he be        credit reports).                                           546 Id.
                                             considered a dropout? The rule also would have to           538 NFCC at 10-11, RDRI at 6.                           547 Id.
                                             account for new entrants into the market that would         539 NFCC at 10-11.                                      548 The Final Rule does not change any of the
                                             lack data on which to calculate a drop out rate.
                                                                                                         540 CareOne at 7; see also NFCC at 14.
                                             Without standardization of all of these factors,                                                                 existing TSR prohibitions on misrepresentations.
                                                                                                         541 MD (Oct. 26, 2009) at 33, 35.                       549 Deception Policy Statement, supra note 453,
                                             consumers could not compare the dropout rates of
                                             different providers.                                        542 NACCA at 3-4.                                    at 174-83.



                                        VerDate Mar<15>2010   16:17 Aug 09, 2010   Jkt 220001   PO 00000      Frm 00041   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10AUR2.SGM   10AUR2
                                             48498             Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

                                             the customer must accumulate before                      this provision in the proposed rule,                   relief providers of their obligations to
                                             the provider will initiate attempts with                 including representatives of the debt                  ensure that their claims are true and
                                             the customer’s creditors or debt                         relief industry, strongly supported it.551             substantiated.557
                                             collectors or make a bona fide offer to                  Additionally, participants in the public                  With respect to the individual
                                             negotiate, settle, or modify the terms of                forum voiced general support for the                   examples, § 310.3(a)(2)(x) first prohibits
                                             the customer’s debt;                                     proposal.552 All but two of the                        telemarketers of debt relief services from
                                                ∑ the effect of the service on a                      comments that recommended changes                      misrepresenting ‘‘the amount of time
                                             customer’s creditworthiness;                             to § 310.2(a)(2)(x) focused on relatively              necessary to achieve the promised
                                                ∑ the effect of the service on the                    minor revisions; these comments are                    results’’ and ‘‘the amount of money or
                                             collection efforts of the customer’s                     discussed, as applicable, in the analysis              the percentage of each outstanding debt
                                             creditors or debt collectors;                            of the Final Rule below.                               that the customer must accumulate
                                                ∑ the percentage or number of                           Two debt relief service providers                    before the provider of the debt relief
                                             customers who attain the represented                     opposed this provision, arguing that it is             service will initiate attempts with the
                                             results; and                                             wholly unjustified because material                    customer’s creditors or debt collectors
                                                ∑ whether a service is offered or                     misrepresentations are not widespread                  or make a bona fide offer to negotiate,
                                             provided by a nonprofit entity.                          in the debt relief industry.553 As
                                                This provision is largely unchanged                                                                          settle, or modify the terms of the
                                                                                                      detailed in this SBP and the NPRM,                     customer’s debt.’’ As set forth in detail
                                             from proposed § 310.3(a)(2)(x) of the                    however, the record demonstrates that
                                             proposed rule.550                                                                                               above in the discussion of
                                                                                                      the misrepresentations banned by                       § 310.3(a)(1)(viii), consumers often have
                                                In this Section of the SBP, the                       § 310.3(a)(2)(x) are common in this
                                             Commission discusses the amended                                                                                little understanding of the mechanics of
                                                                                                      industry.554
                                             TSR’s prohibitions against                                                                                      the debt relief process. According to
                                                                                                        Some commenters recommended that
                                             misrepresentations and their                             the Commission add additional                          commenters, including those
                                             applicability to debt relief services.                   examples of prohibited                                 representing the industry, it usually
                                             Specifically, it provides an analysis of                 misrepresentations to § 310.3(a)(2)(x).555             takes many months, if not years, for a
                                             new § 310.3(a)(2)(x) of the Final Rule                   The examples included in                               provider, if it is even able to do so, to
                                             and the public comments received on                      § 310.3(a)(2)(x) are common                            achieve final resolution of all of a
                                             the proposed version of this provision.                  misrepresentations observed in FTC and                 consumer’s debts.558 This is information
                                             It also provides further detail on the                   state law enforcement actions. The                     that certainly would influence a
                                             requirements for making truthful and                     Commission reiterates that these                       reasonable consumer’s purchasing
                                             substantiated savings claims under the                   examples are not intended to be an                     decisions. Often, however, telemarketers
                                             amended Rule. Finally, this section                      exhaustive list and that this provision                of these services tell consumers that
                                             explains how the existing provisions of                  encompasses any material                               results can be achieved more quickly.559
                                             §§ 310.3(a)(2) and 310.4(a)(4) of the TSR                misrepresentation made in connection                   Further, in the context of debt
                                             – those that predate, and were unaltered                 with any debt relief service.                          settlement, providers may deceive
                                             by, this rulemaking – would apply to                                                                            consumers about how their monthly
                                                                                                      2. Final Section 310.3(a)(2)(x)                        payments are being used, suggesting
                                             inbound telemarketing of debt relief
                                             services.                                                a. Claims Other Than Savings Claims                    that the funds are being accumulated for
                                                                                                                                                             settlements when, in fact, some or all of
                                             1. Public Comments on Proposed                              Section 310.3(a)(2)(x), which is added
                                                                                                                                                             them go towards the provider’s fees.560
                                             Section 310.3(a)(2)(x)                                   to § 310.3(a)(2) of the TSR as a result of
                                                                                                                                                             It is difficult to imagine information
                                                                                                      this rulemaking, prohibits material
                                                As described above, § 310.3(a)(2)(x)                  misrepresentations specifically related
                                             adds several debt relief-specific                        to the sale of debt relief services.556 The
                                                                                                                                                                557 NAAG concurred that the practices prohibited

                                             examples of misrepresentations that are                                                                         under Section 310(a)(2)(x) are likely already
                                                                                                      new provision lists several illustrative               prohibited by the FTC Act and state unfair and
                                             prohibited by the TSR. The vast                          examples of prohibited                                 deceptive trade practices statutes, but agreed that
                                             majority of commenters who addressed                     misrepresentations. Although the                       codifying them under the TSR will clarify the law
                                                                                                                                                             and debt relief providers’ obligations. NAAG (Oct.
                                                550 The final provision contains only four minor
                                                                                                      examples already may be covered by the                 23, 2009) at 11; see also CFA at 3 (stating that
                                             revisions. First, it corrects two typographical errors   existing provisions of §§ 310.3(a)(2) and              Section 310.3(a)(2)(x) ‘‘provides greater clarity to
                                             by inserting the words ‘‘or’’ and ‘‘the’’ into the       310.3(a)(4), including them explicitly                 debt relief service providers regarding the types of
                                             prohibition against misrepresenting ‘‘the amount of      provides additional guidance to debt                   claims that the FTC will consider to be deceptive’’).
                                                                                                                                                                558 See, e.g., CRN (Bovee), Tr. at 28; SBLS (Tyler),
                                             money or the percentage of each outstanding debt
                                             that the customer must accumulate before the               551 See, e.g., TASC (Oct. 26, 2009) at 16; USOBA
                                                                                                                                                             Tr. at 162; ACCORD (Oct. 9, 2009) at 2; CFA at 4.
                                             provider of the debt relief service will initiate                                                                  559 See, e.g., FTC v. JPM Accelerated Servs., Inc.,
                                                                                                      (Oct. 26, 2009) at 17-18; Orion (Oct. 1, 2009) at 1;
                                             attempts with the customer’s creditors or debt                                                                  No. 09-CV-2021 (M.D. Fla. Am. Compl. filed Jan. 19,
                                                                                                      CareOne at 4; AICCCA at 5; CFA at 3, 20; NAAG
                                             collectors to negotiate, settle, or modify the terms                                                            2010) (alleging that defendant misrepresented that
                                                                                                      (Oct. 23, 2009) at 11; AFSA at 9 (‘‘Each specified
                                             of the customer’s debt.’’ (emphasis added). For                                                                 consumers could pay off debt three to five times
                                                                                                      misrepresentation is sufficiently widespread to
                                             consistency purposes, the Final Rule also replaces                                                              faster without increasing monthly payments); FTC
                                                                                                      justify inclusion in the Rule.’’).
                                             the word ‘‘consumer’s’’’ with the word ‘‘customer’s’’      552 See, e.g., CSA (Witte), Tr. at 65; USOBA
                                                                                                                                                             v. Econ. Relief Techs., LLC, No. 09-CV-3347 (N.D.
                                             in the prohibition against misrepresenting ‘‘the                                                                Ga. filed Nov. 30, 2009) (same); FTC v. 2145183
                                             effect of the service on collection efforts of the       (Ansbach), Tr. at 108 (‘‘[The] Commission has got      Ontario, Inc., No. 09-CV-7423 (N.D. Ill. filed Nov.
                                             customer’s creditors or debt collectors.’’ (emphasis     two things down, that I think are widely supported,    30, 2009) (alleging that defendants misrepresented
                                             added). ‘‘Customer’’ is defined in Section 310.2(l) of   the disclosures and misrepresentations.’’).            that consumers could pay off debts three to five
                                                                                                        553 See MD (Oct. 26, 2009) at 37-38; Able (Oct.
                                             the TSR and used throughout the Rule.’’                                                                         times faster); FTC v. Debt Solutions, Inc., No. 06-
                                                Finally, the Commission added the phrase ‘‘or         21, 2009) at 30.                                       0298 JLR (W.D. Wash. filed Mar. 6, 2006); FTC v.
                                                                                                        554 See TSR Proposed Rule, 74 FR at 41991-
                                             make a bona fide offer’’ to clarify that the                                                                    Integrated Credit Solutions, No. 06-806-SCB-TGW
sroberts on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES




                                             misrepresentation provision prohibits                    41997.                                                 (M.D. Fla. filed May 2, 2006) (alleging that
                                                                                                        555 See, e.g., NACCA at 4 (recommending that the     defendants misrepresented that debt relief would be
                                             misrepresentations about the amount that the
                                             customer must accumulate before the provider             Commission specifically prohibit                       achieved before consumers’ next billing cycle); FTC
                                             initiates attempts to settle the debt and/or about the   misrepresentations concerning whether any savings      v. Better Budget Fin. Servs., Inc., No. 04-12326
                                             amount that a customer must accumulate before the        may be taxable income and the use of lead              (WG4) (D. Mass. filed Nov. 2, 2004)(alleging
                                             provider makes a bona fide settlement offer or other     generators).                                           defendant told consumers it could shorten period
                                             offer to renegotiate, settle, or modify the terms of       556 See Deception Policy Statement, supra note       of time to pay off debts).
                                             the customer’s debt.                                     453, at 174-83.                                           560 See supra notes 519-20.




                                        VerDate Mar<15>2010   16:17 Aug 09, 2010   Jkt 220001   PO 00000   Frm 00042   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10AUR2.SGM    10AUR2
                                                                Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations                                                       48499

                                             more critically material to a consumer                     material because they lend credibility                   many cases, however, these highly
                                             in financial distress.                                     and trustworthiness to the entity making                 material claims are false or
                                                A second provision of § 310.3(a)(2)(x)                  them. The Commission has brought                         misleading.568 In particular, the record
                                             prohibits misrepresentations regarding                     several law enforcement actions against                  shows that many debt settlement
                                             ‘‘the effect of the service on a customer’s                entities that masqueraded as nonprofits                  providers have made specific and
                                             creditworthiness.’’ As described earlier                   when, in fact, they operated for the                     unqualified claims about the savings
                                             in this SBP, representations on this                       profit of their principals.566 This                      enrollees will receive that greatly
                                             topic are highly material to consumers                     problem was particularly common in                       exaggerate or misrepresent what
                                             for whom lower credit scores will                          the credit counseling industry before the                consumers are likely to experience.569
                                             impair their ability to get credit,                        IRS took action to scrutinize and, where                    Based on the record, the Commission
                                             insurance, or other benefits in the                        appropriate, decertify § 501(c)(3) CCAs.                 has identified four fundamental
                                             future.                                                                                                             deficiencies in the data that debt relief
                                                                                                        b. Savings Claims
                                                Third, § 310.3(a)(2)(x) prohibits a                                                                              providers often use to support their
                                             telemarketer from making                                      The sixth example of a                                savings claims. All of these deficiencies
                                             misrepresentations about the ‘‘effect of                   misrepresentation barred by                              inflate the savings consumers are likely
                                             the service on collection efforts of the                   § 310.3(a)(2)(x) relates to claims about                 to obtain.
                                             consumer’s creditors or debt collectors.’’                 ‘‘the amount of money or the percentage                     First, as described above, many
                                             This provision will ensure that                            of the debt amount that a customer may                   providers calculate savings without
                                             providers do not misrepresent that they                    save by using such service.’’ Below, the                 accounting for the additional debt and
                                             can stop creditors or debt collectors                      Commission explains in some detail the                   costs consumers incur as a result of
                                             from contacting or attempting to collect                   nature of these misrepresentations and                   interest, late fees, and other charges
                                             from consumers, a practice in which a                      how providers can make non-deceptive                     imposed by the creditor(s) or debt
                                             significant number of providers have                       claims.                                                  collector(s) during the course of the
                                             engaged.561 Again, this is highly                             A pivotal claim made in most debt                     program.570 Second, providers often
                                             material information that consumers                        relief advertising and telemarketing                     omit the fees consumers pay to the
                                             need to make an informed purchaser’s                       pitches is that the offered plan can save                provider from their calculations of the
                                             decision.                                                  the consumer money, either by lowering                   savings.571 By ignoring the creditor and
                                                Fourth, § 310.3(a)(2)(x) prohibits                      monthly payments or by eliminating                       provider-associated costs, the claims
                                             misrepresentations relating to ‘‘the                       debt altogether through substantially                    overstate the amount consumers
                                             percentage of customers who attain the                     reduced, lump sum settlements. Many                      actually save. Third, providers
                                             represented results.’’ As discussed                        of these claims are very specific,                       frequently exclude from their
                                             above, debt relief providers covered by                    promising, for example, settlements for                  calculation of savings those consumers
                                             the Rule commonly make success rate                        40% to 60% of the debt owed.567 In                       who dropped out or were otherwise
                                             claims in their advertising and                                                                                     unable to complete the program, and
                                                                                                        nonprofit. See, e.g., FECA (Oct. 26, 2009) at 10
                                             telemarketing.562 These claims are                         (requesting that the Commission clarify the scope
                                                                                                                                                                 fourth, providers frequently exclude
                                             highly material to consumers’ purchase                     of § 310.3(a)(2)(x) regarding the prohibition against    individual accounts that were not
                                             decisions. Yet a large percentage of                       misrepresenting nonprofit status).                       settled successfully.572 Thus, the
                                             customers of these providers do not                           566 Supra Section I.C.1.
                                                                                                                                                                 savings claimed by the provider
                                                                                                           567 See, e.g., FTC v. Credit Restoration Brokers,
                                             obtain the results promised.563 In fact, it
                                                                                                        LLC, 2:10-cv-00030-CEH-SPC (M.D. Fla. filed Jan.         Solutions, No. 06-806-SCB-TGW (M.D. Fla. filed
                                             appears that well over half of consumers                   19, 2010) (promising to settle consumers’ debts for      May 2, 2006); see also, e.g., Florida v. CSA - Credit
                                             who enroll in these programs drop out                      between 30 cents to 50 cents on the dollar); FTC         Solutions of Am., Inc., No. 09-CA-026438 (Fl. Cir.
                                             before they have completed them.564                        v. Debt-Set, No. 1:07-cv-00558-RPM (D. Colo. filed       Ct. - 13th filed Oct. 2009) (alleging that defendant
                                                Fifth, § 310.3(a)(2)(x) prohibits                       Mar. 19, 2007) (promising to reduce amount owed          represented that it could reduce consumers debts by
                                                                                                        to 50% to 60% of amount at time of enrollment);          50% or 60% within 12 to 36 months); Press Release,
                                             misrepresentations about ‘‘whether a                       FTC v. Connelly,No. SA CV 06-701 DOC (RNBx)              Illinois Attorney General, Attorney General
                                             service is offered or provided by a                        (C.D. Cal. Am. Compl. filed Nov. 27, 2006)               Madigan Sues Two Debt Settlement Firms (May 4,
                                             nonprofit entity.’’565 Such claims are                     (promising to reduce overall amount owed by up to        2009) (alleging that defendant represented to
                                                                                                        40% to 60%); FTC v. Nat’l Consumer Council, Inc.,        consumers that it could reduce their credit card
                                                561 A coalition of consumer groups, in their            No. SACV04-0474 CJC (JWJX) (C.D. Cal. filed Apr.         debt by 40% to 60% and that consumers would be
                                                                                                        23, 2004); FTC v. Better Budget Fin. Servs., Inc., No.   debt free in as little as 36 months), available at
                                             written comments, urged the Commission also to
                                                                                                        04-12326 (WG4) (D. Mass. filed Nov. 2, 2004)             (http://www.illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/pressroom/
                                             bar debt relief services from: (1) instructing or
                                                                                                        (promising to reduce consumers’ debts by up to           2009_05/20090504.pdf); California v. Freedom Debt
                                             advising consumers to stop making payments
                                                                                                        50% to 70%); FTC v. Innovative Sys. Tech., Inc.,         Relief, No. CIV477991 (Super. Ct. San Mateo Cty.,
                                             directly to their creditors; (2) instructing or advising
                                                                                                        No. CV04-0728 GAF JTLx (C.D. Cal. filed Feb. 3,          consent judgment Oct. 30, 2008) (defendant
                                             consumers to stop communicating directly with
                                                                                                        2004) (representing it could save consumers up to        allegedly represented that it could reduce
                                             their creditors; or (3) re-routing consumers’ bills so
                                                                                                        70% of debt owed); FTC v. Jubilee Fin. Servs., Inc.,     consumers’ debt by 40 to 60% and make consumers
                                             that creditors send them to the debt relief service.
                                                                                                        No. 02-6468 ABC (Ex) (C.D. Cal. filed Aug. 19, 2002)     debt-free).
                                             See CFA at 2, 18. The Commission believes that the
                                                                                                        (promising to reduce debts by up to 60%); see also,
                                             disclosure requirements in § 310.3(a)(1)(viii)(C) of                                                                    568 See supra note 567;see also, e.g., NAAG (Oct.
                                                                                                        e.g., FTC v. Advanced Mgmt. Servs. NW, LLC, No.
                                             the Final Rule, along with the prohibition against                                                                  23, 2009) at 2 (‘‘The primary consumer protection
                                                                                                        10-148-LRS (E.D. Wash. filed May 10, 2010)
                                             material misrepresentations, are sufficient to protect                                                              problem areas that have given rise to the States’
                                                                                                        (promising to save consumers $2,500 or more); FTC
                                             consumers.                                                                                                          actions include . . . unsubstantiated claims of
                                                                                                        v. JPM Accelerated Servs., Inc., No. 09-CV-2021
                                                562 In its review of 100 debt settlement websites,                                                               consumer savings.’’); CU (Hillebrand), Tr. at 164-65
                                                                                                        (M.D. Fla. Am. Compl. filed Jan. 19, 2010)
                                             supra note 50, FTC staff found that 86% of the 100                                                                  (‘‘I think when you say consumers get 50 cents on
                                                                                                        (promising to save consumers $2,500 or more); FTC
                                             debt settlement websites reviewed represented that                                                                  the dollar is I’m going to save 50 cents on the dollar
                                                                                                        v. Econ. Relief Techs., LLC, No. 09-CV-3347 (N.D.
                                             the provider could achieve a specific level of                                                                      for all of my debt, and that does not account for tax
                                                                                                        Ga. filed Nov. 30, 2009) (promising to save
                                             reduction in the amount of debt owed. Again, such                                                                   consequences, does not account for the very serious
                                                                                                        consumers $4,000); FTC v. 2145183 Ontario, Inc.,
sroberts on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES




                                             claims are highly material.                                                                                         impact of the unsettled debt . . . [and] it does not
                                                                                                        No. 09-CV-7423 (N.D. Ill. filed Nov. 30, 2009)
                                                563 Data from the debt settlement industry                                                                       account for the fact that many of those consumers
                                                                                                        (promising to save consumers $2,500 or more); FTC
                                             support this assertion. See supra Section III.C.2.a;                                                                are going to finish without settling all of their
                                                                                                        v. Express Consolidation, No. 06-cv-61851-WJZ
                                             see also FTC Case List, supra note 27.                                                                              debt.’’); NFCC at 3; SBLS at 2-5.
                                                                                                        (S.D. Fla. Am. Compl. filed Mar. 21, 2007); U.S. v.          569 Id.
                                                564 Supra Section III.C.2.a.1.
                                                                                                        Credit Found. of Am., No. CV 06-3654 ABC(VBKx)
                                                565 This prohibition applies only to                                                                                 570 Supra Section III.C.2.a.(3).
                                                                                                        (C.D. Cal. filed June 13, 2006); FTC v. Debt Mgmt.
                                                                                                                                                                     571 Id.
                                             misrepresentations; thus, it does not prevent a bona       Found. Servs., Inc., No. 04-1674-T-17-MSS (M.D.
                                             fide nonprofit entity from claiming that it is a           Fla. filed July 20, 2004); FTC v. Integrated Credit          572 See id.




                                        VerDate Mar<15>2010    16:17 Aug 09, 2010   Jkt 220001   PO 00000    Frm 00043   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10AUR2.SGM      10AUR2
                                             48500             Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

                                             represent only those of the successful                   will save consumers a certain amount or                     account for several key pieces of
                                             cases, and not of consumers                              reduce the debts by a certain percentage,                   information.578 Below, the Commission
                                             generally.573                                            it also represents, by implication, that                    provides additional guidance on the
                                               To comply with § 310.3(a)(2)(x),                       this savings claim is supported by                          proper methodology for doing this
                                             providers’ representations, including                    competent and reliable,                                     historical experience analysis.579
                                             those promising specific savings or                      methodologically sound evidence                               First, savings claims must be
                                             other results, must be truthful, and the                 showing that consumers generally who                        calculated based on the amount of debt
                                             provider must have a reasonable basis to                 enroll in the program will obtain the
                                             substantiate the claims.574 When a debt                  advertised results.575 When a debt relief                   specific categories of consumers or exclude others
                                             relief service provider represents that it               service makes only general savings                          in order to inflate the savings. See, e.g., Kroger, 98
                                                                                                                                                                  F.T.C. at 741-46 (1981) (claims based on sampling
                                                                                                      claims (e.g., ‘‘we will help you reduce                     were deceptive because certain categories were
                                                573 An advertiser cannot substantiate a claim
                                                                                                      your debts’’), without specifying a                         systematically excluded and because the advertiser
                                             based only on supportive data, while ignoring the        percentage or amount of debt reduction,                     failed to ensure that individuals who selected the
                                             countervailing data. See, e.g., In re Kroger Co., 98                                                                 sample were unbiased); FTC v. Litton Indus., Inc.,
                                             F.T.C. 639 (1979) (initial decision), aff’d, 98 F.T.C.   these claims are likely to convey that
                                                                                                                                                                  97 F.T.C. 1, 70-72 (1981) (claims touting superiority
                                             at 721 (1981); FTC, Dietary Supplements: An              consumers can expect to achieve a                           of microwave oven were deceptive because the
                                             Advertising Guide for Industry (1994) (‘‘Advertisers     result that will be beneficial to them,                     advertiser based them on a biased survey of ‘‘Litton-
                                             should consider all relevant research relating to the    and that the benefit will be                                authorized’’ service agencies), enforced as modified,
                                             claimed benefit of their supplement and should not                                                                   676 F.2d 364 (9th Cir. 1982); Bristol Myers v. FTC,
                                             focus only on research that supports the effect,         substantial.576 Generally, savings claims
                                                                                                                                                                  185 F.2d 58 (1950) (holding advertisements to be
                                             while discounting research that does not.’’),            should reflect the experiences of the                       deceptive where they claimed that dentists used
                                             available at (http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/           provider’s past customers577 and must                       one brand of toothpaste ‘‘2 to 1 over any other
                                             business/adv/bus09.shtm).                                                                                            [brand]’’ when, in fact, the vast majority of dentists
                                                Nonetheless, broadcast advertisements and                575 It is deceptive to make unqualified                  surveyed offered no response). Additionally, the
                                             websites for debt settlement services routinely                                                                      relationship between past experience and
                                                                                                      performance claims that are only true for some
                                             imply that these services can obtain the represented                                                                 anticipated future results must be an ‘‘apples-to-
                                                                                                      consumers, because consumers are likely to
                                             savings for the typical consumer who enrolls in the                                                                  apples’’ comparison. If there have been material
                                                                                                      interpret such claims to apply to the typical
                                             program. See supra note 567; see also, e.g., FTC v.                                                                  changes to the program that could affect the
                                                                                                      consumer. See FTC v. Five-Star Auto Club, Inc., 97
                                             Edge Solutions, Inc., No. CV-07-4087, Mem. Supp.                                                                     applicability of historical experience to future
                                                                                                      F. Supp. 2d 502, 528-29 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (holding
                                             Mot. T.R.O. at 7, 11 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2007)                                                                       results, any claims must account for the likely effect
                                                                                                      that, in the face of express earnings claims for
                                             (alleging that although defendants promised they                                                                     of those changes. See Amended Franchise Rule, 16
                                                                                                      multi-level marketing scheme, it was reasonable for
                                             could settle consumers’ debts for 50% to 60% of the                                                                  CFR 437.5(s)(3)(ii).
                                                                                                      consumers to have assumed the promised rewards
                                             amount owed, they often settled just a single debt                                                                       578 Providers should maintain historical data
                                                                                                      were achieved by the typical Five Star participant);
                                             and ‘‘allow[ed] other debts to languish’’); FTC v.                                                                   about their business activities sufficient to meet the
                                                                                                      Chrysler Corp. v. FTC, 561 F.2d 357, 363 (D.C. Cir.
                                             Better Budget Fin. Servs., Inc., No. 04-12326 (WG4),                                                                 substantiation requirements detailed in this
                                                                                                      1977); In re Ford Motor Co., 87 F.T.C. 756, 778, aff’d
                                             Mem. Supp. Mot. T.R.O. at 8 (D. Mass. filed Nov.                                                                     Section. See, e.g., USDR (Johnson), Tr. at 168-170
                                                                                                      in part and remanded in part, 87 F.T.C. 792 (1976);
                                             2, 2004) (alleging that ‘‘defendants’ program does
                                                                                                      In re J. B. Williams Co., 68 F.T.C. 481, 539 (1965),        (‘‘I’ll speak specifically to my company, why we
                                             not result in a 50% savings on their debt, as
                                                                                                      aff’d as modified, 381 F.2d 884 (6th Cir. 1967); FTC        make a general claim, is on the 40 to 60 reduction
                                             promised by defendants . . . [because] [m]any
                                                                                                      v. Feil, 285 F.2d 879, 885-87 & n.19 (9th Cir. 1960);       is because historically our numbers for five years
                                             consumers find that defendants settle some of their
                                                                                                      cf. Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and           reflect that this is the results that we get for the
                                             accounts but not others . . . [and some] consumers
                                                                                                      Testimonials in Advertising, 16 CFR 255.2 (‘‘An             consumers.’’).
                                             see none of their accounts settled’’).
                                                574 It is an unfair and deceptive practice to make
                                                                                                      advertisement containing an endorsement relating                Providers should be cautious in purporting to
                                                                                                      the experience of one or more consumers on a                qualify their savings claims to make sure that the
                                             an express or implied objective claim without a          central or key attribute of the product or service          qualifications are effectively communicated to
                                             reasonable basis supporting it. See, e.g., FTC v.        also will likely be interpreted as representing that
                                             Pantron I Corp., 33 F.2d 1088, 1096 (9th Cir. 1994);                                                                 consumers. For example, phrases such as ‘‘up to’’ or
                                                                                                      the endorser’s experience is representative of what         ‘‘as much as’’ (e.g., ‘‘up to 60% savings’’) likely
                                             Removatron Int’l Corp., 111 F.T.C. 206, 296-99
                                                                                                      consumers will generally achieve with the                   convey to consumers that the product or service
                                             (1988), aff’d, 884 F.2d 1489 (1st Cir. 1989); In re
                                                                                                      advertised product or service . . . .’’); In re Cliffdale   will consistently produce results in the range of the
                                             Thompson Med. Co., 104 F.T.C. 648, 813 (1984),
                                                                                                      Assocs., 103 F.T.C. 110, 171-73 (1984); Porter &            stated percentage or amount. See, e.g., In re
                                             aff’d, 791 F.2d 189 (D.C. Cir. 1986), cert. denied,
                                                                                                      Dietsch, Inc. v. FTC, 605 F.2d 294, 302-03 (7th Cir.        Automotive Breakthrough Sciences, Inc., 126 F.T.C.
                                             479 U.S. 1086 (1987); see also generally 1984 Policy
                                                                                                      1979).                                                      229, 301 (1998).
                                             Statement Regarding Advertising Substantiation,             576 An efficacy claim conveys to consumers that              579 In written comments and at the public forum,
                                             appended to Thompson Med. Co., 104 F.T.C. at 813
                                             (‘‘Advertising Substantiation Policy Statement’’); see   the result or benefit will be meaningful and not de         consumer groups, noting that debt settlement
                                             also Amended Franchise Rule, 16 CFR 436.5(s),            minimis. See P. Lorillard Co. v. FTC, 186 F.2d 52,          companies often fail to substantiate savings claims
                                             436.9(c); Amended Franchise Rule Statement of            57 (4th Cir. 1950) (challenging advertising that            properly, urged the Commission to ban outright any
                                             Basis and Purpose, 72 FR 15444, 15449 (Mar. 30,          claimed that the cigarette was lowest in nicotine,          representations regarding savings amounts or rates,
                                             2007).                                                   tar, and resins in part because the difference was          or, alternatively, to require that the provider’s
                                                If the advertisement expressly or impliedly           insignificant); In re Sun Co., 115 F.T.C. 560 (1992)        historical data demonstrate that it achieved the
                                             represents that it is based on a particular level of     (consent order) (alleging that advertising for high         represented result for 80% of its past customers.
                                             support (e.g., ‘‘tests prove’’), the advertiser must     octane gasoline represented that it would provide           See CFA at 18-19; CFA (Grant), Tr. at 173 (‘‘[W]e
                                             possess at least that support. See 1984 Policy           superior power ‘‘that would be significant to               think that any success claims are inherently
                                             Statement Regarding Advertising Substantiation,          consumers’’); Guides for the Use of Environmental           misleading, and would like to see them
                                             appended to Thompson Medical Co., 104 F.T.C. at          Marketing Claims,16 CFR 260.6(c) (1998)                     prohibited.’’); see also CRN (Oct. 8, 2009) at 8.
                                             813; Removatron Int’l, 111 F.T.C. at 297. If no          (‘‘Marketers should avoid implications of significant       Although the record shows that false or
                                             specific level of support is stated, the necessary       environmental benefits if the benefit is in fact            unsubstantiated savings claims for debt relief
                                             level of substantiation is determined by                 negligible.’’); FTC Enforcement Policy Statement on         services are common, the Commission does not
                                             consideration of certain factors, including the type     Food Advertising, 59 FR 28388, 28395 & n.96 (June           believe that savings claims are inherently deceptive
                                             of claim, consequences of a false claim, and the         1, 1994), available at (http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/             and thus concludes that they should not be
                                             amount of substantiation that experts in the field       policystmt/ad-food.shtm) (‘‘The Commission shares           prohibited outright. See Milavetz, Gallop &
                                             believe is reasonable. Id. Generally speaking, claims    FDA’s view that health claims should not be                 Milavetz, P.A. v. US, 176 L. Ed. 2d 79 (2010)
                                             must be supported by competent and reliable              asserted for foods that do not significantly                (restrictions on nonmisleading commercial speech
                                             evidence. The reasonable basis test is an objective      contribute to the claimed benefit. A claim about the        require a higher level of scrutiny under the First
                                             standard; an advertiser’s good faith belief that its     benefit of a product carries with it the implication        Amendment than restrictions on misleading
                                             claim is substantiated is insufficient. See, e.g., FTC   that the benefit is significant.’’).                        speech); Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel,
sroberts on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES




                                                                                                         577 Although providers may use samples of their          471 U.S. 626 (1985) (same); Cent. Hudson Gas &
                                             v. World Travel Vacation Brokers, Inc., 861 F.2d
                                             1020, 1029 (7th Cir. 1988); FTC v. U.S. Sales Corp.,     historical data to substantiate savings claims, these       Elec. Corp. v. Public Serv. Comm’n, 447 U.S. 557
                                             785 F. Supp. 737 (N.D. Ill. 1992). Similarly, the        samples must be representative of the entire                (1980). The Commission is confident that the
                                             existence of some satisfied customers does not           relevant population of past customers. Providers            prohibition in the Final Rule on misrepresentations
                                             constitute a reasonable basis. See, e.g., FTC v.         using samples must, among other things, employ              will be sufficient to address the problem of false or
                                             SlimAmerica, Inc., 77 F. Supp. 2d 1263, 1274 (S.D.       appropriate sampling techniques, proper statistical         unsubstantiated savings claims without
                                             Fla. 1999); In re Brake Guard Products, 125 F.T.C.       analysis, and safeguards for reducing bias and              inadvertently stopping truthful claims that may be
                                             138, 244-45 (1998).                                      random error. Providers may not cherry-pick                 valuable to consumers.



                                        VerDate Mar<15>2010   16:17 Aug 09, 2010   Jkt 220001   PO 00000   Frm 00044    Fmt 4701    Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10AUR2.SGM       10AUR2
                                                               Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations                                                      48501

                                             owed at the time of enrollment, rather                    out of the aggregate $20,000 enrolled                   requirement is in § 310.3(a)(1)(iii) of the
                                             than the amount at the time of                            in the program. The provider can                        TSR.
                                             settlement, in order to account for (a)                   claim a savings rate of 10%.                               ∑ the seller’s or telemarketer’s
                                             increases in debt levels from creditor                                                                            affiliation with, or endorsement or
                                                                                                     3. Existing TSR Provisions Prohibiting                    sponsorship by, any person or
                                             fees or interest charges that accrue
                                                                                                     Deceptive Representations and                             government entity.585
                                             during the period of the program, and
                                             (b) fees the consumer pays to the                       Misleading Statements                                        ∑ any other statements to induce any
                                             provider. The following example                            In addition to § 310(a)(2)(x) of the                   person to pay for goods or services.586
                                             illustrates this principle:                             TSR, which has been added as a result                     F. Section 310.6: Exemptions
                                                A consumer enrolls a single $10,000                  of this rulemaking, the existing                            Section 310.6 sets forth the Rule’s
                                                debt with a debt settlement provider.                §§ 310.3(a)(2) and 310.3(a)(4) will now                   exemptions. In determining which
                                                However, between the time the                        apply to inbound or outbound                              exemptions to grant, the Commission
                                                consumer enrolls the debt and the                    telemarketing of debt relief services.580                 considered four factors: (1) whether
                                                time the debt is settled, the amount                 These provisions prohibit                                 Congress intended a particular activity
                                                owed grows to $13,000 because of                     misrepresentations of the following                       to be exempt from the Rule; (2) whether
                                                accrued interest and late fees. In                   information, much of which providers                      the conduct or business in question is
                                                addition, the consumer must pay the                  misrepresent in the telemarketing of                      already the subject of extensive federal
                                                settlement provider a fee of $2,000.                 debt relief services:                                     or state regulation; (3) whether the
                                                The provider settles the debt for                       ∑ total costs to purchase, receive, or                 conduct at issue is suitable for the forms
                                                $6,000, so that the total amount paid                use, and the quantity of, any goods or                    of abuse or deception the Telemarketing
                                                by the consumer is $8,000 ($6,000                    services that are the subject of the                      Act was intended to address; and (4)
                                                paid to settle the debt plus $2,000 in               offer.581 This provision parallels the                    whether the risk that fraudulent sellers
                                                fees). The provider can claim a                      required disclosure of total costs                        or telemarketers would avail themselves
                                                savings rate of 20%.                                 contained in TSR § 310.3(a)(1)(i).                        of the exemption outweighs the burden
                                                Second, in making savings claims, a                     ∑ material restrictions, limitations, or               to legitimate industry of compliance
                                             provider must take into account the                     conditions to purchase, receive, or use                   with the Rule.587
                                             experiences of all of its past customers,                                                                           The TSR generally exempts inbound
                                                                                                     the offered goods or services.582 This
                                             including those who dropped out or                                                                                calls placed by consumers in response
                                                                                                     provision, too, has a parallel required
                                             otherwise failed to complete the
                                                                                                     disclosure in TSR § 310.3(a)(1)(ii).
                                             program. The following example                                                                                       585 § 310.3(a)(2)(vii). In several FTC law

                                             illustrates this principle:                               ∑ any material aspect of the                            enforcement actions, debt negotiation companies
                                                                                                     performance, efficacy, nature, or central                 falsely represented that they were affiliated with
                                                A debt settlement provider has ten                                                                             consumers’ creditors. See, e.g., FTC v. Group One
                                                                                                     characteristics of the offered goods or
                                                customers, each of whom has $10,000                                                                            Networks, Inc., No. 8:09-cv-352-T-26-MAP (M.D.
                                                                                                     services.583                                              Fla. Am. Compl. filed Apr. 14, 2009); FTC v. Select
                                                in debt enrolled in the program, for a
                                                                                                        ∑ any material aspect of the nature or                 Pers. Mgmt., Inc., No. 07-CV-0529 (N.D. Ill. Am.
                                                total of $100,000 in unpaid debt. Five                                                                         Compl. filed Aug. 18, 2007). In other cases,
                                                of those customers complete the                      terms of the seller’s refund,                             especially with the rise of government economic
                                                program, each of whom saves $2,000,                  cancellation, exchange, or repurchase                     assistance programs, providers have misrepresented
                                                for a total savings of $10,000. The                  policies.584 The parallel disclosure                      their affiliation with the government or bona fide
                                                                                                                                                               nonprofits. See, e.g., FTC v. Dominant Leads, LLC,
                                                remaining five customers drop out of                                                                           No. 1:10-cv-00997 (D.D.C. filed June 15, 2010);
                                                the program before making any                            580 In fact, all of the TSR provisions will now
                                                                                                                                                               Minnesota v. Priority Direct Marketing, No. 62-CV-
                                                settlements, and thus save nothing. In               cover this industry, including, e.g., the provision       09-10416 (Ramsey Cty., Minn. filed Sept. 21, 2009)
                                                                                                     prohibiting assisting and facilitating another            (alleging that debt negotiator misrepresented that it
                                                total, the customers have saved                      engaged in TSR violations, § 310.3(b), the                was affiliated with the President’s stimulus plan);
                                                $10,000 out of the aggregate $100,000                prohibition on the use of threats or intimidating or      cf., e.g., FTC v. Washington Data Res., Inc., No.
                                                enrolled in the program. The provider                profane language, § 310.4(a)(1), and the                  8:08-CV-02309-SDM (M.D. Fla. filed Nov. 12, 2009)
                                                can claim a savings rate of 10%.                     recordkeeping requirements, § 310.5.                      (alleging that defendants falsely represented that
                                                                                                         581 § 310.3(a)(2)(i).Some providers request
                                                                                                                                                               they were affiliated with the United States
                                                Third, in making savings claims, a                   consumers’ billing information during the sales call      government); FTC v. Cantkier, No. 1:09-cv- 00894
                                             provider must include all of the debts                  or pressure consumers to return payment                   (D.D.C. filed July 10, 2009) (alleging defendants
                                             enrolled by each consumer in the                        authorization forms and signed contracts as quickly       placed advertisements on Internet search engines
                                                                                                     as possible following the call. See, e.g., FTC v. Debt-   that refer consumers to websites that deceptively
                                             program. The provider may not exclude                   Set, No. 1:07-cv-00558-RPM (D. Colo. filed Mar. 19,       appear to be affiliated with government loan
                                             debts that it has failed to settle –                    2007) (alleging ‘‘[c]onsumers who agree to enroll         modification programs).
                                             including those associated with                         . . . are sent an initial set of enrollment documents        586 § 310.3(a)(4). The FTC has brought cases

                                             consumers who dropped out of the                        from Debt Set Colorado. During their telephone            against debt relief providers alleging violations of
                                                                                                     pitches, the defendants’ telemarketers also exhort        § 310.3(a)(4) for misleading statements made in
                                             program – from its calculation of the                   consumers to fill out the enrollment documents and        connection with outbound telemarketing, including
                                             average savings percentage or amount of                 return the papers as quickly as possible . . . .          statements that the entity (a) will obtain a favorable
                                             its consumers’ debt reduction. The                      Included in these documents are forms for the             settlement of the consumer’s debt promptly or in a
                                             following example illustrates this                      consumer to authorize direct withdrawals from the         specific period of time (see, e.g., FTC v. Nat’l
                                                                                                     consumer’s checking account, to identify the              Consumer Council, No. SACV04-0474 CJC (JWJX)
                                             principle:                                              amounts owed to various creditors, and a Client           (C.D. Cal. filed Apr. 23, 2004)); (b) will stop or
                                                A debt settlement provider has ten                   Agreement.’’). The existing TSR prohibits                 lessen creditors’ collection efforts against the
                                                customers, each of whom has two                      telemarketers from charging consumers’ accounts           consumer (see, e.g., id.; FTC v. Group One
                                                                                                     without first obtaining express informed consent in       Networks, Inc., No. 8:09-cv-352-T-26-MAP (M.D.
                                                $1,000 debts enrolled in the program,                all transactions, and it requires express verifiable      Fla. Am. Compl. filed Apr. 14, 2009)); and (c) will
                                                for a total of 20 debts and $20,000 in
sroberts on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES




                                                                                                     authorization in cases where a consumer uses a            secure concessions, such as interest rate reductions,
                                                enrolled debt. The provider settles a                payment method other than a credit or debit card.         by specific amounts or percentages (see, e.g., FTC
                                                single debt for each of the ten                      See §§ 310.3(a)(3), 310.4(a)(6). The amended Rule         v. Debt Mgmt. Found. Servs., Inc., No. 04-1674-T-
                                                                                                     applies these existing requirements to inbound debt       17-MSS (M.D. Fla. filed July 20, 2004)).
                                                customers for $800 per debt. The                     relief telemarketing calls as well.                          587 TSR Final Rule, 60 FR at 43859; see also TSR
                                                company fails to settle the remaining                    582 § 310.3(a)(2)(ii).
                                                                                                                                                               Amended Rule 2008, 73 FR 51188 (discussing the
                                                debt for each of the ten customers. In                   583 § 310.3(a)(2)(iii).
                                                                                                                                                               Commission’s legal authority to exempt certain
                                                total, the customers have saved $2,000                   584 § 310.3(a)(2)(iv).                                calls or callers from the TSR).



                                        VerDate Mar<15>2010   16:17 Aug 09, 2010   Jkt 220001   PO 00000   Frm 00045   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10AUR2.SGM      10AUR2
                                             48502              Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

                                             to direct mail or general media                           G. Section 310.5: Recordkeeping                          response, OMB filed a comment
                                             advertising.588 The Final Rule in this                       Section 310.5 of the TSR describes the                indicating that it was withholding
                                             proceeding, consistent with the                           types of records sellers or telemarketers                approval pending: (1) discussion in the
                                             proposed rule, carves out inbound calls                   must keep and the time period for                        preamble to the Final Rule of how the
                                             made to debt relief services from that                    retention.595 Although the provisions of                 Commission has maximized the
                                             exemption.589 As a result, virtually all                  this section remain unchanged by these                   practical utility of the collection of
                                             debt relief telemarketing transactions                    amendments, the operation of the                         information and minimized the related
                                             are now subject to the TSR.590                            amendments will result in some                           burden, and (2) the FTC’s examination
                                                Most commenters supported covering                     providers of debt relief services being                  of the public comments in response to
                                             inbound calls made to debt relief                         subject to this provision of the TSR for                 the NPRM. The remainder of this
                                             providers.591 On the other hand, one                      the first time. Very few comments were                   section covers those considerations and
                                             debt relief provider opposed it, arguing                  received on the recordkeeping                            provides a revised PRA analysis,
                                             that not all debt relief providers harm                   requirements. One commenter stated                       factoring in relevant public comments
                                             consumers.592                                             that it did not make sense to limit the                  and the Commission’s resulting or self-
                                                The Commission’s decision to include                   recordkeeping requirement to 24                          initiated changes to the proposed rule.
                                             inbound debt relief calls is based on its                 months, when 36 to 60 months is
                                             law enforcement experience and the                                                                                 A. Practical Utility
                                                                                                       typically required for most debt relief
                                             record in this proceeding and is                                                                                     According to OMB regulations,
                                                                                                       customers to become debt free.596 This
                                             consistent with the existing TSR                                                                                   practical utility means the usefulness of
                                                                                                       commenter also questioned whether the
                                             provisions covering inbound calls                                                                                  information to or for an agency.600 The
                                                                                                       requirement would reduce abuses and
                                             related to investment opportunities,                                                                               Commission has maximized the
                                                                                                       provide sufficiently useful data for law
                                             certain business opportunities, credit                                                                             practical utility of the debt relief
                                                                                                       enforcement or regulatory purposes.597
                                             card loss protection plans, credit repair                                                                          amendments contained in the Final
                                                                                                       The FTC’s law enforcement experience
                                             services, recovery services, and certain                                                                           Rule. The Final Rule requires specific
                                                                                                       demonstrates that recordkeeping
                                             advance fee loans.593 Like debt relief                                                                             new disclosures in the sale of a ‘‘debt
                                                                                                       requirements are critical for enabling
                                             services, each of those services                                                                                   relief service,’’ as that term is defined in
                                                                                                       the agency to ensure compliance. The
                                             frequently has been marketed through                                                                               § 310.2(m). The disclosures will provide
                                                                                                       TSR has long imposed a 24-month
                                             deceptive telemarketing campaigns that                                                                             consumers critical information before
                                                                                                       retention period, and the Commission
                                             capitalize on mass media or general                                                                                they enroll in a debt relief service. In
                                                                                                       does not see a compelling reason to alter
                                             advertising to entice their victims to                                                                             addition, new respondents will be
                                                                                                       it for debt relief providers. To the extent
                                             place an inbound telemarketing call.                                                                               subject to the existing provisions of the
                                                                                                       that providers make claims that rely on
                                             The modification to the exemptions will                                                                            TSR, including its general sales
                                                                                                       historical data for substantiation,
                                             ensure that sellers and telemarketers                                                                              disclosures and recordkeeping
                                                                                                       however, they must retain all material
                                             who market debt relief are required to                                                                             provisions.601 The required disclosures
                                                                                                       used to support the claims.
                                             abide by the Rule regardless of the                          This provision will be effective                      are necessary to inform consumers of
                                             medium used to advertise their services.                  September 27, 2010.                                      important information about the debt
                                                This provision will be effective                                                                                relief services being offered.
                                             September 27, 2010.594                                    IV. Paperwork Reduction Act                              Commenters overwhelmingly supported
                                                                                                         In accordance with the Paperwork                       the disclosures.602 Moreover, the
                                               588  See § 310.6(b)(5) & (6).                           Reduction Act (‘‘PRA’’), as amended,598                  Commission has removed three of the
                                               589  The Commission previously had created              the Commission is seeking Office of                      previously proposed disclosures in
                                             certain carve-outs to the general exemption for                                                                    order to avoid cluttering the most
                                             inbound calls made as part of the sale of products
                                                                                                       Management and Budget (‘‘OMB’’)
                                             or services that have been the subject of significant     approval of the Final Rule amendments                    meaningful material information for
                                             fraudulent or deceptive telemarketing activity, such      to the TSR under OMB Control No.                         consumers and to enhance the
                                             as advertisements relating to investment                  3084-0097. The disclosure and                            comprehensibility of the fewer
                                             opportunities and certain business opportunities.         recordkeeping requirements under the
                                             Id.                                                                                                                   600 5 CFR 1320.3(l). In determining whether
                                                590 Outbound calls to solicit the purchase of debt     amendments to the TSR discussed
                                                                                                                                                                information will have ‘‘practical utility,’’ OMB will
                                             relief services are already subject to the TSR,           above constitute ‘‘collections of                        consider ‘‘whether the agency demonstrates actual
                                             including the provisions of § 310.3. The Final Rule       information’’ for purposes of the PRA.599                timely use for the information either to carry out
                                             continues to exempt telemarketing of debt relief            Upon publication of the NPRM, the                      its functions or make it available to third-parties or
                                             services from compliance with most provisions of          FTC submitted the proposed rule and a                    the public, either directly or by means of a third-
                                             the Rule where the sale is not completed, and                                                                      party or public posting, notification, labeling, or
                                             payment or authorization of payment is not                Supporting Statement to OMB. In
                                                                                                                                                                similar disclosure requirement, for the use of
                                             required, until after a face-to-face sales                                                                         persons who have an interest in entities or
                                             presentation.                                             (5), and (6) have been amended to expressly cite         transactions over which the agency has
                                                591 See CFA at 20-21;Orion (Oct. 1, 2009) at 1.        both the Franchise Rule and the now-separate             jurisdiction.’’ Id.
                                                592 Able (Oct. 21, 2009) at 29.                        Business Opportunity Rule.                                  601 See 16 CFR 310.3(a)(1); 16 CFR 310.5. (These
                                                593 Each of these categories is carved out from the      595 16 CFR 310.5. Specifically, this provision
                                                                                                                                                                provisions have previously been reviewed and
                                             exemptions for inbound calls made in response to          requires that telemarketers must keep for a period       cleared by the OMB under the above-noted control
                                             both general media and direct mail advertising.           of 24 months: all substantially different advertising,   number.) Accordingly, as a result of the exceptions
                                             Inbound prize promotion calls are carved out only         brochures, scripts, and promotional materials;           to the general media and direct mail exemptions,
                                             from the direct mail exemption.                           information about prize recipients; information          entities that currently engage exclusively in
                                                594 In addition, in three subsections of the           about customers, including what they purchased,          inbound telemarketing of debt relief services, and
                                             Exemptions section, the Commission has also made          when they made their purchase, and how much              thus are likely exempt under the current Rule,
                                             minor, non-substantive amendments to                      they paid for the goods or services they purchased;      would be covered by the amended Rule.
sroberts on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES




                                             §§ 310.6(b)(2), (5), & (6) to reflect the fact that the   information about employees; and all verifiable             602 See, e.g., NAAG (Oct. 23, 2009) at 11; CFA at
                                                                                                       authorizations or records of express informed
                                             Commission has issued Disclosure Requirements                                                                      2-3, 20; MN AG at 2; FCS at 3; Able (Oct. 21, 2009)
                                                                                                       consent or express agreement required to be
                                             and Prohibitions Concerning Business                                                                               at 30; CareOne at 4; CSA at 1; DS at 18; DMB at
                                                                                                       provided or received under this Rule.
                                             Opportunities, 16 CFR 437 (the ‘‘Business                   596 MD (Oct. 26, 2009) at 54.
                                                                                                                                                                5; DSA/ADE at 1-2; FCS at 3. In fact, many
                                             Opportunity Rule’’). Prior to its issuance, this                                                                   commenters recommended additional disclosures.
                                                                                                         597 Id.
                                             conduct was addressed by 16 CFR 436 (the                                                                           Supra Section III.D.5. The Commission added one
                                                                                                         598 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521.
                                             Franchise Rule) and, therefore, the TSR previously                                                                 additional disclosure that is critical to consumers’
                                             cited only to the latter. Accordingly, §§ 310.6(b)(2),      599 See 5 CFR 1320.3(c).                               understanding of the services.



                                        VerDate Mar<15>2010    16:17 Aug 09, 2010   Jkt 220001   PO 00000   Frm 00046   Fmt 4701    Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10AUR2.SGM     10AUR2
                                                                  Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations                                                          48503

                                             remaining disclosures. Finally, the                            profit credit counselors.607 Although                       Burden Statement:
                                             recordkeeping requirements are                                 these inputs suggest that an estimate of                    Estimated Additional Annual Hours
                                             necessary to facilitate law enforcement                        2,000 entities might be overstated, staff                   Burden: 43,375 hours
                                             by ensuring that debt relief service                           has used it in its burden calculations in
                                             providers retain records demonstrating                         an effort to account for all entities that                     As explained below, the estimated
                                             their compliance with the Rule.603                             would be subject to the amended Rule,                       annual burden for recordkeeping
                                               Thus, the Final Rule will have                                                                                           attributable to the Rule amendments,
                                                                                                            including debt negotiation companies,
                                             significant practical utility.                                                                                             averaged over a prospective three-year
                                                                                                            for which no reliable external estimates
                                                                                                                                                                        PRA clearance, is 29,886 hours for all
                                             B. Explanation of Burden Estimates                             are available. No comments provided
                                                                                                                                                                        industry members affected by the Rule.
                                             Under the Final Rule                                           specific information about the number
                                                                                                                                                                        Although the first year of compliance
                                                The PRA burden of the Final Rule’s                          of entities.608 Thus, the FTC retains                       will entail setting up compliant
                                             requirements will depend on various                            these estimates without modification.                       recordkeeping systems, the PRA burden
                                             factors, including the number of covered                         The Commission received two                               will decline in succeeding years as they
                                             firms and the percentage of such firms                         comments questioning the staff’s                            will then have in place such systems.
                                             that conduct inbound or outbound                               estimate that the proposed disclosures                      The estimated burden for the
                                             telemarketing. The definition of ‘‘debt                        could be provided in 20 seconds.                            disclosures that the Rule requires,
                                             relief service’’ in the Rule includes debt                     Specifically, NACCA questioned                              including the new disclosures relating
                                             settlement companies, for-profit credit                        whether it was realistic that the                           to debt relief services, is 13,489 hours
                                             counselors, and debt negotiation                               proposed disclosures could be provided                      for all affected industry members, the
                                             companies. As before in the NPRM PRA                           in 20 seconds.609 Moreover, a debt                          same estimate used for the proposed
                                             analysis, staff estimates that 2,000                           settlement company stated that it                           rule. Thus, the total PRA burden is
                                             entities will be covered by the                                provides consumers with 16 mandatory                        43,375 hours.
                                             Commission’s Final Rule.604 This                               disclaimers and an additional six
                                             includes existing entities already subject                                                                                 1. Number of Respondents
                                                                                                            disclosures (if applicable), and it
                                             to the TSR for which there would be                            estimated that reading those disclaimers                       Based on its estimate that 2,000
                                             new recordkeeping or disclosure                                and allowing the consumer to respond                        entities sell debt relief services, and on
                                             requirements (‘‘existing respondents’’),                       to the disclosures requires                                 the assumption that each of these
                                             as well as existing entities that newly                        approximately four and a half                               entities engages in telemarketing as
                                             will be subject to the TSR (‘‘new                              minutes.610                                                 defined by the TSR, staff estimates that
                                             respondents’’).605 Staff arrived at this                                                                                   879 new respondents will be subject to
                                             estimate by using available figures                              The FTC’s revised disclosure                              the Rule as a result of the amendments.
                                             obtained through research and from                             estimates, detailed below, consider                         The latter figure is derived by a series
                                             industry sources of information about                          commenters’ input while excluding                           of calculations, beginning with an
                                             the number of debt settlement                                  time estimates for disclosures made                         estimate of the number of these entities
                                             companies606 and the number of for-                            independently of the amended Rule. In                       that conduct inbound versus outbound
                                                                                                            addition, although the FTC recognizes                       telemarketing of debt relief services.
                                                 603 Although the Commission received very few              that certain entities may require more                      This added estimate is needed to
                                             comments addressing the recordkeeping                          than the projected time regarding the                       determine how many debt relief service
                                             requirements, one debt settlement company stated               above-noted tasks, the estimates
                                             that the recordkeeping requirements may impose a                                                                           providers are existing respondents and
                                             minor cost but should not substantively affect the             presented below are intended as an                          how many are new respondents because
                                             business. Able (Oct. 21, 2009) at 32.                          approximate average of incremental                          their respective PRA burdens will differ.
                                                 604 To err in favor of over inclusiveness, staff
                                                                                                            burden incurred across all businesses.                         Staff is not aware of any source that
                                             assumes that every entity that sells debt relief                                                                           directly states the number of outbound
                                             services does so using telemarketing.
                                                 605 Inbound telemarketing calls in response to             ago, estimated David Leuthold, vice president of the        or inbound debt relief telemarketers;
                                             advertisements in any medium other than direct                 Association of Settlement Companies, which has 70           instead, estimates of these numbers are
                                             mail solicitation are generally exempt from the                members and is based in Madison, Wis.’’); Able              extrapolated from external data.
                                             Rule’s coverage under the ‘‘general media                      Workshop Comment at 5 (‘‘At the time of this FTC
                                                                                                            Workshop there are nearly a thousand debt                   According to the Direct Marketing
                                             exemption.’’ 16 CFR 310.6(b)(5). Outbound
                                             telemarketing and non-exempt inbound                           settlement companies within the US and a few                Association (‘‘DMA’’), 21% of all direct
                                             telemarketing of debt relief services are currently            companies servicing US consumers from outside               marketing in 2007 was by inbound
                                             subject to the TSR. Non-exempt inbound                         the US with operations in Canada, Mexico,                   telemarketing and 20% was by
                                             telemarketing would include calls to debt relief               Argentina, India and Malaysia.’’). See also SIC Code
                                                                                                            72991001 (‘‘Debt Counseling or Adjustment Service,          outbound telemarketing.611 Using this
                                             service providers by consumers in response to
                                             direct mail advertising that does not contain                  Individuals’’): 1,598 entities.                             relative weighting, staff estimates that
                                             disclosures required by § 310.3(a)(1) of the Rule.
                                                                                                               607 According to industry sources consulted by           the number of inbound debt relief
                                             See 16 CFR 310.6(b)(6) (providing an exemption for             Commission staff, there are believed to be fewer            telemarketers is 1,024 (2,000 x 21 ÷ (20
                                             ‘‘[t]elephone calls initiated by a customer . . . in           than 200 for-profit credit counseling firms operating
                                                                                                            in the United States.
                                                                                                                                                                        + 21)) and the number of outbound
                                             response to a direct mail solicitation . . . that clearly,
                                             conspicuously, and truthfully discloses all material              608 One commenter estimated that it manages              telemarketers is 976 (2,000 x 20 ÷ (20 +
                                             information listed in § 310.3(a)(1) of this Rule . . . .’’).   between 6% to 8% of all debt currently enrolled in          21)).
                                                 606 See David Streitfeld, Debt Settlers Offer              debt settlement programs. FDR (Oct. 26, 2009) at 5             Of the estimated 1,024 entities
                                             Promises But Little Help, N.Y. Times, Apr. 19, 2009            n.7. In response to a follow-up question by FTC             engaged in inbound telemarketing of
                                             (stating, without attribution, that ‘‘[a]s many as             staff, however, it stated that the statistic was a ‘‘good
                                                                                                            faith estimate based on our awareness of the                debt relief services, an estimated 217
                                             2,000 settlement companies operate in the United
                                             States, triple the number of a few years ago’’);               industry’’ but did not elaborate further. FDR (Jan.         entities conduct inbound debt relief
sroberts on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES




                                             Weinstein (Oct. 26, 2009) at 9 (see attached                   14, 2010) at 5.                                             telemarketing through direct mail; the
                                                                                                               609 NACCA at 2 (‘‘We find it difficult to believe
                                             Weinstein paper at 8) (stating, without attribution,                                                                       remaining 807 entities do so through
                                             that ‘‘some 2,000 firms market themselves as                   that the required information can be conveyed in
                                                                                                            20 seconds or, if it can be conveyed in 20 seconds,
                                                                                                                                                                        general media advertising and have
                                             providing ‘debt settlement services,’’’); Jane
                                             Birnbaum, Debt Relief Can Cause Headaches of Its               that a consumer who is already distressed can fully         been thus far largely exempt from the
                                             Own, N.Y. Times, Feb. 9, 2008 (noting that ‘‘[a]               understand the information being conveyed.’’).
                                             thousand such [debt settlement] companies exist                   610 MD (Oct. 26, 2009) at 21. This equates to              611 See DMA Statistical Fact Book 1, 17(30th ed.

                                             nationwide, up from about 300 a couple of years                about 12.3 seconds per disclosure.                          2008) (‘‘DMA Statistical Fact Book’’).



                                        VerDate Mar<15>2010     16:17 Aug 09, 2010     Jkt 220001    PO 00000    Frm 00047    Fmt 4701    Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10AUR2.SGM       10AUR2
                                             48504             Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

                                             Rule’s current requirements.612 Of the                  should parallel the one hour of ongoing                 than the total number of hours
                                             217 entities using direct mail, staff                   recordkeeping burden staff has                          associated with the disclosures overall.
                                             estimates that 72, approximately one-                   previously estimated for existing                       Staff continues to assume that most of
                                             third, make the disclosures necessary to                respondents under the Rule.616 Thus,                    the disclosures the Rule requires would
                                             exempt them from the Rule’s existing                    annualized over a prospective three-year                be made in at least 75% of telemarketing
                                             requirements.613 Thus, an estimated 879                 PRA clearance period, cumulative                        calls even absent the Rule.621
                                             entities (807 + 72) are new respondents                 annual recordkeeping burden for the                       To determine the number of outbound
                                             that will be newly subject to the TSR                   879 new respondents would be 29,886                     and inbound calls regarding debt relief
                                             and its PRA burden, including burden                    hours (87,900 hours in Year 1: 879                      services, staff has combined external
                                             derived from the new debt relief                        hours for each of Years 2 and 3). Burden                data with internal assumptions. Staff
                                             disclosures.                                            accruing to new entrants, 100 hours                     assumes that outbound calls to sell and
                                                The remaining 145 entities (217 - 72)                apiece to set up new recordkeeping                      inbound calls to buy debt relief services
                                             conducting inbound telemarketing for                    systems compliant with the Rule, has                    are made only to and by consumers who
                                             debt relief through direct mail would be                already been factored into the FTC’s                    are delinquent on one or more credit
                                             existing respondents because they                       existing clearance from OMB for an                      cards.622 For simplicity, and lacking
                                             receive inbound telemarketing calls in                  estimated 75 entrants per year, and is                  specific information to the contrary,
                                             response to direct mail advertisements                  also incorporated within the FTC’s                      staff further assumes that each such
                                             that do not make the requisite                          current clearance for the TSR under                     consumer or household will receive one
                                             disclosures to qualify for the direct mail              OMB Control No. 3084-0097.617                           outbound call and place one inbound
                                             exemption.614 The estimated 976                           Staff believes that the 1,121 existing                call for these services.
                                             entities conducting outbound                            respondents identified above will not                     The PRA analysis in the NPRM
                                             telemarketing of debt relief services are               have recordkeeping burden associated                    focused on the number of U.S.
                                             already subject to the TSR and thus, too,               with setting up compliant                               households having credit cards (91.1
                                             would be existing respondents.                          recordkeeping systems. These entities                   million) as a base for further
                                             Accordingly, an estimated 1,121                         are already required to comply with the                 calculations. One commenter noted that
                                             telemarketers selling debt relief services              Rule, and thus should already have                      both individuals and couples within a
                                             would be subject only to the additional                 recordkeeping systems in place. As                      household may file for bankruptcy
                                             PRA burden imposed by the newly                         noted above, these existing respondents                 relief, and a large proportion of
                                             adopted debt relief disclosures in                      will each require approximately one
                                             amended Rule § 310.3(a)(1)(viii).                                                                               households include more than two
                                                                                                     hour per year to file and store records                 adults.623 In response, FTC staff has
                                             2. Recordkeeping Hours                                  required by the TSR. Here, too,                         refocused its analysis on an estimated
                                                                                                     however, this recordkeeping task is                     number of adult (ages 18 and over)
                                                Staff estimates that in the first year               already accounted for in the FTC’s
                                             following promulgation of the Final                                                                             decision makers within each household.
                                                                                                     existing PRA clearance totals and                       With that as the revised base, staff then
                                             Rule, it will take 100 hours for each of                included within the latest request for
                                             the 879 new respondents identified                                                                              applies the additional calculations and
                                                                                                     renewed OMB clearance for the TSR.618                   assumptions presented below to project
                                             above to set up compliant recordkeeping
                                             systems. This estimate is consistent                    3. Disclosure Hours                                     an estimated number of consumers who
                                             with the amount of time allocated in                                                                            will receive and place a call for debt
                                                                                                        Industry comments stated that in the
                                             other PRA analyses that have addressed                                                                          relief services in a given year.
                                                                                                     ordinary course of business a substantial
                                             new entrants, i.e., newly formed entities               majority of sellers and telemarketers                     Based on U.S. Census Bureau data,624
                                             subject to the TSR.615 The                              make the disclosures the Rule requires                  FTC staff estimates that there are
                                             recordkeeping burden for these entities                 because doing so constitutes good                       162,769,000 decision making units. This
                                             in the first year following the amended                 business practice.619 To the extent this                estimate is based on the assumptions
                                             Rule’s adoption is 87,900 hours (879                    is so, the time and financial resources                 that couples constitute a single decision
                                             new respondents x 100 hours each). In                   needed to comply with disclosure                        making unit, as are single (widowed,
                                             subsequent years, when TSR-compliant                    requirements do not constitute                          divorced, separated, never married)
                                             recordkeeping systems will,                             ‘‘burden.’’620 The Commission also                      adults within each household. Using
                                             presumably, have already been                           streamlined the disclosures required in                 households as a proxy for individual
                                             established, the burden for these entities              the final Rule by eliminating three of the              decision makers in applying again the
                                                                                                     disclosures initially proposed.                         previously stated percentage of
                                                612 According to the DMA, 21.2% of annual U.S.
                                                                                                     Moreover, some state laws require the                   households (78%) that had one or more
                                             advertising expenditures for direct marketing is                                                                credit cards at the end of 2008,625 staff
                                             through direct mail; the remaining 78.8% is through     same or similar disclosures as the Rule
                                             all other forms of general media (e.g., newspapers,     mandates. Thus, the disclosure hours                      621 See, e.g., Agency Information Collection
                                             television, Internet, Yellow Pages). See id. at 11.     burden attributable to the Rule is far less
                                             Thus, applying these percentages to the above                                                                   Activities, 74 FR at 25543; Agency Information
                                             estimate of 1,024 inbound telemarketers, 217                                                                    Collection Activities, 71 FR at 28699. Accordingly,
                                             entities (21.2%) advertise by direct mail, and 807        616 Id.                                               staff has continued to estimate that the hours
                                             (78.8%) use general media.                                617 Agency Information Collection Activities, 74      burden for most of the Rule’s disclosure
                                                613 The apportionment of one-third is a              FR at 25542 (‘‘The Commission staff also estimates      requirements is 25% of the total hours associated
                                             longstanding assumption stated in past FTC              that 75 new entrants per year would need to spend       with disclosures of the type the TSR requires.
                                             analyses of PRA burden for the TSR. See, e.g.,          100 hours each developing a recordkeeping system          622 By extension upsells on these initial calls

                                             Agency Information Collection Activities, 74 FR         that complies with the TSR for an annual total of       would not be applicable. Moreover, staff believes
                                             25540, 25543 (May 28, 2009); Agency Information         7,500 burden hours.’’). The term ‘‘new entrant’’        that few, if any, upsells on initial outbound and
sroberts on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES




                                             Collection Activities, 71 FR 28698, 28700 (May 17,      denotes an entity that has not yet, but may in the      inbound calls would be for debt relief.
                                             2006). No comments have been received to date           future come into being.                                   623 RDRI at 2.

                                             with an alternative apportionment or reasons to           618 Id.                                                 624 U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population
                                             modify it.                                                619 See, e.g., MD (Oct. 26, 2009) at 21 & 35-37;      Survey, 2008 Annual Social and Economic
                                                614 16 CFR 310.6(b)(6).                              TASC (Oct. 26, 2009) at 5, 14-15; Franklin at 19-       Supplement, Internet Release Date: January 2009.
                                                615 See, e.g., Agency Information Collection         20; see also Agency Information Collection                625 See Ben Woolsey and Matt Schulz, Credit card

                                             Activities, 74 FR at 25542; Agency Information          Activities, 74 FR at 25542.                             statistics, industry facts, debt statistics, available at
                                             Collection Activities, 71 FR at 28699.                    620 16 CFR 1320.3(b)(2).                              (http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/



                                        VerDate Mar<15>2010   16:17 Aug 09, 2010   Jkt 220001   PO 00000     Frm 00048   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10AUR2.SGM   10AUR2
                                                               Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations                                               48505

                                             further estimates that 126,959,820                      § 310.3(a)(1)(viii), which includes four              estimated 6,582,917 inbound debt relief
                                             consumers have one or more credit                       disclosures specific to providers of debt             calls arising from general media
                                             cards. This figure, in turn, is then                    relief services; moreover, the                        advertising, the cumulative disclosure
                                             multiplied by the most recently                         Commission eliminated three                           burden is 8,229 hours per year
                                             available Federal Reserve Board data                    disclosures set forth in the proposed                 (6,582,917 inbound debt relief calls in
                                             regarding the delinquency rate for credit               rule. Staff estimates that reciting these             response to general media advertising x
                                             cards. The Federal Reserve Board                        disclosures in each sales call pertaining             18 seconds x 25% burden from TSR).
                                             reported that the delinquency rate for                  to debt relief services will take 10                     Applying the previously stated
                                             credit cards was 6.58% in the third                     seconds.629                                           estimates and assumptions, the
                                             quarter of 2009.626 Multiplying this                       For outbound calls, the disclosure                 disclosure burden for new respondents
                                             delinquency rate by the estimated                       burden for existing entities from the                 attributable to currently exempt
                                             number of consumers having one or                       new debt relief disclosures is 4,112                  inbound calls tied to direct mail (i.e.,
                                             more credit cards – 126,959,820 –                       hours (5,921,500 outbound calls                       currently exempt when the requisite
                                             results in an estimate of 8,353,956                     involving debt relief x 10 seconds each               § 310.3(a)(1) disclosures are made), is
                                             consumers with delinquent accounts.                     (for new debt relief disclosures) x 25%               328 hours per year (590,346 exempt
                                             As before, staff assumes that each of                   TSR burden).                                          inbound direct mail calls x 8 seconds x
                                             these consumers will receive and place                     Similarly, currently non-exempt                    25% burden from TSR).
                                             a call for debt relief services in a given              inbound calls – inbound calls placed as                  Thus, the total disclosure burden
                                             year.                                                   a result of direct mail solicitations that            attributable to the Final Rule is 13,489
                                                Because outbound calls are already                   do not include the § 310.3(a)(1)                      hours (4,932 + 8,229 + 328).
                                             subject to the existing provisions of the               disclosures – will only entail the
                                                                                                                                                           Estimated Annual Labor Cost: $945,361
                                             TSR, each such call will entail only the                incremental PRA burden resulting from
                                             incremental PRA burden resulting from                   the new debt relief disclosures. As                   Estimated Annual Non-Labor Cost:
                                             the new debt relief disclosures. For                    noted above, this totals 1,180,692 such               $58,753
                                             inbound calls, however, there will be                   calls each year. The associated                       4. Recordkeeping Labor and Non-Labor
                                             new respondents, and associated                         disclosure burden for these calls would               Costs
                                             underlying distinctions between current                 be 820 hours (1,180,692 non-exempt
                                                                                                     direct mail inbound calls x 10 seconds                a. Labor Costs
                                             exemptions applicable to direct
                                             marketing via direct mail and those for                 for debt relief disclosures x 25% burden                 Assuming a cumulative burden of 100
                                             general media (discussed further below).                from TSR).                                            hours in Year 1 (of a prospective three-
                                             Accordingly, separate estimates are                        Thus, the total disclosure burden                  year PRA clearance for the TSR) to set
                                             necessary for inbound debt relief calls                 under the amended Rule for all existing               up compliant recordkeeping systems for
                                             attributable to each.                                   respondents is 4,932 hours (4,112 hours               existing debt relief service providers
                                                To determine the number of inbound                   for entities conducting outbound calls +              newly subject to the Rule (879 new
                                             debt relief calls attributable to general               820 hours for entities conducting                     respondents x 100 hours each in Year 1
                                             media advertising versus direct mail                    inbound, non-exempt telemarketing).                   only), and applying to that a skilled
                                             advertising, staff relied upon the DMA                                                                        labor rate of $26/hour,632 labor costs
                                                                                                     b. New Respondents’ Disclosure Burden
                                             estimate that 78.8% of direct marketing                                                                       would approximate $2,285,400 in the
                                             is done by general media methods627                        New respondents – those currently                  first year of compliance for new
                                             and that 21.2% of direct marketing is                   exempt from the Rule’s coverage as a                  respondents.633 As discussed above,
                                             done by direct mail.628 Applying these                  result of the direct mail or general                  however, in succeeding years,
                                             percentages to the above-noted estimate                 media exemptions for inbound calls –                  recordkeeping associated with the Rule
                                             of 8,353,956 inbound debt relief calls                  will incur disclosure burden not only                 will only require 879 hours,
                                             translates to 6,582,917 calls resulting                 for the debt relief disclosures in                    cumulatively, per year. Applied to a
                                             from general media advertising and                      § 310.3(a)(1)(viii), but also for the                 clerical wage rate of $14/hour, this
                                             1,771,039 calls arising from direct mail.               existing general disclosures for which                would amount to $12,306 in each of
                                             Staff then estimated that 1/3 of inbound                such entities will newly be                           those years. Thus, the estimated labor
                                             direct mail debt relief calls, or 590,346               responsible.630                                       costs for recordkeeping associated with
                                             such calls, are currently exempt from                      As noted above, inbound calls                      the Final Rule, averaged over a
                                             the TSR because they are in response to                 responding to debt relief services                    prospective three-year clearance period,
                                             direct mail advertising that makes the                  advertised in general media are                       is $770,004.
                                             requisite § 310.3(a)(1) disclosures. The                currently exempt from the Rule.631 The
                                                                                                     disclosure burden for these calls would               b. Non-Labor Costs
                                             remaining 2/3, or 1,180,692 inbound
                                             direct mail calls, are non-exempt.                      be 18 seconds each (8 seconds for                        Staff believes that the capital and
                                                                                                     existing § 310.3(a)(1) disclosures + 10               start-up costs associated with the TSR’s
                                             a. Existing Respondents’ Disclosure                     seconds for debt relief disclosures).                 information collection requirements are
                                             Burden                                                  Applying this unit measure to the                     de minimis. The Rule’s recordkeeping
                                                As discussed above, the amended
                                                                                                       629 This estimate considers commenters’ input         632 This rounded figure is derived from the mean
                                             Rule includes a new provision,                          while excluding the time pertaining to disclosures    hourly earnings shown for computer support
                                                                                                     that are not invoked by the amended Rule.             specialists found in the National Compensation
                                             credit-card-industry-facts-personal-debt-statistics-      630 See Agency Information Collection Activities,   Survey: Occupational Earnings in the United States
                                             1276.php.)                                              74 FR at 25542.                                       2008, U.S. Department of Labor released August
sroberts on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES




                                               626 FRB, Federal Reserve Statistical Release:           631 This is so because, at present, no limitation   2009, Bulletin 2720, Table 3 (‘‘Full-time civilian
                                             Charge Offs and Delinquency Rates on Loans and          or exemption would limit use of the general media     workers,’’ mean and median hourly wages),
                                             Leases at Commercial Banks, available at (http://       exemption by those selling debt relief services via   available at (http://www.bls.gov/ncs/
                                             www.federalreserve.gov/releases/chargeoff/              inbound telemarketing. See 16 CFR 310.6(b)(5) (the    ncswage2008.htm#Wage_Tables).
                                             delallsa.htm) (reporting a 6.58% delinquency rate       general media exemption, unlike the direct mail         633 As discussed above, existing respondents
                                             for credit cards for the third quarter of 2009).        exemption, is not conditional and does not            should already have compliant recordkeeping
                                               627 Id.
                                                                                                     presently except from its coverage debt relief        systems and thus are not included in this
                                               628 DMA Statistical Fact Book at 17.                  services).                                            calculation.



                                        VerDate Mar<15>2010   16:17 Aug 09, 2010   Jkt 220001   PO 00000   Frm 00049   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10AUR2.SGM   10AUR2
                                             48506             Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

                                             requirements mandate that companies                      to provide an Initial Regulatory                       within the Rule’s ambit because they
                                             maintain records, but not in any                         Flexibility Analysis (‘‘IRFA’’) 638 with               meet face-to-face with their
                                             particular form. While those                             the proposed rule and a Final                          customers.644 The commenter also
                                             requirements necessitate that affected                   Regulatory Flexibility Analysis                        opined that the rule would subject small
                                             entities have a means of storage,                        (‘‘FRFA’’) 639 with the Final Rule, if any.            businesses to frivolous lawsuits that
                                             industry members should have that                        The Commission is not required to make                 could jeopardize their businesses.645
                                             already regardless of the Rule. Even if                  such analyses if a Rule would not have                 However, the commenter neither
                                             an entity finds it necessary to purchase                 such an economic effect.640                            provided support for the statement nor
                                             a storage device, the cost is likely to be                  As of the date of the NPRM, the                     asserted that the impact would be more
                                             minimal, especially when annualized                      Commission did not have sufficient                     significant on small businesses than
                                             over the item’s useful life.                             empirical data regarding the debt relief               large businesses.646
                                                Affected entities need some storage                   industry to determine whether the
                                                                                                      proposed amendments to the Rule                        A. Need for and Objectives of the Rule
                                             media such as file folders, electronic
                                             storage media or paper in order to                       would impact a substantial number of                      The objective of the amended Rule is
                                             comply with the Rule’s recordkeeping                     small entities as defined in the RFA.641               to curb deceptive and abusive practices
                                             requirements. Although staff believes                    It was also unclear whether the                        occurring in the telemarketing of debt
                                             that most affected entities would                        proposed amended Rule would have a                     relief services. As described in Sections
                                             maintain the required records in the                     significant economic impact on small                   II and III, above, the amendments are
                                             ordinary course of business, staff                       entities. Thus, to obtain more                         intended to address consumer
                                             estimates that the previously                            information about the impact of the                    protection concerns regarding
                                             determined 879 new respondents newly                     proposed rule on small entities, the                   telemarketing of debt relief services and
                                             subject to the Final Rule will spend an                  Commission decided to publish an IRFA                  are based on evidence in the record that
                                             annual amount of $50 each on office                      pursuant to the RFA and to request                     deceptive and abusive acts are common
                                             supplies as a result of the Rule’s                       public comment on the impact on small                  in telemarketing of debt relief services
                                             recordkeeping requirements, for a total                  businesses of its proposed amended                     to consumers.
                                             recordkeeping cost burden of $43,950.                    Rule.                                                  B. Significant Issues Raised by Public
                                                                                                         In response to questions in the NPRM,
                                             5. Disclosure Labor and Non-Labor                                                                               Comment, Summary of the Agency’s
                                                                                                      the Commission did not receive any
                                             Costs                                                                                                           Assessment of These Issues, and
                                                                                                      comprehensive empirical data regarding
                                                                                                                                                             Changes, If Any, Made in Response to
                                             a. Labor Costs                                           the revenues of debt relief companies or
                                                                                                                                                             Such Comments
                                                                                                      the impact on small businesses of the
                                               The estimated annual labor cost for                    amended Rule. A trade association                        As discussed in Section III above,
                                             disclosures under the Final Rule is                      stated that a significant number of                    commenters raised limited concerns
                                             $175,357. This total is the product of                   companies that would be harmed by the                  about the burden of the proposed
                                             applying an assumed hourly wage rate                     advance fee ban were small                             disclosures.647 However, commenters
                                             of $13.00634 to the earlier stated                       businesses.642 One commenter asserted                  raised more significant concerns about
                                             estimate of 13,489 hours pertaining to                   that there are tens of thousands of sole               the potential costs and burdens of the
                                             general and specific disclosures in                      practitioners engaged in financial                     advance fee ban, as discussed in
                                             initial outbound and inbound calls.                      consulting services that may fall under                Sections III.C.2.c-e. Many of the
                                                                                                      the Rule’s definition of debt relief                   commenters did not focus specifically
                                             b. Non-Labor Costs
                                                                                                      services.643 It does not appear, though,               on the costs faced by small businesses
                                               Estimated outbound disclosure hours                    that the commenter considered that                     relative to those that would be borne by
                                             (4,112) per above multiplied by an                       many sole practitioners would not fall                 other firms.648 Rather, they argued that
                                             estimated commercial calling rate of 6                                                                          the costs to be borne by all firms –
                                             cents per minute ($3.60 per hour) equals                 business that is ‘‘independently owned and             including small firms – would be
                                             $14,803 in telephone-related costs.635                   operated and which is not dominant in its field of
                                                                                                      operation.’’ 15 U.S.C. 632(a)(1).                        644 See 16 CFR 310.6(b)(3).
                                             V. Regulatory Analysis and Regulatory                      638 5 U.S.C. 603.                                      645 Able (Oct. 21, 2009) at 28.
                                             Flexibility Act Requirements                               639 5 U.S.C. 604.                                      646 Two other debt settlement companies stated
                                                                                                        640 5 U.S.C. 605.
                                                The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980                                                                       that many small business entities would not be able
                                                                                                        641 In response to a request for comments issued     to enter the market due to significant investment
                                             (‘‘RFA’’) 636 requires a description and                 in conjunction with the Workshop, the Commission       and overhead costs and extended break-even time.
                                             analysis of proposed and final Rules                     received no empirical data regarding the revenues      SDS (Oct. 7, 2009) at 3; CRN (Oct. 8, 2009) at 5.
                                             that will have a significant economic                    of debt relief companies generally, or debt            Again, the commenters did not provide support for
                                             impact on a substantial number of small                  settlement companies specifically. One Workshop        the assertions and did not explain why small
                                                                                                      commenter opined, without attribution, that the        businesses would fare differently than large
                                             entities.637 The RFA requires an agency                  vast majority of debt settlement companies have        businesses in this regard.
                                                                                                      fewer than 100 employees. See Able Workshop              647 With respect to the disclosures, NACCA
                                               634 This rounded figure is derived from the mean
                                                                                                      Comment at 6 (‘‘[o]f the thousand plus or minus        questioned whether it was realistic that the
                                             hourly earnings shown for telemarketers found in         companies whose business activities are related to     proposed disclosures could be provided in 20
                                             the National Compensation Survey: Occupational           debt settlement, the estimates for the numbers of      seconds. NACCA at 2. Moreover, a debt settlement
                                             Earnings in the United States 2008, U.S.                 companies and the numbers of individuals either        company stated that it provides consumers with 16
                                             Department of Labor released August 2009, Bulletin       working for or affiliated with them are as follows:    mandatory disclaimers, and an additional 6
                                             2720, Table 3 (‘‘Full-time civilian workers,’’ mean      Two percent consist of more than 100 individuals;      disclosures if applicable – it estimates that reading
                                             and median hourly wages), available at (http://          eight percent consist of 25 to 100 individuals; and    the disclaimers, and allowing the consumer to
                                             www.bls.gov/ncs/ncswage2008.htm#Wage_Tables).            the remaining ninety percent consist of less than 25   assent to the disclosures, requires approximately
sroberts on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES




                                               635 Staff believes that remaining non-labor costs      individuals.’’).                                       four and a half minutes. MD (Oct. 26, 2009) at 21.
                                             would largely be incurred by affected entities,            642 USOBA (Oct. 26, 2009) at 20 (‘‘95% of USOBA        648 One commenter stated that, as a ‘‘smaller
                                             regardless, in the ordinary course of business and/      members would ‘certainly’ or ‘likely’ be forced to     operation,’’ it would not be able to front employees
                                             or marginally exceed such costs.                         lay off employees if the advance fee ban were          salaries, as well as account set-up and maintenance
                                               636 5 U.S.C. 601-612.                                  adopted [note that 72% of these USOBA members          costs, but did not provide any data to support these
                                               637 The RFA definition of ‘‘small entity’’ refers to   were ‘small businesses’ (firms of 25 people or         assertions or support the assertion that small
                                             the definition provided in the Small Business Act,       less)]’’).                                             companies would have a harder time than large
                                             which defines a ‘‘small-business concern’’ as a            643 Able (Oct. 21, 2009) at 28.                      companies in capitalizing expenses. See RADR at 1.



                                        VerDate Mar<15>2010   16:17 Aug 09, 2010   Jkt 220001   PO 00000   Frm 00050   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10AUR2.SGM    10AUR2
                                                               Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations                                           48507

                                             excessive. As discussed in detail above,                aware of published data that reports                     E. Steps the Agency Has Taken to
                                             two debt settlement trade associations                  annual revenue figures for debt relief                   Minimize any Significant Economic
                                             and many debt settlement companies                      service providers.653 Further, the                       Impact on Small Entities, Consistent
                                             argued that numerous companies would                    Commission’s requests for information                    with the Stated Objectives of the
                                             go out of business if the FTC imposes                   about the number and size of debt                        Applicable Statutes
                                             an advance fee ban.649 A trade                          settlement companies yielded virtually                      In drafting the amended Rule, the
                                             association submitted a survey of its                   no information.654 Based on the absence                  Commission has made every effort to
                                             members reporting: (1) 84% would                        of available data, the Commission                        avoid unduly burdensome requirements
                                             ‘‘almost certainly’’ or ‘‘likely’’ have to              believes that a precise estimate of the                  for entities. The Commission believes
                                             shut down if an advance fee ban were                                                                             that the amendments – including the
                                                                                                     number of small entities that fall under
                                             enacted; (2) 95% would ‘‘certainly’’ or                                                                          new disclosures for debt relief services,
                                                                                                     the amendment is not currently feasible.
                                             ‘‘likely’’ lay off employees under an                                                                            prohibited misrepresentations, and the
                                             advance fee ban; and (3) 85% would                      D. Description of the Projected                          advance fee ban – are necessary in order
                                             stop offering debt settlement services to               Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other                      to protect consumers considering the
                                             new and existing consumers.650 These                    Compliance Requirements of the Rule,                     purchase of debt relief services.
                                             survey results, however, are not                        Including an Estimate of the Classes of                  Similarly, the Commission is extending
                                             persuasive, as the commenter did not                    Small Entities Which Will Be Subject to                  the coverage of the existing provisions
                                             provide basic information about survey                  the Rule and the Type of Professional                    of the Rule to inbound telemarketing of
                                             respondents and methodology.                            Skills That Will Be Necessary to Comply                  debt relief services. This amendment is
                                             Moreover, the survey elicited self-
                                                                                                                                                              designed to ensure that in telemarketing
                                             reported statements but did not verify                     The Final Rule imposes disclosure                     transactions to sell debt relief services,
                                             the responses’ accuracy in any way.                     and recordkeeping burden within the
                                             Individual debt settlement company                                                                               consumers receive the benefit of the
                                                                                                     meaning of the PRA. The Commission is                    Rule’s protections. For each of these
                                             commenters similarly asserted that they                 seeking clearance from the OMB for
                                             would go out of business if the                                                                                  amendments, the Commission has
                                                                                                     these requirements, and the                              attempted to tailor the provision to the
                                             Commission imposed an advance fee                       Commission’s Supporting Statement
                                             ban.651 These statements, however, did                                                                           concerns evidenced by the record to
                                                                                                     submitted as part of that process is                     date. In fact, in determining the Final
                                             not have adequate support. Moreover,
                                                                                                     being made available on the public                       Rule’s requirements, the FTC reduced
                                             the Final Rule permits debt relief
                                             providers to require consumers to place                 record of this rulemaking. Specifically,                 the number of debt relief-specific
                                             funds for provider fees and payments to                 the Final Rule requires specific                         disclosures from six initially proposed
                                             creditors or debt collectors in a                       disclosures in telemarketing of debt                     in the NPRM to four in order to reduce
                                             dedicated bank account, provided                        relief services, and it would subject                    the burden on business, including small
                                             certain conditions are met. This                        inbound debt relief service                              entities. On balance, the Commission
                                             provision will assure providers that,                   telemarketing to the Rule’s                              believes that the benefits to consumers
                                             once they settle a consumer’s debt, they                requirements, including the existing                     of each of the Rule’s requirements
                                             will receive the appropriate fee.                       disclosure and recordkeeping                             outweigh the costs to industry of
                                                                                                     provisions.655 In addition, the Final                    implementation.
                                             C. Description and Estimate of the                                                                                  The Commission considered, but
                                                                                                     Rule prohibits a seller or telemarketer of
                                             Number of Small Entities Subject to the                                                                          decided against, providing an
                                             Final Rule or Explanation Why No                        debt relief services from requesting or
                                                                                                     receiving a fee in advance of providing                  exemption for small entities in the
                                             Estimate Is Available                                                                                            amended Rule. The protections afforded
                                                                                                     the offered services.656
                                                The amendments to the Rule will                                                                               to consumers from the amendments are
                                             affect providers of debt relief services                   The classes of small entities affected                equally important regardless of the size
                                             engaged in ‘‘telemarketing,’’ as defined                by the amendments include                                of the debt relief service provider with
                                             by the Rule to mean ‘‘a plan, program,                  telemarketers or sellers engaged in acts                 whom they transact. Indeed, small debt
                                             or campaign which is conducted to                       or practices covered by the Rule. The                    relief service providers have no unique
                                             induce the purchase of goods or services                types of professional skills required to                 attributes that would warrant exempting
                                             or a charitable contribution, by use of                 comply with the Rule’s recordkeeping,                    them from provisions, such as the
                                             one or more telephones and which                        disclosure, or other requirements would                  required debt relief disclosures. The
                                             involves more than one interstate                       include attorneys or other skilled labor                 information provided in the disclosures
                                             telephone call.’’652 Staff estimates that               needed to ensure compliance.                             is material to the consumer regardless of
                                             the amended Rule will apply to                                                                                   the size of the entity offering the
                                             approximately 2,000 entities.                              653 Directly covered entities under the proposed      services. Similarly, the protections
                                             Determining a precise estimate of how                   amended Rule are classified as small businesses          afforded to consumers by the advance
                                             many of these are small entities, or                    under the Small Business Size Standards                  fee ban are equally necessary regardless
                                                                                                     component of the North American Industry
                                             describing those entities further, is not               Classification System (‘‘NAICS’’) as follows: All
                                                                                                                                                              of the size of the entity providing the
                                             readily feasible because the staff is not               Other Professional, Scientific and                       services. Thus, the Commission believes
                                                                                                     TechnicalServices (NAICS code 541990) with no            that creating an exemption for small
                                               649  Supra Section III.C.2.c.                         more than $7.0 million dollars in average annual         businesses from compliance with the
                                               650  USOBA (Oct. 26, 2009) at 20.                     receipts (no employee size limit is listed). See SBA,
                                                                                                     Table of Small Business Size Standards Matched to
                                                                                                                                                              amendments would be contrary to the
                                                651 SDS at 2; MD (Oct. 26, 2009) at 25; RADR at
                                                                                                     North American Industry Classification System            goals of the amendments because it
                                             1; Orion (Oct. 1, 2009) at 2; CDS at 1; D&A at 2;
sroberts on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES




                                             see also ULC at 6; CSA at 10 (stating generally that    codes (Aug. 22, 2008), available at (http://             would arbitrarily limit their reach to the
                                             the advance fee ban ‘‘could put a legitimate            www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/                 detriment of consumers.
                                             company out of business’’); FDR (Oct. 26, 2009) at      sba_homepage/serv_sstd_tablepdf.pdf/).                      Nonetheless, the Commission has
                                                                                                        654 See Able Workshop Comment at 6 (there are
                                             16-17; CCC at 1 (a for-profit credit counseling                                                                  taken care in developing the
                                             company stated that it would go out of business if      a ‘‘thousand plus or minus companies whose
                                             the Commission promulgates the advance fee ban).        business activities are related to debt settlement’’).   amendments to set performance
                                                652 16 CFR 310.2(cc) (in the proposed amended           655 See Rule § 310.3(a)(1)(viii).                     standards, which establish the objective
                                             Rule, this definition is renumbered as § 310.2(dd)).       656 See Rule § 310.4(a)(5).                           results that must be achieved by


                                        VerDate Mar<15>2010   16:17 Aug 09, 2010   Jkt 220001   PO 00000   Frm 00051   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10AUR2.SGM   10AUR2
                                             48508             Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

                                             regulated entities, but do not establish a               required by the TSR must be kept.                    as they are clear and conspicuous.657 In
                                             particular technology that must be                       Moreover, the Rule’s disclosure                      sum, the agency has worked to
                                             employed in achieving those objectives.                  requirements are format-neutral; sellers             minimize any significant economic
                                             For example, the Commission does not                     and telemarketers may make the                       impact on small entities.
                                             specify the form in which records                        disclosures in writing or orally, as long

                                                                              LIST OF COMMENTERS AND SHORT-NAMES/ACRONYMS CITED IN THE SBP
                                                                                                                TSR Debt Relief Final Rule

                                                          Short-name/Acronyms                                                             Commenter

                                                       Allen                              Charles Allen
                                                       Arnold & Porter                    Arnold & Porter on behalf of National Consumer Council
                                                       ART                                A.R. Trust Services, Inc.
                                                       Able                               Able Debt Settlement, Inc.
                                                       ACA                                ACA International
                                                       ACCORD                             American Coalition of Companies Organized to Reduce Debt
                                                       AFSA                               American Financial Services Association
                                                       AICCCA                             Association of Independent Consumer Credit Counseling Agencies
                                                       AADMO                              American Association of Debt Management Organizations
                                                       ABA                                American Bankers Association
                                                       AMCA                               American Credit Alliance
                                                       Atkins                             Anthony Atkins
                                                       BBB                                Better Business Bureau of the Southland
                                                       Briesch                            Richard Briesch
                                                       Brodie                             Jessica Brodie
                                                       CDS                                Tim Harris, on behalf of CDS
                                                       CCC                                Edward McTaggart, on behalf of CCC
                                                       Cambridge                          Cambridge Credit Counseling Corp.
                                                       Clement                            Bryan Scott Clement
                                                       CRN                                Consumer Recovery Network
                                                       CareOne                            Care One Services
                                                       Centricity                         Centricity, Inc.
                                                       Cheney                             Gabriel Cheney
                                                       CO AG                              Office of the Colorado Attorney General
                                                       CCCS CNY                           Consumer Credit Counseling Service of Central New York
                                                       CFA                                Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, Consumer Action, National Consumer Law
                                                                                             Center, Center for Responsible Lending, National Association of Consumer Advocates, Na-
                                                                                             tional Consumers League, US Public Interest Research Group, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse,
                                                                                             Arizona Consumers Council, Chicago Consumer Coalition, Consumer Assistance Council,
                                                                                             Community Reinvestment Association of North Carolina, Consumer Federation of the South-
                                                                                             east, Grass Roots Organizing, Jacksonville Area Legal Aid, Inc., Maryland Consumer Rights
                                                                                             Coalition, Mid-Minnesota Legal Assistance, and Virginia Citizens Consumer Council
                                                       CU                                 Consumer’s Union
                                                       CSA                                Morrison & Foerster, LLP on behalf of Credit Solutions of America
                                                       D&A                                Davis & Associates
                                                       Davis                              Robert Davis, engaged by AADMO
                                                       Debthelper                         Debthelper
                                                       DRS                                Debt Remedy Solutions
                                                       DS                                 Debt Shield, Inc.
                                                       DSUSA                              Debt Settlement USA
                                                       DMB                                DMB Financial, LLC
                                                       DSA/ADE                            Debt Settlement America, Inc. and American Debt Exchange, Inc.
                                                       FCS                                Financial Consulting Services, LLC
                                                       FECA                               Financial Education and Counseling Alliance
                                                       Figliuolo                          Michael Figliuolo
                                                       FSR                                Financial Services Roundtable
                                                       FDR                                Freedom Debt Relief, LLC
                                                       Franklin                           Franklin Debt Relief
                                                       Garner                             Garner
                                                       GCS                                Global Client Solutions, LLC
                                                       Gecha                              Gecha
                                                       Greenfield                         Professor Michael Greenfield
                                                       GP                                 GreenPath, Inc.
                                                       Hargrove                           Jason Hargrove
                                                       Hinksor                            Eric Hinksor
                                                       Ho                                 Andy Ho
                                                       Houghton                           Rebecca Houghton
sroberts on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES




                                                       Hunter                             Hunter Business Solutions
                                                       JH                                 J. Haas Group
                                                       Kaiser                             Karen Kaiser

                                               657 If the disclosures are made in writing, they are   consumer associates the call with the written        (http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/business/
                                             considered clear and conspicuous ‘‘only if they are      disclosures.’’ FTC, Complying With the               marketing/bus27.shtm).
                                             sent close enough in time to the call so that the        Telemarketing Sales Rule (May 2009), available at



                                        VerDate Mar<15>2010   16:17 Aug 09, 2010   Jkt 220001   PO 00000   Frm 00052   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10AUR2.SGM   10AUR2
                                                               Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations                                          48509

                                                                    LIST OF COMMENTERS AND SHORT-NAMES/ACRONYMS CITED IN THE SBP—Continued
                                                                                                                TSR Debt Relief Final Rule

                                                         Short-name/Acronyms                                                              Commenter

                                                      Loeb                               Loeb & Loeb, LLC
                                                      MP                                 Manchester Publishing Company, Inc.
                                                      McInnis                            Saundra McInnis
                                                      MD                                 Morgan Drexen, Inc.
                                                      MD AG                              Office of the Maryland Attorney General
                                                      MN AG                              Office of the Minnesota Attorney General
                                                      MN LA                              Mid-Minnesota Legal Assistance
                                                      NACCA                              National Association of Consumer Credit Administrators
                                                      NAAG                               National Association of Attorneys General
                                                      Neal                               Erin Neal
                                                      NYC DCA                            N.Y.C. Dept. of Consumer Affairs
                                                      NFCC                               National Foundation for Credit Counseling
                                                      NWS                                Nationwide Support Services, Inc.
                                                      Orion                              Orion Processing, LLC
                                                      Palmiero                           Diane Palmiero, on behalf of Century Negotiations, Inc.
                                                      Paquette                           Barbara Paquette
                                                      Patel                              David Patel
                                                      Pratt                              Vincent Pratt
                                                      QSS                                Quality Survey Services
                                                      QLS                                Queens Legal Services
                                                      RDRI                               Responsible Debt Relief Institute
                                                      RADR                               Rise Above Debt Relief
                                                      SBLS                               South Brooklyn Legal Services
                                                      Seigle                             John Seigle
                                                      Silverman                          Jeffrey Silverman
                                                      SOLS                               Southeastern Ohio Legal Services
                                                      SDS                                Superior Debt Services
                                                      Smith                              Andrew Smith
                                                      Taillie                            Alex Taillie
                                                      TASC                               The Association of Settlement Companies
                                                      TBDR                               Two Bridge Debt Resolutions
                                                      ULC                                Uniform Law Commission/National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws
                                                      USOBA                              United States Organizations for Bankruptcy Alternatives
                                                      USDR                               US Debt Resolve, Inc.
                                                      Weinstein                          Bernard Weinstein
                                                      Wheat                              Sharon Wheat
                                                      WV AG                              Office of the West Virginia Attorney General



                                             List of FTC Law Enforcement Actions                       8. FTC v. MCS Programs, LLC, No. 09-                (M.D. Fla., final order Oct. 16, 2006)
                                             Against Debt Relief Companies                           CV-5380 (W.D. Wash., final order July                 (credit counseling)
                                               1. FTC v. Dominant Leads, LLC, No.                    19, 2010) (debt negotiation)                             17. FTC v. Debt Solutions, Inc., No.
                                                                                                       9. FTC v. Group One Networks, Inc.,                 CV06-0298 (W.D. Wash., final order
                                             1:10-cv-00997 (D.D.C. filed June 15,
                                                                                                     No. 09-CV-00352 (M.D. Fla., preliminary               June 18, 2007) (debt negotiation)
                                             2010) (debt settlement)
                                                                                                     injunction issued March 25, 2009) (debt
                                               2. FTC v. Asia Pacific Telecom, Inc.,                                                                          18. FTC v. Jubilee Fin. Servs., Inc., No.
                                                                                                     negotiation)
                                             No. 10 C 3168 (N.D. Ill. filed May 24,                    10. FTC v. Edge Solutions, Inc., No.                02-6468 ABC(Ex) (C.D. Cal., final order
                                             2010) (debt negotiation)                                CV 07-4087-JG-AKT (E.D.N.Y., final                    Dec. 12, 2004) (debt settlement)
                                               3. FTC v. Advanced Mgmt. Servs. NW,                   order Aug. 29, 2008) (debt settlement)                   19. FTC v. Nat’l Consumer Council,
                                             LLC, No. 10-148-LRS (E.D. Wash. filed                     11. FTC v. Debt-Set, No. 1:07-cv-                   Inc., No. ACV04-0474CJC (JWJX) (C.D.
                                             May 10, 2010) (debt negotiation)                        00558-RPM (D. Colo., final order Apr.                 Cal., final order Apr. 1, 2005) (credit
                                               4. FTC v. Credit Restoration Brokers,                 11, 2008) (debt settlement)                           counseling and debt settlement)
                                             LLC, No. 2:10-cv-0030-CEH-SPC (M.D.                       12. FTC v. Select Pers. Mgmt., Inc.,                   20. FTC v. Better Budget Fin. Servs.,
                                             Fla. filed Jan. 19, 2010) (debt settlement              No. 07-CV-0529 (N.D. Ill., final order                Inc., No. 04-12326 (WG4) (D. Mass.,
                                             and credit repair)                                      May 15, 2009) (debt negotiation)                      final order Mar. 28, 2005) (debt
                                               5. FTC v. 2145183 Ontario, Inc., No.                    13. FTC v. Express Consolidation, No.               settlement)
                                             09-CV-7423 (N.D. Ill., preliminary                      0:06-CV-61851-WJZ (S.D. Fla., final
                                             injunction issued Dec. 17, 2009) (debt                                                                           21. FTC v. Debt Mgmt. Found. Servs.,
                                                                                                     order May 5, 2007) (credit counseling)                Inc., No. 8:04-CV-1674-T-17MSS (M.D.
                                             negotiation)                                              14. FTC v. Connelly, No. SA CV 06-
                                               6. FTC v. Econ. Relief Techs., LLC, No.                                                                     Fla., final order Mar. 30, 2005) (credit
                                                                                                     701 DOC (RNBx) (C.D. Cal., final order
                                             09-CV-3347 (N.D. Ga., preliminary                                                                             counseling)
sroberts on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES




                                                                                                     Oct. 2, 2008) (debt settlement)
                                             injunction issued Dec. 14, 2009) (debt                    15. United States v. Credit Found. of                  22. FTC v. Innovative Sys. Tech., Inc.,
                                             negotiation)                                            Am., No. CV06-3654 ABC (VBKx) (C.D.                   No. CV04-0728 (C.D. Cal., final order
                                               7. FTC v. JPM Accelerated Servs., Inc.,               Cal., final order June 16, 2006) (credit              July 13, 2005) (debt settlement)
                                             No. 09-CV-2021 (M.D. Fla., preliminary                  counseling)                                              23. FTC v. AmeriDebt, Inc., No. PJM
                                             injunction issued Dec. 31, 2009) (debt                    16. FTC v. Integrated Credit Solutions,             03-3317 (D. Md., final order May 17,
                                             negotiation)                                            Inc., No. 8:06-CV-00806-SCB-TGW                       2006) (credit counseling)


                                        VerDate Mar<15>2010   16:17 Aug 09, 2010   Jkt 220001   PO 00000   Frm 00053   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10AUR2.SGM   10AUR2
                                             48510             Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

                                             List of State Law Enforcement Actions                   mray-6e3juf/$file/                                    EA12BA531A5B606A
                                             Against Debt Relief Companies                           newleafcomplaint.pdf)                                 8525715D00602067
                                                                                                       15. Florida v. Hacker, (Fla. Cir. Ct. -             ?Open&Highlight=0,emergency,debt)
                                             Debt Settlement
                                                                                                     4th 2008). Complaint, available at                       24. In re Genesis Capital Mgmt., Inc.
                                             Attorney General Actions                                (http://myfloridalegal.com/webfiles.nsf/              Notice of Active Public Consumer-
                                                1. Alabama v. Allegro Law LLC, No.                   WF/MRAY-7C2GRC/$file/                                 Related Investigation, Florida Attorney
                                             2:09cv729 (M.D. Ala. 2009). Press                       HackerandCaparellaComplaint.pdf)                      General, available at (http://
                                                                                                       16. Florida v. Ryan Boyd, No. 16-                   myfloridalegal.com/
                                             Release, Alabama Attorney General,
                                                                                                     2008-CA-002909 (Fla. Cir. Ct. - 4th                   85256309005085AB.nsf/0/
                                             A.G. King and Securities Commission
                                                                                                     2008). Press Release, Florida Attorney                ACF49525909A2F35
                                             Sue Prattville Companies Operating
                                                                                                     General, Two Duval County Debt                        85257632005F0071?
                                             Alleged National Debt Settlement
                                                                                                     Negotiation Companies Sued for                        Open&Highlight=0,genesis)
                                             Scheme (July 10, 2009), available at
                                                                                                     Alleged Deceptions (Mar. 5, 2008),                       25. In re M & J Life Mgmt. Notice of
                                             (http://www.ago.state.al.us/
                                                                                                     available at (http://myfloridalegal.com/              Active Public Consumer-Related
                                             news_template.cfm?
                                                                                                     __852562220065EE67.nsf/0/                             Investigation, Florida Attorney General,
                                             Newsfile=www.ago.alabama.gov/news/
                                                                                                     1E9B7637235FE16C                                      available at (http://myfloridalegal.com/
                                             07102009.htm)
                                                                                                     85257403005C595F?                                     __85256309005085AB.nsf/0/
                                                2. California v. Freedom Debt Relief,
                                                                                                     Open&Highlight=0,ryan,boyd)                           A2F454A33AEC8213
                                             No. CIV477991 (Cal. Super. Ct. San                        17. Florida v. Credit Solutions of Am.,
                                             Mateo County 2008). Consent Judgment,                                                                         852574DA0066174E?
                                                                                                     Inc., No. 09-CA-026438 (Fla. Cir. Ct. -
                                             Stipulation for Entry of Consent                                                                              Open&Highlight=0,life,management)
                                                                                                     13th 2009). Complaint, available at
                                             Judgment, and Complaint, available at                   (http://myfloridalegal.com/webfiles.nsf/                 26. In re Sapphire Mktg. Notice of
                                             (http://www.corp.ca.gov/ENF/pdf/f/                      WF/KGRG-7WYJAU/$file/                                 Active Public Consumer-Related
                                             FDR.pdf)                                                CSAcomplaint.pdf)                                     Investigation, Florida Attorney General,
                                                3. In re Clearone Advantage, LLC                       18. Florida v. Nationwide Asset                     available at (http://myfloridalegal.com/
                                             (Colo. 2009). Press Release, Colorado                   Servs., Inc., et al. (Fla. Cir. Ct. - 6th             __85256309005085AB.nsf/0/
                                             Attorney General, Eleven Companies                      2009). Complaint, available at (http://               CF68D500F2C776F
                                             Settle with the State Under New Debt-                   myfloridalegal.com/webfiles.nsf/WF/                   D85257633004B8AE6?
                                             Management and Credit Counseling                        KGRG-7WYJCD/$file/                                    Open&Highlight=0,sapphire)
                                             Regulations (Mar. 12, 2009), available at               ADAcomplaint.pdf)                                        27. Illinois v. SDS West Corp., No.
                                             (http://                                                  19. In re Christian Crossroads. Notice              09CH368 (Ill. Cir. Ct. - 7th 2009). Press
                                             www.coloradoattorneygeneral.gov/                        of Active Public Consumer-Related                     Release, Illinois Attorney General,
                                             press/news/2009/03/12/                                  Investigation, Florida Attorney General,              Attorney General Madigan Sues Two
                                             eleven_companies_settle_state                           available at (http://myfloridalegal.com/              Debt Settlement Firms (May 4, 2009),
                                             _under_new_debt_management                              85256309005085AB.nsf/0/                               available at (http://
                                             _and_credit_counseling_)                                3BEE2927780BC946                                      www.illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/
                                                4. In re Credit Answers, LLC (Colo.                  8525765D0044C534?                                     pressroom/2009_05/20090504.pdf)
                                             2009). Press Release, supra item 3.                     Open&Highlight=0,christian,crossroads)                   28. Illinois v. Debt Relief USA, Inc.,
                                                5. In re Debt Relief of Am. (Colo.                     20. In re Clear Fin. Solutions. Notice              No. 09CH367 (Ill. Cir. Ct. - 7th 2009).
                                             2009). Press Release, supra item 3.                     of Active Public Consumer-Related                     Press Release, supra item 27.
                                                6. In re Fin. Freedom Res., Inc. (Colo.              Investigation, Florida Attorney General,                 29. Illinois v. Clear Your Debt, LLC,
                                             2009). Press Release, supra item 3.                     available at (http://myfloridalegal.com/              No. 2010CH00167 (Ill. Cir. Ct. - 7th
                                                7. In re Freedom Debt Relief (Colo.                  __85256309005085AB.nsf/0/                             2010). Press Release, Illinois Attorney
                                             2009). Press Release, supra item 3.                     C0634690070A69                                        General, Madigan Sues Four Debt
                                                8. In re New Beginnings Debt                         6285257585005670EB?                                   Settlement Firms to Stop Abusive,
                                             Settlement, LLC (Colo. 2009). Press                     Open&Highlight=0,clear,financial)                     Deceptive Practices (Feb. 10, 2010),
                                             Release, supra item3.                                     21. In re Clearview Credit, Inc. Notice             available at (http://www.ag.state.il.us/
                                                9. In re New Life Debt Relief Corp.                  of Active Public Consumer-Related                     pressroom/2010_02/20100210.html)
                                             (Colo. 2009). Press Release, supra item                 Investigation, Florida Attorney General,                 30. Illinois v. Endebt Solutions, LLC,
                                             3.                                                      available at (http://myfloridalegal.com/              d/b/a DebtOne Fin., No. 2010CH00165
                                                10. In re PDL Assistance, Inc. (Colo.                __85256309005085AB.nsf/0/                             (Ill. Cir. Ct. - 7th 2010). Press Release,
                                             2009). Press Release, supra item 3.                     7FAE8CB0EA0BCE5F                                      supra item 29.
                                                11. In re Pemper Cos., Inc. (Colo.                   852575BD0066D4BD?
                                             2009). Press Release, supra item3.                                                                               31. Illinois v. Debt Consultants of
                                                                                                     Open&Highlight=0,clearview,credit)                    Am., Inc., No. 2010CH00168 (Ill. Cir. Ct.
                                                12. Colorado v. ADA Tampa Bay, Inc.                    22. In re Debt Settlement USA. Notice
                                             dba Am. Debt Arbitration, FGL                                                                                 - 7th 2010). Press Release, supra item
                                                                                                     of Active Public Consumer-Related
                                             Clearwater, Inc. dba Am. Debt                                                                                 29.
                                                                                                     Investigation, Florida Attorney General,
                                             Arbitration, and Glenn P. Stewart (Colo.                available at (http://myfloridalegal.com/                 32. Illinois v. Am. Debt Arbitration et
                                             2010).                                                  __85256309005085AB.nsf/0/                             al., No. 2010CH00166 (Ill. Cir. Ct. - 7th
                                                13. Florida v. Hess Kennedy Chartered                21B6A5099EFC61FE                                      2010). Press Release, supra item 29.
                                             LLC, No. 08007686 (Fla. Cir. Ct. - 17th                 852576A500751189?                                        33. Indiana v. Debt Settlement Amer.,
                                             2008). Complaint, available at (http://                 Open&Highlight=0,debt,services)                       Inc., No. 87C01-1002-PL-068 (Ind. Cir.
                                             myfloridalegal.com/webfiles.nsf/WF/                       23. In re Emergency Debt Relief, Inc.               Ct. Warrick County 2010).
sroberts on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES




                                             MRAY-7C2GSH/$file/                                      Press Release, Florida Attorney General,                 34. Kansas v. Philip Manger, Robert
                                             HessComplaint.pdf)                                      Crist Reaches $230,000 Settlement with                Lock, Jr. and CCDN, LLC dba Credit
                                                14. Florida v. New Leaf Assocs., LLC,                Debt Relief Company (Fla. Apr. 27,                    Collection Def. Network (Kan. 2010).
                                             No. 05-4612-CI-20 (Fla. Cir. Ct. - 6th                  2006), available at (http://                             35. Kansas v. Blue Harbor Fin., No.
                                             2008). Complaint, available at (http://                 myfloridalegal.com/                                   10C10 (Kan. Dist. Ct. Shawnee County
                                             myfloridalegal.com/webfiles.nsf/wf/                     __852562220065EE67.nsf/0/                             2010).


                                        VerDate Mar<15>2010   16:17 Aug 09, 2010   Jkt 220001   PO 00000   Frm 00054   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10AUR2.SGM   10AUR2
                                                               Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations                                        48511

                                                36. Kansas v. Equity First Fin., No.                 media_center/2009/may/                                   59. Texas v. HABR, LLC d/b/a Debtor
                                             09C1878 (Kan. Dist. Ct. Shawnee                         may19b_09.html)                                       Solution (Tex. Dist. Ct. Travis County
                                             County 2009).                                              48. New York v. Nationwide Asset                   2009). Plaintiff’s Original Petition,
                                                37. Maine v. Credit Solutions of                     Servs., Inc., No. 5710/2009 (N.Y. Sup.                available at (http://www.oag.state.tx.us/
                                             America, No. BCD-WB-CV-10-02. (Me.                      Ct. Erie County 2009). Press Release,                 newspubs/releases/2009/
                                             Super. Ct. 2009). Complaint, available at               supra item 47.                                        052009debtsolution_pop.pdf)
                                             (http://www.maine.gov/ag/news/                             49. North Carolina v. Daly & Sinnott                  60. Texas v. Credit Solutions of Am.,
                                             cases_of_interest.shtml)                                Law Ctr., PLLC d/b/a The Law Ctrs. for                Inc., No. D-1-GV-09-000417 (Tex. Dist.
                                                38. Maryland Attorney General v. Law                 Consumer Prot., et al., No. 01CV013603                Ct. - 261st 2009). Plaintiff’s Original
                                             Offices of Richard A. Brennan, No. 10-                  (N.C. Super. Ct. Wake County 2002).                   Petition, available at (http://
                                             C-08-00503-OC (Md. Cir. Ct. Frederick                   Press release, North Carolina Attorney                www.oag.state.tx.us/newspubs/releases/
                                             County 2007). Press Release, Maryland                   General, Debt Relief Company to Return                2009/032509csa_op.pdf)
                                             Attorney General, Attorney General                      Money to Consumers, Announces A.G.                       61. Texas v. DebtXS, L.P. (Tex. Dist.
                                             Settles with Companies Selling Debt                     Cooper (Jan. 11, 2005), available at                  Ct. Travis County 2006). Press Release,
                                             Repayment Services (Oct. 19, 2007),                     (http://www.ncdoj.gov/News-and-                       Texas Attorney General, Attorney
                                             available at (http://                                   Alerts/News-Releases-and-Advisories/                  General Abbott Gets Debt Settlement
                                             www.oag.state.md.us/Press/2007/                         Press-Releases/Debt-relief-company-to-                Firm to Change Business Practices
                                             101907.htm)                                             return-money-to-consumers,-.aspx)                     Harming Consumers (Sept. 11, 2006),
                                                39. Minnesota v. Am. Debt Settlement                    50. North Carolina v. Knight Credit                available at (http://www.oag.state.tx.us/
                                             Solutions, Inc., No. 70-CV-10-4478                      Servs., Inc., et al., No. 04CVS8345 (N.C.             oagNews/release.php?id=1729)
                                                                                                     Super Ct. Cumberland County 2004).                       62. Vermont v. Daly and Sinnott Law
                                             (Minn. Dist. Ct. - 1st 2010). Complaint,
                                                                                                        51. North Carolina v. Commercial                   Ctrs. (Vt. 2002). Press Release, Vermont
                                             Minnesota Attorney General comment
                                                                                                     Credit Counseling Servs., Inc. d/b/a                  Attorney General, Consumer Update:
                                             (Feb. 23, 2010), available at (http://
                                                                                                     Corporate Turnaround, No. 06CV14672                   Daly and Sinnott ‘‘Law Centers for
                                             www.ftc.gov/os/comments/tsrdebtrelief/
                                                                                                     (N.C. Super. Ct. Wake County 2006).                   Consumer Protection’’ (Jan. 27, 2003),
                                             543670-00332.pdf)
                                                                                                        52. North Carolina v. Hess Kennedy                 available at (http://www.atg.state.vt.us/
                                                40. Minnesota v. Debt Rx USA, LLC
                                                                                                     Chartered, LLC, No. 08CV2310 (N.C.                    issues/consumer-protection/documents-
                                             (Minn. Dist. Ct. - 4th 2010). Complaint,                                                                      and-resources/consumer-update-daly-
                                                                                                     Super. Ct. Wake County 2008). Press
                                             supra item 39.                                                                                                and-sinnott-law-centers-for-consumer-
                                                                                                     Release, North Carolina Attorney
                                                41. Minnesota v. FH Fin. Serv., Inc.                                                                       protection.php)
                                                                                                     General, Debt Relief Firms Ordered to
                                             (Minn. Dist. Ct. - 6th 2010). Complaint,                                                                         63. In re Boston Debt Solutions, LLC,
                                                                                                     Stop Taking Money in NC, Says A.G.
                                             supra item 39.                                                                                                No. 1302-09WNCV (Vt. Super. Ct.
                                                                                                     (Feb. 15, 2008), available at (http://
                                                42. Minnesota v. Morgan Drexen                                                                             Washington County 2009). Press
                                                                                                     www.ncdoj.gov/News-and-Alerts/News-
                                             (Minn. Dist. Ct. - 4th 2010). Complaint,                                                                      Release, Vermont Attorney General,
                                                                                                     Releases-and-Advisories/Press-Releases/
                                             supra item 39.                                                                                                Debt Adjuster Sanctioned for Violating
                                                                                                     Debt-relief-firms-ordered-to-stop-taking-
                                                43. Minnesota v. Pathway Fin. Mgmt.,                                                                       Licensing and Consumer Laws (Mar. 9,
                                                                                                     money-in-.aspx)
                                             Inc. (Minn. Dist. Ct. - 4th 2010).                         53. In re Morgan Drexen (N.C. 2009)                2009), available at (http://
                                             Complaint, supra item 39.                                  54. In re Credit Solutions of America              www.atg.state.vt.us/news/debt-adjuster-
                                                44. Minnesota v. State Capital Fin.,                 (Or. 2010). Press Release, Oregon                     sanctioned-for-violating-licensing-and-
                                             Inc., No. 34-CV-10-117 (Minn. Dist. Ct.                 Attorney General, Attorney General                    consumer-laws.php); Assurance of
                                             - 8th 2010). Complaint, supra item 39.                  John Kroger Bans Nation’s Largest Debt                Discontinuance, available at (http://
                                                45. Missouri v. Credit Solutions of                  Settlement Company From Doing                         www.atg.state.vt.us/assets/files/
                                             Am., No. 0922-CC02228 (Mo. Cir. Ct. St.                 Business in Oregon (May 7, 2010),                     Boston%20Debt%20Solutions%202-26-
                                             Louis 2009). Press Release, Missouri                    available at (http://www.doj.state.or.us/             09.pdf)
                                             Attorney General, Attorney General                      releases/2010/rel050710.shtml)                           64. In re Century Negotiations, Inc.,
                                             Koster Files Suit to Stop Company from                     55. Texas v. Debt Relief USA, No. D-               No. 489-7-09WNCV (Vt. Super. Ct.
                                             Falsely Promising Credit-Card Debt Help                 1-GV-09-001570 (Tex. Dist. Ct. - 53rd                 Washington County 2009). Press
                                             (June 2, 2009), available at (http://                   Travis County 2009). Complaint,                       Release, Vermont Attorney General,
                                             ago.mo.gov/newsreleases/2009/                           available at (http://www.oag.state.tx.us/             Debt Settlement Company Settles
                                             AG_Koster_Suit_                                         newspubs/releases/2009/                               Consumer Claims (July 14, 2009),
                                             Against_Credit_Solutions)                               081809debtrelief_pop.pdf)                             available at (http://www.atg.state.vt.us/
                                                46. Missouri v. Credit Repair and                       56. Texas v. BC Credit Solution, LLC,              news/debt-settlement-company-settles-
                                             Counseling Specialists, LLC, No. 1031-                  et al. (Tex. Dist. Ct. Travis County                  consumer-claims3.php); Assurance of
                                             CV03404 (Mo. Cir. Ct. Green County                      2009). Plaintiff’s Original Petition,                 Discontinuance, available at (http://
                                             2010). Press Release, Missouri Attorney                 available at (http://www.oag.state.tx.us/             www.atg.state.vt.us/assets/files/
                                             General, Attorney General Koster Warns,                 newspubs/releases/2009/                               Century%20Negotiations%20-%207-2-
                                             ‘‘No Quick Fix’’ (Mar. 9, 2010), available              052009bccredit_pop.pdf)                               09.pdf)
                                             at (http://ago.mo.gov/newsreleases/                        57. Texas v. FH1 Fin. Servs., Inc. d/                 65. In re Clear Your Debt, LLC, No. 56-
                                             2010/Consumer_protection_                               b/a FH Fin. Serv. (Tex. Dist. Ct. Travis              1-10WNCV (Vt. Super. Ct. Washington
                                             week_scam_of_the_day_                                   County 2009). Plaintiff’s Original                    County 2009) (Joint action by Attorney
                                             alert_credit_repair/)                                   Petition, available at (http://                       General and State Regulator). Press
                                                47. New York v. Credit Solutions of                  www.oag.state.tx.us/newspubs/releases/                Release, Vermont Attorney General,
                                             Am., Inc., No. 401225/2009 (N.Y. Sup.                                                                         Debt Settlement Company Settles
sroberts on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES




                                                                                                     2009/052009lhfinancial_pop.pdf)
                                             Ct. New York County 2009). Press                           58. Texas v. Four Peaks Fin. Servs.,               Consumer Claims (July 23, 2009),
                                             Release, New York Attorney General,                     LLC (Tex. Dist. Ct. Travis County 2009).              available at (http://www.atg.state.vt.us/
                                             Attorney General Cuomo Sues Debt                        Plaintiff’s Original Petition, available at           news/debt-settlement-company-settles-
                                             Settlement companies for Deceiving and                  (http://www.oag.state.tx.us/newspubs/                 consumer-claims1.php); Assurance of
                                             Harming Consumers (May 19, 2009),                       releases/2009/                                        Discontinuance, available at (http://
                                             available at (http://www.ag.ny.gov/                     052009fourpeaks_pop.pdf)                              www.atg.state.vt.us/assets/files/


                                        VerDate Mar<15>2010   16:17 Aug 09, 2010   Jkt 220001   PO 00000   Frm 00055   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10AUR2.SGM   10AUR2
                                             48512             Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

                                             Debt%20Settlement%20                                    (http://www.atg.state.vt.us/news/                       83. In re Elimidebt Mgmt. Servs. (W.
                                             America%20AOD%20-%202010-1-                             attorney-general-settles-consumer-                    Va. 2009).
                                             27.pdf)                                                 claims-with-debt-settlement-                            84. State ex rel. McGraw v. CCDN,
                                                66. In re CreditAnswers LLC, No. 766-                company.php); Assurance of                            LLC, No. 10-C-632 (W. Va. Cir. Ct.
                                             10-09WNCV (Vt. Super. Ct. Washington                    Discontinuance, available at (http://                 Kanawha County 2010). Press Release,
                                             County 2009). Press Release, Vermont                    www.atg.state.vt.us/assets/files/                     West Virginia Attorney General, A.G.
                                             Attorney General, Two More Debt                         Debt%20Settlement                                     McGraw Sues to Stop CCDN’s Deceptive
                                             Settlement Companies Settle Consumer                    %20America%20                                         Debt Settlement Business (Apr. 12,
                                             Claims (Oct. 13, 2009), available at                    AOD%20-%                                              2010), available at (http://
                                             (http://www.atg.state.vt.us/news/two-                   202010-1-27.pdf)                                      www.wvago.gov/
                                             more-debt-settlement-companies-settle-                    73. State ex rel. McGraw v. Able Debt               press.cfm?ID=521&fx=more)
                                             consumer-claims.php); Assurance of                      Settlement, Inc. (W. Va. 2009). Press                 State Regulator Actions
                                             Discontinuance, available at (http://                   Release, West Virginia Attorney
                                             www.atg.state.vt.us/assets/files/                       General, Texas-based Debt Settlement                    1. In re Nationwide Asset Servs., Inc.,
                                             Credit%20Answers%20AOD.pdf)                             Company, Able Debt Settlement, is                     (California Dep’t of Corps. 2005). Desist
                                                67. In re Liberty Banc Mortgage                      Enjoined from Doing Business in West                  and Refrain Order, available at (http://
                                             Group, Inc. dba Liberty Settlement                      Virginia (May 15, 2009), available at                 www.corp.ca.gov/ENF/pdf/2005/
                                             Group, No. 767-10-09WNCV (Vt. Super.                    (http://www.wvago.gov/                                Nationwide.pdf)
                                             Ct. Washington County 2009). Press                      press.cfm?ID=476&fx=more)                               2. In re First Am. Debt Relief (Adm’r
                                             Release and Assurance of                                  74. State ex rel. McGraw v. Patriot                 of the Colo. Unif. Consumer Credit Code
                                             Discontinuance, supra item 66.                          Debt Solutions Corp., No. 07-Misc.-309                2009).
                                                68. In re Debt Remedy Solutions, LLC,                (W. Va. Cir. Ct. Kanawha County 2007).                  3. In re First Choice Fin. Solutions
                                             No. 377-5-09WNCV (Vt. Super. Ct.                          75. State ex rel. McGraw v. Credit                  LLC (Adm’r of the Colo. Unif. Consumer
                                             Washington County 2009). Press                          Collections Defense Network, No. 09-                  Credit Code 2009).
                                             Release, Vermont Attorney General,                      Misc.-77 (W. Va. Cir. Ct. Kanawha                       4. In re Franklin Debt Relief (Adm’r of
                                             Debt Settlement Company Settles                         County 2009). Press Release, West                     the Colo. Unif. Consumer Credit Code
                                             Consumer Claims (May 27, 2009),                         Virginia Attorney General, Illinois                   2009).
                                             available at (http://www.atg.state.vt.us/                                                                       5. In re Freedom Fin. Mgmt., Inc.
                                                                                                     Attorney Enjoined from Continuing Debt
                                             news/debt-settlement-company-settles-                                                                         (Adm’r of the Colo. Unif. Consumer
                                                                                                     Settlement Business Until He Complies
                                             consumer-claims2.php); Assurance of                                                                           Credit Code 2009).
                                                                                                     with Attorney General’s Investigation                   6. In re Interservice Fin. Solutions
                                             Discontinuance, available at (http://                   (Apr. 1, 2009), available at (http://
                                             www.atg.state.vt.us/assets/files/                                                                             (Adm’r of the Colo. Unif. Consumer
                                                                                                     www.wvago.gov/                                        Credit Code 2009).
                                             Debt%20Remedy%                                          press.cfm?fx=more&ID=471)                               7. In re Law Ctr. for Debt Settlement
                                             20Solutions%20                                            76. State ex rel. McGraw v. Hess                    Servs. (Adm’r of the Colo. Unif.
                                             LLC.pdf)                                                Kennedy Chartered LLC, No. 07-Misc.-
                                                69. In re Debt Settlement USA, Inc.,                                                                       Consumer Credit Code 2009).
                                                                                                     454 (W. Va. Cir. Ct. Kanawha County                     8. In re Nationwide Asset Services,
                                             No. 867-11-09WNCV (Vt. Super. Ct.                       2008). Press Release, West Virginia                   Inc. (Adm’r of the Colo. Unif. Consumer
                                             Washington County 2009). Press                          Attorney General, Florida Attorneys                   Credit Code 2009).
                                             Release, Vermont Attorney General,                      Prevented From Continuing Debt                          9. In re Nationwide Support Servs.,
                                             Attorney General Settles Consumer                       Settlement Business in WV Until They                  Inc. (Adm’r of the Colo. Unif. Consumer
                                             Claims with Two More Debt Settlement                    Comply with Attorney General’s                        Credit Code 2009).
                                             Companies (Nov. 30, 2009), available at                 Investigation (Dec. 21, 2007), available                10. In re Optimal Debt Solutions
                                             (http://www.atg.state.vt.us/news/                       at (http://www.wvago.gov/                             (Adm’r of the Colo. Unif. Consumer
                                             attorney-general-settles-consumer-                      press.cfm?ID=417&fx=more)                             Credit Code 2009).
                                             claims-with-two-more-debt-settlement-                     77. State ex rel. McGraw v. Debt                      11. In re Pacific Debt, Inc. (Adm’r of
                                             companies.php); Assurance of                            Mgmt. Credit Counseling Corp. (W. Va.                 the Colo. Unif. Consumer Credit Code
                                             Discontinuance, available at (http://                   2006). Press Release, West Virginia                   2009).
                                             www.atg.state.vt.us/assets/files/                       Attorney General, McGraw Recovers                       12. In re SDS West Corp. (Adm’r of
                                             Debt%20Settlement                                       Nearly $92,000 in Overages (Jan. 31,                  the Colo. Unif. Consumer Credit Code
                                             %20USA%20Inc%20                                         2006), available at (http://                          2010).
                                             AOD.pdf)                                                www.wvago.gov/                                          13. In re Debt Regret, Inc. (Adm’r of
                                                70. In re Fin. Freedom of Am., Inc.,                 press.cfm?ID=62&fx=more)                              the Colo. Unif. Consumer Credit Code
                                             No. 897-11-09WNCV (Vt. Super. Ct.                         78. In re Excess Debt Solutions, LLC                2009).
                                             Washington County 2009). Press Release                  (W. Va. 2010).                                          14. In re SCK Solutions, LLC dba
                                             and Assurance of Discontinuance, supra                    79. In re Am. Debt Solutions (W. Va.                Family Debt Ctr. (Adm’r of the Colo.
                                             item 69.                                                2008).                                                Unif. Consumer Credit Code 2009).
                                                71. In re Credit Alliance Group, No.                   80. State ex rel. McGraw v. PDM Int’l,                15. In re Safeguard Credit Counseling
                                             172-3-10WNCV (Vt. Super. Ct.                            Inc. (W. Va. 2007). Press Release, West               Servs., Inc. (Adm’r of the Colo. Unif.
                                             Washington County 2010). Assurance of                   Virginia Attorney General, Attorney                   Consumer Credit Code 2009).
                                             Discontinuance, available at (http://                   General Darrell McGraw Obtains                          16. In re The Achievable Inc dba
                                             www.atg.state.vt.us/assets/files/                       $35,345.00 in Refunds for 38 West                     Achievable Fin. Solutions (Adm’r of the
                                             Credit%20Alliance                                       Virginia Consumers Misled by a Texas                  Colo. Unif. Consumer Credit Code
sroberts on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES




                                             %20Group%20                                             Debt Relief Company (Feb. 18, 2009),                  2009).
                                             AOD.pdf)                                                available at (http://www.wvago.gov/                     17. In re Triumph Fin. Group, Inc
                                                72. In re Debt Settlement Am. (Vt.                   press.cfm?ID=465&fx=more)                             (Adm’r of the Colo. Unif. Consumer
                                             2010). Press Release, Vermont Attorney                    81. In re Accelerated Fin. Ctrs. (W. Va.            Credit Code 2009).
                                             General, Attorney General Settles                       2010).                                                  18. In re CSA-Credit Solutions of Am.,
                                             Consumer Claims With Debt Settlement                      82. In re Active Debt Solutions (W. Va.             LLC (Adm’r of the Colo. Unif. Consumer
                                             Company (Feb. 2, 2010), available at                    2009).                                                Credit Code 2010).


                                        VerDate Mar<15>2010   16:17 Aug 09, 2010   Jkt 220001   PO 00000   Frm 00056   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10AUR2.SGM   10AUR2
                                                               Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations                                         48513

                                               19. Georgia, Joseph B. Doyle, Adm’r,                    31. In re Am. Debt Found., Inc. (S.C.                 12. New Horizons Debt Relief Inc.
                                             Fair Bus. Practices Act v. Debt Relief of               Dep’t of Consumer Affairs 2007).                      (2009).
                                             Am., No. 2005CV109801 (Ga. Super. Ct.                     32. In re Am. Liberty Fin., Inc. (S.C.                13. Preferred Fin. Servs., Inc. (2009).
                                             Fulton County 2005).                                    Dep’t of Consumer Affairs 2007).                        14. U.S. Fin. Mgmt. Inc. (d.b.a. My
                                               20. Georgia, Joseph B. Doyle, Adm’r,                    33. In re Debt Resolution Assocs., Inc.             Debt Negotiation) (2009).
                                             Fair Bus. Practices Act v. Debt Remedy                  (S.C. Dep’t of Consumer Affairs 2008).                  15. Allegro Law Firm (2009).
                                             Solutions, LLC, No. 2008CV147250 (Ga.                     34. In re Debt Settlement USA, Inc.
                                                                                                                                                           Florida Investigations
                                             Super. Ct. Fulton County 2008).                         (S.C. Dep’t of Consumer Affairs 2008).
                                               21. Georgia, Joseph B. Doyle, Adm’r,                    35. In re Endebt Solutions, LLC dba                   Press Release, Florida Attorney
                                             Fair Bus. Practices Act v. DebtXS, LP,                  DebtOne Fin. Solutions (S.C. Dep’t of                 General, Attorney General Announces
                                             No. 2007CV128094 (Ga. Super. Ct.                        Consumer Affairs 2008).                               Initiative to Clean Up Florida’s Debt
                                             Fulton County 2007).                                      36. In re Freedom Fin. Mgmt., Inc.                  Relief Industry (Oct. 15, 2008), available
                                               22. Georgia, Joseph B. Doyle, Adm’r,                  (S.C. Dep’t of Consumer Affairs 2010).                at (http://myfloridalegal.com/
                                             Fair Bus. Practices Act v. Brauer Law                     37. In re NewPath Fin., Inc. (S.C.                  newsrel.nsf/newsreleases/
                                             Offices, PLC., No. 10-1-0681-34 (Ga.                    Dep’t of Consumer Affairs 2010).                      BD3AB29E6DDA
                                             Super. Ct. Cobb County 2010).                             38. In re Safeguard Credit Counseling               F150852574E300
                                               23. Georgia, Joseph B. Doyle, Adm’r,                  Servs., Inc. (S.C. Dep’t of Consumer                  4DFACD)
                                             Fair Bus. Practices Act v. Bella Fin., Inc.             Affairs 2009).                                          1. Fin. Freedom Resources, Inc.
                                             d/b/a Debt-By-Debt Settlement Servs.,                     39. In re U.S. Fin. Mgmt., Inc. (S.C.               (2008).
                                             No. 2010CV183079 (Ga. Super. Ct.                        Dep’t of Consumer Affairs 2007).                        2. Specialized Funding (2008).
                                             Fulton County 2010).                                      40. In re Allegro Law Firm, LLC and                   3. Nodelay Enterprises, Inc. (2008).
                                               24. Georgia, Joseph B. Doyle, Adm’r,                  Keith Anderson Nelms (S.C. Dep’t of                     4. Equity First Fin. Corp. (2008).
                                             Fair Bus. Practices Act v. Rescue Debt,                 Consumer Affairs 2009). Press Release,
                                             Inc., No. 2006CV125866 (Ga. Super. Ct.                                                                        Debt Negotiation
                                                                                                     South Carolina Dep’t of Consumer
                                             Fulton County 2006). Information, 2006                  Affairs, SC Consumers May be Affected                 Attorney General Actions
                                             Accomplishments - Enforcement,                          by Alabama Court Ruling (Nov. 6, 2009),
                                             available at (http://                                                                                           1. Colorado v. Nat’l Found. for Debt
                                                                                                     available at (http://                                 Mgmt., Inc. (Colo. 2009). Press Release,
                                             consumer.georgia.gov/00/article/                        www.scconsumer.gov/press_releases/
                                             0,2086,5426814_39039081                                                                                       Colorado Attorney General, Eleven
                                                                                                     2009/09085.pdf)                                       Companies Settle with the State Under
                                             _74269691,00.html)                                        41. Lexington Law Firm v. South
                                               25. Georgia, Joseph B. Doyle, Adm’r,                                                                        New Debt-Management and Credit
                                                                                                     Carolina Dep’t of Consumer Affairs, No.               Counseling Regulation (Mar. 12, 2009),
                                             Fair Bus. Practices Act v. P & E                        06-ALJ-30-0935-CC (S.C. Admin. Law
                                             Holdings, LLC, Greenwood Fin.                                                                                 available at (http://
                                                                                                     Ct. 2009). Press Release, South Carolina              www.coloradoattorneygeneral.gov/
                                             Solutions, LLC & Eddie Zucker, No.                      Dep’t of Consumer Affairs, SC Supreme
                                             2007CV137759 (Ga. Super. Ct. Fulton                                                                           press/news/2009/03/12/
                                                                                                     Court Rules in Favor of Consumer                      eleven_companies_settle
                                             County 2007).                                           Affairs (May 14, 2009), available at
                                               26. Georgia, Joseph B. Doyle, Adm’r,                                                                        _state_under_new_debt
                                                                                                     (http://www.scconsumer.gov/                           _management_and_credit
                                             Fair Bus. Practices Act v. Debt Relief                  press_releases/2009/09047.pdf)
                                             USA, Inc., No. 2009CV166354 (Ga.                                                                              _counseling_)
                                                                                                       42. In re Credit First Fin. Solutions,                2. Florida v. IXE Accelerated Fin.
                                             Super. Ct. Fulton County 2009). Press                   LLC (Utah Dep’t of Commerce 2009).
                                             Release, Georgia Governor’s Office of                                                                         Servs. (Fla. 2008). Press Release, Florida
                                                                                                       43. In re North 83 rd Debt Resolution,              Attorney General, Attorney General
                                             Consumer Affairs, Debt Relief USA to                    LLC (Wis. Dep’t of Fin. Insts., Div. of
                                             Pay Georgia Consumers Over $500,000                                                                           Announces Initiative to Clean Up
                                                                                                     Banking 2008). Order, available at                    Florida’s Debt Relief Industry (Oct. 15,
                                             in Refunds (Mar. 18, 2009), available at                (http://www.wdfi.org/_resources/
                                             (http://consumer.georgia.gov/00/press/                                                                        2008), available at (http://
                                                                                                     indexed/site/newsroom/admin_orders/                   myfloridalegal.com/newsrel.nsf/
                                             detail/0,2668,5426814_                                  mb_2008/
                                             94800056_135944239                                                                                            newsreleases/BD3AB29E6D
                                                                                                     North83rdDebtResolutionLLC.pdf)                       DAF150852574E3
                                             ,00.html)
                                               27. Georgia, Joseph B. Doyle, Adm’r,                  Publicly-Announced Investigations                     004DFACD)
                                             Fair Bus. Practices Act v. Jeremy Wright                                                                        3. Kansas v. Genesis Capital Mgmt.,
                                                                                                     New York Investigations                               Inc., No. 09C2012 (Kan. Dist. Ct.
                                             and Liberty Debt Mgmt., No.
                                             2007CV130515 (Ga. Super. Ct. Fulton                       Press Release, New York Attorney                    Shawnee County 2009).
                                             County 2007).                                           General, Attorney General Cuomo                         4. Minnesota v. Priority Direct Mktg.,
                                               28. South Carolina Dep’t of Consumer                  Announces Nationwide Investigation                    No. 62-CV-10416 (Minn. Dist. Ct.
                                             Affairs v. Debt Relief of Am., LP, No. 06-              Into Debt Settlement Industry (May 7,                 Ramsey County 2009). Press Release,
                                             ALJ-30-0671-CC (S.C. Admin. Law Ct.                     2009), available at (http://                          Minnesota Attorney General, Attorney
                                             2006). Information, available at (http://               www.ag.ny.gov/media_center/2009/                      General Swanson Files Three Lawsuits
                                             www.scconsumer.gov/licensing/                           may/may7a_09.html)                                    Against companies Claiming to Help
                                             credit_counseling/06-alj-30-0671-                         1. Am. Debt Found. (2009).                          Consumers Lower Their Credit Card
                                             cc.htm)                                                   2. Am. Fin. Serv. (2009).                           Interest Rates (Sept. 22, 2009), available
                                               29. South Carolina Dep’t of Consumer                    3. Consumer Debt Solutions (2009).                  at (http://www.ag.state.mn.us/
                                             Affairs v. Credit Solutions, Inc, No. 07-                 4. Credit Answers, LLC (2009).                      consumer/pressrelease/
                                                                                                       5. Debt Remedy Solutions (2009).                    090922ccinterestrates.asp)
sroberts on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES




                                             ALJ-30-0518-IJ (S.C. Admin. Law Ct.
                                             2009). Administrative Law Court                           6. Debt Settlement Am. (2009).                        5. Minnesota v. Clear Fin. Solutions,
                                             Decision, available at (http://                           7. Debt Settlement USA (2009).                      No. 62-CV-10410 (Minn. Dist. Ct.
                                             www.scalc.net/                                            8. Debtmerica Relief (2009).                        Ramsey County 2009). Press Release,
                                             decisions.aspx?q=4&id=10745)                              9. DMB Fin., LLC (2009).                            supra item 4.
                                               30. In re Am. Credit Counselors, Inc.                   10. Freedom Debt Relief (2009).                       6. Minnesota v. Moneyworks, LLC, No.
                                             (S.C. Dep’t of Consumer Affairs 2009).                    11. New Era Debt Solutions (2009).                  62-CV-09-10411 (Minn. Dist. Ct. Ramsey


                                        VerDate Mar<15>2010   16:17 Aug 09, 2010   Jkt 220001   PO 00000   Frm 00057   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10AUR2.SGM   10AUR2
                                             48514             Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

                                             County 2009). Press Release, supra item                 General, Attorney General’s Office                    www.wvago.gov/
                                             4.                                                      Settles with Former Officer of Debtworks              press.cfm?fx=more&ID=475)
                                                7. Minnesota v. One Source, Inc., No.                (Sept. 19, 2005), available at (http://                 16. State ex rel. McGraw v. Help
                                             40-CV-135 (Minn. Dist. Ct. Le Sueur                     www.oag.state.md.us/press/2005/                       Ministries dba Debt Free (W. Va. 2006).
                                             County 2010). Complaint, available at                   091905.htm)                                           Press Release, West Virginia Attorney
                                             (http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/                          5. In re Ballenger Group, LLC, (Md.                 General, Attorney General McGraw
                                             tsrdebtrelief/543670-00332.pdf)                         2005). Press Release, Maryland Attorney               Secures Settlement With Debt Free
                                                8. Washington v. Debt Solutions, Inc.,               General, Attorney General’s Office                    (Sept. 13, 2006), available at (http://
                                             No. CV06-0298 (W.D. Wash. 2006).                        Settles with Debt Management Servicer                 www.wvago.gov/
                                             Complaint, available at (http://                        (Mar. 22, 2005), available at (http://                press.cfm?ID=83&fx=more)
                                             www.atg.wa.gov/uploadedFiles/Home/                      www.oag.state.md.us/Press/2005/
                                             News/Press_Releases/2007/                                                                                     State Regulator Actions
                                                                                                     032205.htm)
                                             DSIcomplaint6-3-06.pdf)                                   6. In re Debtscape, Inc. (Md. 2005).                  1. California Dep’t of Corps. v.
                                                9. In re Clear Fin. Solutions (W. Va.                Press Release, Maryland Attorney                      Express Consolidation, Inc., Department
                                             2009). Press Release, West Virginia                     General, Attorney General’s Office                    of Corporations No. 943-0122 (Cal.
                                             Attorney General, Attorney General                      Settles with Credit Counseling Agency                 2008). Statement of Issues, available at
                                             McGraw Announces WV Refunds of                          (Oct. 12, 2005), available at (http://                (http://www.corp.ca.gov/ENF/pdf/e/
                                             $214,000 in Debt Relief Companies                       www.oag.state.md.us/press/2005/                       ExpressConsolidation_si.pdf)
                                             Settlement (Jan. 13, 2010), available at                101205.htm)                                             2. In re Money Mgmt. by Mail, Inc.
                                             (http://www.wvago.gov/                                                                                        (California Dep’t of Corps. 2005). Desist
                                                                                                       7. In re Fin. Freedom Int’l (Md. 2005).
                                             press.cfm?ID=500&fx=more)                                                                                     and Refrain Order, available at (http://
                                                                                                     Press Release, Maryland Attorney
                                             State Regulator Actions                                 General, Attorney General’s Office                    www.corp.ca.gov/ENF/pdf/2005/
                                                                                                     Settles with Credit Counseling Agency                 MoneyManagement.pdf)
                                               1. Georgia, Joseph B. Doyle, Adm’r,                                                                           3. Georgia, Joseph B. Doyle, Adm’r,
                                             Fair Bus. Practices Act v. Am. Debt                     that Targeted Spanish Speakers (Nov.
                                                                                                     22, 2005), available at (http://                      Fair Bus. Practices Act v. Debt Mgmt.
                                             Negotiators, Inc., No. 2006CV123869                                                                           Credit Counseling Corp. (Ga. 2005).
                                             (Ga. Super. Ct. Fulton County 2006).                    www.oag.state.md.us/Press/2005/
                                                                                                     112205a.htm)                                          Information, 2005 Accomplishments -
                                             Information, 2006 Accomplishments -                                                                           Enforcement, available at (http://
                                             Enforcement, available at (http://                        8. Massachusetts v. Cambridge Credit
                                                                                                     Counseling Corp., No. 2004-01436-F                    consumer.georgia.gov/00/article/
                                             consumer.georgia.gov/00/article/                                                                              0,2086,5426814
                                             0,2086,5426814                                          (Mass. Super. Ct. 2004).
                                                                                                       9. Minnesota v. AmeriDebt, Inc.                     _39039081_49161506,00.html)
                                             _39039081_74269691,00.html)                                                                                     4. Georgia, Joseph B. Doyle, Adm’r,
                                               2. Georgia, Joseph B. Doyle, Adm’r,                   (Minn. 2003).
                                                                                                       10. Missouri ex rel. Nixon v.                       Fair Bus. Practices Act v. Fin. Freedom
                                             Fair Bus. Practices Act v. Debt Freedom,
                                                                                                     AmeriDebt, Inc. (Mo. 2003).                           Resources, Inc., No. 2007-RCCV-781
                                             Inc. and Joshua Autenreith, No.
                                                                                                       11. New Jersey v. United Credit                     (Ga. Super. Ct. Richmond County 2008).
                                             2008CV158957 (Ga. Super. Ct. Fulton
                                                                                                     Adjusters, No. MON-C-158-08 (N.J.                       5. South Carolina Dep’t of Consumer
                                             County 2008).
                                               3. Georgia, Joseph B. Doyle, Adm’r,                   Super. Ct. Monmouth County 2008).                     Affairs v. Vision Fin. Mgmt., LLC and
                                             Fair Bus. Practices Act v. Smart Credit                 Final Consent Judgment, available at                  Nelzarie Wynn, No. 08-ALJ-30-0043-IJ
                                             Mgmt. Group, Inc., No. 2007CV134220                     (http://www.nj.gov/oag/newsreleases09/                (S.C. Admin. Law Ct. 2008).
                                             (Ga. Super. Ct. Fulton County 2007).                    pr20090730b-UnitedCreditAdjusters-                    Administrative Law Court Decision,
                                               4. Georgia, Joseph B. Doyle, Adm’r,                   FinalConsentJudgment.pdf)                             available at (http://www.scalc.net/
                                             Fair Bus. Practices Act v. Consumer                       12. North Carolina v. Cambridge                     decisions.aspx?q=4&id=11007)
                                             Credit Counseling Found., No.                           Credit Counseling Corp., No.                          Failure to Register
                                             2006CV120087 (Ga. Super. Ct. Fulton                     04CVS005155 (N.C. Super. Ct. Wake
                                             County 2006).                                           County 2004).                                         Attorney General Actions
                                                                                                       13. Texas v. AmeriDebt, Inc. (Tex.                    1. In re Century Negotiations, Inc.
                                             Credit Counseling
                                                                                                     2003). Press Release, Texas Attorney                  (Colo. 2009). Press Release, Colorado
                                             Attorney General Actions                                General, Attorney General Abbot Files                 Attorney General, Eleven Companies
                                               1. Connecticut v. J.K. Harris Fin.                    Suit Against Non-Profit Credit                        Settle With the State Under New Debt-
                                             Recovery Sys., LLC (Conn. 2006). Press                  Counseling Service (Nov. 19, 2003),                   Management and Credit Counseling
                                             Release, Connecticut Attorney General,                  available at (http://www.oag.state.tx.us/             Regulations (Mar. 12, 2009), available at
                                             Attorney General Sues J.K. Harris for                   oagNews/release.php?id=284)                           (http://
                                             Deceptive Mailings Offering Help With                     14. State ex rel. McGraw v. Cambridge               www.coloradoattorneygeneral.gov/
                                             Nonexistent Court Cases (Feb. 11, 2004),                Credit Counseling Corp. (W. Va. 2006).                press/news/2009/03/12/
                                             available at (http://www.ct.gov/ag/cwp/                 Press Release, West Virginia Attorney                 eleven_companies
                                             view.asp?A=1779&Q=284302)                               General, Attorney General Secures                     _settle_state_under_
                                               2. Illinois v. Cambridge Credit                       Settlement Agreement with Cambridge                   new_debt_management_
                                             Counseling Corp. (Ill. 2007). Press                     (May 25, 2006), available at (http://                 and_credit_counseling_)
                                             Release, Illinois Attorney General,                     www.wvago.gov/                                          2. Delaware v. Freedom Debt Relief,
                                             Attorney General Madigan Continues                      press.cfm?ID=35&fx=more)                              LLC (Del. 2009). Press Release, Delaware
                                             Crackdown on Debt Settlement Industry                     15. State ex rel. McGraw v. Family                  Attorney General, Consumer Protection
                                                                                                     Credit Counseling Corp. (W. Va. 2009).                Unit Acts to Safeguard Delawareans in
sroberts on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES




                                             (Sept. 30, 2009), available at (http://
                                             www.ag.state.il.us/pressroom/2009_09/                   Press Release, West Virginia Attorney                 Debt (Sept. 28, 2009), available at
                                             20090930.html)                                          General, Attorney General McGraw Sues                 (http://attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/
                                               3. Illinois v. AmeriDebt, Inc. (Ill.                  James R. Armstrong, Jr. And His Web of                media/releases/2009/
                                             2005). Press Release, supra item 2.                     Florida Shell Companies over                          Consumer%20Protection
                                               4. In re Michael Kiefer (Md. 2005).                   Fraudulent Credit Counseling Scheme                   %20Unit%20acts%20to
                                             Press Release, Maryland Attorney                        (May 8, 2009), available at (http://                  %20safeguard%20


                                        VerDate Mar<15>2010   16:17 Aug 09, 2010   Jkt 220001   PO 00000   Frm 00058   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10AUR2.SGM   10AUR2
                                                               Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations                                        48515

                                             Delawareans%20                                          More ‘‘Debt Settlement’’ Companies;                   Refrain Order, available at (http://
                                             in%20debt.pdf)                                          Refunds of $375K to 141 WV Consumers                  www.corp.ca.gov/ENF/pdf/2002/
                                                3. Idaho v. Debt Relief USA, Inc.                    (Sept. 3, 2008), available at (http://                briggs.pdf)
                                             (Idaho 2008). Press Release, Idaho                      www.wvago.gov/                                          13. In re Nat’l Consumer Council, Inc.
                                             Department of Finance, Department of                    press.cfm?fx=more&ID=446)                             (Cal. Dep’t of Corps. 2004). Desist and
                                             Finance Reaches Agreements with Out-                      19. In re Debt Relief USA Inc. (W. Va.              Refrain Order, available at (http://
                                             of-State Debt Settlement Companies                      2008). Press Release, supra item 18.                  www.corp.ca.gov/ENF/pdf/2004/
                                             (Sept. 19, 2008), available at (http://                   20. In re Acushield Fin. Servs. (W. Va.             NationalConsumerCouncilInc.pdf)
                                             finance.idaho.gov/PR/2008/                              2008). Press Release, supra item 18.                    14. In re Positive Return, Inc. (Cal.
                                             GSpressRelDebtStlmntCoSettlements9-                                                                           Dep’t of Corps. 2004). Desist and Refrain
                                                                                                     State Regulator Actions
                                             08.pdf)                                                                                                       Order, available at (http://
                                                4. Idaho v. DMB Fin. (Idaho 2008).                     1. In re AmeriDebt, Inc. (Cal. Dep’t of             www.corp.ca.gov/ENF/pdf/2004/
                                             Press Release, supra item 3.                            Corps. 2002). Desist and Refrain Order,               Positive.pdf)
                                                5. Idaho v. Debt Settlement USA, Inc.                available at (http://www.corp.ca.gov/                   15. California Dep’t of Corps. v. U.S.
                                             (Idaho 2008). Press Release, supra item                 enf/pdf/2002/ameridebt.pdf)                           Fin. Mgmt., No. D052320 (Cal. App. &
                                             3.                                                        2. In re Blue Chip Fin. Network, Inc.               Sup. Ct. - 4 2008). Petition for Order,
                                                6. Idaho v. Credit Solutions of Am.,                 (Cal. Dep’t of Corps. 2009). Desist and               available at (http://www.corp.ca.gov/
                                             Inc. (Idaho 2008). Press Release, Idaho                 Refrain Order, available at (http://                  ENF/pdf/u/usfinman-petition.pdf)
                                             Department of Finance, Idaho                            www.corp.ca.gov/ENF/pdf/2009/                           16. In re The Consumer Protection
                                             Department of Finance Settles with                      BlueChip_dr.pdf)                                      Law Ctr. (Cal. Dep’t of Corps. 2009).
                                             Credit Solutions of America (Jan. 15,                     3. In re AAA Fin. Servs., Neo Fin.                  Amended Desist and Refrain Order,
                                             2008), available at (http://                            Servs. (Cal. Dep’t of Corps. 2003). Desist            available at (http://www.corp.ca.gov/
                                             spokane.bbb.org/article/idaho-                          and Refrain Order, available at (http://              ENF/pdf/2009/Mezey_adr.pdf)
                                             department-of-finance-settles-with-                     www.corp.ca.gov/ENF/pdf/2003/                           17. In re Acu-Shield (Cal. Dep’t of
                                             credit-solutions-ofamerica-inc-3086)                    neo.pdf)                                              Corps. 2008). Desist and Refrain Order,
                                                7. New Hampshire v. Debt Relief USA,                   4. In re Boris Isaacson d/b/a Debt                  available at (http://www.corp.ca.gov/
                                             et al., Banking Department No. 08-361                   Payment Club (Cal. Dep’t of Corps.                    ENF/pdf/2008/AcuShieldFin_dr.pdf)
                                             (N.H. 2008). Order of License Denial,                   2002). Desist and Refrain Order,                        18. In re Am. Debt Negotiation &
                                             available at (http://www.nh.gov/                        available at (http://www.corp.ca.gov/                 Settlement, LLC (Cal. Dep’t of Corps.
                                             banking/Order08_361Debt                                 ENF/pdf/2002/debt.pdf)                                2008). Desist and Refrain Order,
                                             ReliefUSA_DO.pdf)                                         5. In re Brite Start Consulting Corp.               available at (http://www.corp.ca.gov/
                                                8. In re Help With Debt, LLC and                     (Cal. Dep’t of Corps. 2004). Desist and               ENF/pdf/2008/ADNS_dr.pdf)
                                             David A. Gelinas (N.H. 2007) . Cease                    Refrain Order, available at (http://                    19. In re Am. Debt Mgmt. Servs., Inc.,
                                             and Desist Order, available at (http://                 www.corp.ca.gov/ENF/pdf/2004/                         No. DFP EU 2007-120 (Md. Comm’r of
                                             www.nh.gov/banking/                                     BriteStartConsultingCorp.pdf)                         Fin. Regulation 2007). Final Order to
                                             Order07_047HelpWithDebt_CD.pdf)                           6. In re Brandon Gutman, Ann                        Cease and Desist, available at (http://
                                                9. In re Peoples First Fin. (Utah Dep’t              Gutman, William Troy, Credit                          www.dllr.state.md.us/finance/
                                             of Commerce, 2009).                                     Counseling Express, Inc. (Cal. Dep’t of               consumers/pdf/eandamdebtmgmt.pdf)
                                                10. In re Consumer Law Ctr. (Utah                    Corps. 2004). Desist and Refrain Order,                 20. In re North Seattle Cmty. College
                                             Dep’t of Commerce, 2008).                               available at (http://www.corp.ca.gov/                 Found. d/b/a AFS Credit Counseling
                                                11. In re Associated Tax Relief, Inc.                ENF/pdf/2004/                                         (N.H. Banking Dep’t 2007). Consent
                                             (Utah Dep’t of Commerce, 2009).                         CreditCounselingExpressInc.pdf)                       Agreement, available at (http://
                                                12. In re Liberty Am., LLC (Utah Dep’t                 7. In re DebtWorks, Inc. and The                    www.nh.gov/banking/Order06_072
                                             of Commerce, 2009).                                     Ballenger Group, LLC (Cal. Dep’t of                   NorthSeattleCCFound_CA.pdf)
                                                13. In re Reliance Debt Relief, LLC                  Corps. 2004). Desist and Refrain Order,                 21. In re Freedom Fin. Network LLC
                                             (Utah Dep’t of Commerce, 2009).                         available at (http://www.corp.ca.gov/                 (R.I. Dep’t of Bus. Regulation 2009).
                                                14. State ex rel. McGraw v. Debt Relief              ENF/pdf/2004/Debtworks.pdf)                           Consent Order, available at (http://
                                             of Am. LLP (W. Va. 2007). Press Release,                  8. In re Edward J. Silva d/b/a Credit               www.dbr.ri.gov/documents/decisions/
                                             West Virginia Attorney General,                         Xpress and Creditxpress (Cal. Dep’t of                BK-Freedom_Financial-
                                             Attorney General McGraw Reaches                         Corps. 2005). Desist and Refrain Order,               Consent_Order.pdf)
                                             Settlement with Four Debt Relief                        available at (http://www.corp.ca.gov/                   22. In re 6:10 Services dba Debt-Free
                                             Companies for 366 Consumers (May 16,                    ENF/pdf/2005/creditxpress.pdf)                        Am. (R.I. Dep’t of Bus. Regulation 2008).
                                             2007), available at (http://                              9. In re Harbour Credit Counseling                  Order Revoking License, available at
                                             www.wvago.gov/                                          Servs., Inc. (California Dep’t of Corps.              (http://www.dbr.ri.gov/documents/
                                             press.cfm?ID=343&fx=more)                               2002). Desist and Refrain Order,                      decisions/BK-Order-Debt-Free.pdf)
                                                15. State ex rel. McGraw v. Fidelity                 available at (http://www.corp.ca.gov/                   23. In re ClearPoint Fin. Solutions fka
                                             Debt Consultants, Inc. (W. Va. 2007).                   ENF/pdf/2002/harbour.pdf)                             Consumer Credit Counseling Servs. of
                                             Press Release, supra item 14.                             10. In re InCharge Inst. of Am., Inc.               Am., Inc. dba Credit Counselors of
                                                16. State ex rel. McGraw v. David                    (Cal. Dep’t of Corps. 2002). Consent                  Rhode Island (R.I. Dep’t of Bus.
                                             Huffman d/b/a Freedom Group (W. Va.                     Order, available at (http://                          Regulation 2006).
                                             2007) . Press Release, supra item 14.                   www.corp.ca.gov/ENF/pdf/2002/                           24. In re CRS Fin. Servs., Inc. (R.I.
                                                17. State ex rel. McGraw v. New                      inchargeconsentorder.pdf)                             Dep’t of Bus. Regulation 2009). Order to
                                             Horizons Debt Relief (W. Va. 2007) .                      11. In re MyVesta.org, Inc. (Cal. Dep’t
sroberts on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES




                                                                                                                                                           Cease and Desist, available at (http://
                                             Press Release, supra item 14.                           of Corps. 2002). Desist and Refrain                   www.dbr.ri.gov/documents/decisions/
                                                18. State ex rel. McGraw v. Consumer                 Order, available at (http://                          BK-CRS-Order_Cease-Desist.pdf)
                                             Credit Counseling of Am., Inc. (W. Va.                  www.corp.ca.gov/ENF/pdf/2002/                           25. In re Lighthouse Credit Found.,
                                             2008). Press Release, West Virginia                     myvesta.pdf)                                          Inc. (R.I. Dep’t of Bus. Regulation 2008).
                                             Attorney General, Attorney General                        12. In re Innovative Sys. Tech., Inc.                 26. In re Debt Consolidation Co., Inc.
                                             McGraw Reaches Agreement with Three                     (Cal. Dep’t of Corps. 2002). Desist and               (R.I. Dep’t of Bus. Regulation 2009).


                                        VerDate Mar<15>2010   16:17 Aug 09, 2010   Jkt 220001   PO 00000   Frm 00059   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10AUR2.SGM   10AUR2
                                             48516             Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

                                             Order to Cease and Desist, available at                 indexed/site/newsroom/admin_orders/                     Abuse Prevention Act, 15 U.S.C. 6101-
                                             (http://www.dbr.ri.gov/documents/                       mb_2007/FinancialFreedom.pdf)                           6108, as amended.
                                             decisions/BK-CRS-Order_Cease-                              42. Wisconsin, Dep’t of Fin. Insts.,
                                             Desist.pdf)                                             Dep’t of Banking v. Eruditio Debt Mgmt.                 § 310.2    Definitions.
                                                27. In re Debt Mgmt. Credit                          Corp. (Wisc. 2007). Order, available at                    (a) Acquirer means a business
                                             Counseling Corp. (R.I. Dep’t of Bus.                    (http://www.wdfi.org/_resources/                        organization, financial institution, or an
                                             Regulation 2007).                                       indexed/site/newsroom/admin_orders/                     agent of a business organization or
                                                28. In re Consumer Credit Counseling                 mb_2007/                                                financial institution that has authority
                                             Serv. of Southern New England, Inc.                     EruditioDebtManagementCorp.pdf)                         from an organization that operates or
                                             (R.I. Dep’t of Bus. Regulation 2009).                      43. Wisconsin, Dep’t of Fin. Insts.,                 licenses a credit card system to
                                                29. In re Credit Solutions of Am., Inc.              Dep’t of Banking v. Worldwide Fin.                      authorize merchants to accept, transmit,
                                             (S.C. Dep’t of Consumer Affairs 2007).                  Servs., Inc. (Wisc. 2007). Order,                       or process payment by credit card
                                                30. South Carolina Dep’t of Consumer                 available at (http://www.wdfi.org/                      through the credit card system for
                                             Affairs v. Rescue Debt, Inc., No. 06-ALJ-               _resources/indexed/site/newsroom/                       money, goods or services, or anything
                                             30-0645-IJ (S.C. Admin. Law Ct. 2006).                  admin_orders/mb_2007/                                   else of value.
                                             Administrative Law Court Decision,                      WorldwideFinancialServicesInc.pdf)                         (b) Attorney General means the chief
                                             available at (http://www.scalc.net/                        44. In re Credit Solutions of Am.                    legal officer of a state.
                                             decisions.aspx?q=4&id=6934)                             (Wisc. Dep’t of Fin. Insts., Dep’t of                      (c) Billing information means any data
                                                31. In re Discount Debt Solutions, Inc.              Banking 2009). Order, available at                      that enables any person to access a
                                             (S.C. Dep’t of Consumer Affairs 2009).                  (http://www.wdfi.org/_resources/                        customer’s or donor’s account, such as
                                                                                                     indexed/site/newsroom/admin_orders/                     a credit card, checking, savings, share or
                                                32. In re United Savings Ctr., Inc. dba
                                                                                                     lfs_2007/                                               similar account, utility bill, mortgage
                                             Mutual Consol. Savings (S.C. Dep’t of
                                                                                                     CreditSolutionsAmerica.pdf)658                          loan account, or debit card.
                                             Consumer Affairs 2008).
                                                                                                                                                                (d) Caller identification service means
                                                33. In re Freedom Fin. Network, LLC                  VI. Final Amendments                                    a service that allows a telephone
                                             (S.C. Dep’t of Consumer Affairs 2007).
                                                                                                     List of Subjects in 16 CFR part 310                     subscriber to have the telephone
                                                34. In re MyDebtRelief.com, LP (S.C.
                                                                                                                                                             number, and, where available, name of
                                             Dep’t of Consumer Affairs 2008).                          Telemarketing, Trade practices.                       the calling party transmitted
                                                35. In re Able Debt Settlement (Wisc.
                                                                                                     ■ For the reasons discussed in the                      contemporaneously with the telephone
                                             Dep’t of Fin. Insts., Dep’t of Banking
                                                                                                     preamble, the Federal Trade                             call, and displayed on a device in or
                                             2008). Order, available at (http://
                                                                                                     Commission revises 16 CFR part 310 to                   connected to the subscriber’s telephone.
                                             www.wdfi.org/_resources/indexed/site/                                                                              (e) Cardholder means a person to
                                                                                                     read as follows:
                                             newsroom/admin_orders/lfs_2008/                                                                                 whom a credit card is issued or who is
                                             AbleDebtSettlementInc.pdf)                              TELEMARKETING SALES RULE 16                             authorized to use a credit card on behalf
                                                36. In re Debt Settlement of Am.                     CFR PART 310                                            of or in addition to the person to whom
                                             (Wisc. Dep’t of Fin. Insts., Dep’t of                       Sec.                                                the credit card is issued.
                                             Banking 2008). Order, available at                      310.1 Scope of regulations in this part.                   (f) Charitable contribution means any
                                             (http://www.wdfi.org/_resources/                        310.2 Definitions.                                      donation or gift of money or any other
                                             indexed/site/newsroom/admin_orders/                     310.3 Deceptive telemarketing acts or                   thing of value.
                                             lfs_2008/DebtSettlementAmerica.pdf)                         practices.                                             (g) Commission means the Federal
                                                37. In re The Debt Settlement Co.                    310.4 Abusive telemarketing acts or
                                                                                                                                                             Trade Commission.
                                             (Wisc. Dep’t of Fin. Insts., Dep’t of                       practices.
                                                                                                     310.5 Recordkeeping requirements.
                                                                                                                                                                (h) Credit means the right granted by
                                             Banking 2008). Order, available at                                                                              a creditor to a debtor to defer payment
                                                                                                     310.6 Exemptions.
                                             (http://www.wdfi.org/_resources/                        310.7 Actions by states and private persons.            of debt or to incur debt and defer its
                                             indexed/site/newsroom/admin_orders/                     310.8 Fee for access to the National Do Not             payment.
                                             lfs_2008/                                                   Call Registry.                                         (i) Credit card means any card, plate,
                                             TheDebtSettlementCompany.pdf)                           310.9 Severability.                                     coupon book, or other credit device
                                                38. In re Global Econ. Corp. (Wisc.                      Authority: 15 U.S.C. 6101–6108.                     existing for the purpose of obtaining
                                             Dep’t of Fin. Insts., Dep’t of Banking                    Source: 68 FR 4669, Jan. 29, 2003,                    money, property, labor, or services on
                                             2008). Order, available at (http://                     unless otherwise noted.                                 credit.
                                             www.wdfi.org/_resources/indexed/site/                                                                              (j) Credit card sales draft means any
                                             newsroom/admin_orders/lfs_2008/                         § 310.1    Scope of regulations in this part.           record or evidence of a credit card
                                             TheDebtSettlementCompany.pdf)                             This part implements the                              transaction.
                                                39. In re Nat’l Legal Debt Ctrs. (Wisc.              Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and                       (k) Credit card system means any
                                             Dep’t of Fin. Insts., Dep’t of Banking                                                                          method or procedure used to process
                                             2007). Order, available at (http://                       658 In addition to the state cases provided in this   credit card transactions involving credit
                                             www.wdfi.org/_resources/indexed/site/                   List, the Commission is aware of 10 additional          cards issued or licensed by the operator
                                             newsroom/admin_orders/mb_2007/                          matters submitted by NAAG in a supplemental             of that system.
                                                                                                     comment dated July 6, 2010: In re United Debt
                                             NationalLegalDebtCenters.pdf)                           Svcs., LLC (W. Va. 2010); West Virginia v. Nat’l
                                                                                                                                                                (l) Customer means any person who is
                                                40. In re Debt Relief Network, Inc.                  Credit Solutions (W. Va. 2010); West Virginia v.        or may be required to pay for goods or
                                             (Wisc. Dep’t of Fin. Insts., Dep’t of                   Sherman Enters., LC dba Nationwide Credit               services offered through telemarketing.
                                             Banking 2007). Order, available at                      Solutions, GSV Ltd., and Glen S. Vondielingen (W.          (m) Debt relief service means any
                                                                                                     Va. 2009); Joseph B. Doyle, Adm’r, Fair Bus.
                                             (http://www.wdfi.org/_resources/                                                                                program or service represented, directly
sroberts on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES




                                                                                                     Practices Act v. Solve Debts, Inc., No. 2009-CV-
                                             indexed/site/newsroom/admin_orders/                     1777490 (Ga. 2009); Joseph B. Doyle, Adm’r, Fair        or by implication, to renegotiate, settle,
                                             mb_2007/DebtReliefNetworkInc.pdf)                       Bus. Practices Act v. The Credit Exch. Corp., No.       or in any way alter the terms of payment
                                                41. In re Fin. Freedom Through                       2009-CV-179467 (Ga. 2009); Joseph B. Doyle, Adm’r,      or other terms of the debt between a
                                                                                                     Fair Bus. Practices Act v. Beacon Debt Settlement,
                                             Negotiations (Wisc. Dep’t of Fin. Insts.,               Inc., No. 2010-CV-185216 (Ga. 2010); Joseph B.
                                                                                                                                                             person and one or more unsecured
                                             Dep’t of Banking 2007). Order, available                Doyle, Adm’r, Fair Bus. Practices Act v. Johnson        creditors or debt collectors, including,
                                             at (http://www.wdfi.org/_resources/                     Law Group (Ga. 2010).                                   but not limited to, a reduction in the


                                        VerDate Mar<15>2010   16:17 Aug 09, 2010   Jkt 220001   PO 00000   Frm 00060   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10AUR2.SGM      10AUR2
                                                               Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations                                                 48517

                                             balance, interest rate, or fees owed by a               limited or general partnership,                       any other item included in the same
                                             person to an unsecured creditor or debt                 corporation, or other business entity.                catalog which prompted the customer’s
                                             collector.                                                 (x) Preacquired account information                call or in a substantially similar catalog.
                                                (n) Donor means any person solicited                 means any information that enables a                     (ee) Upselling means soliciting the
                                             to make a charitable contribution.                      seller or telemarketer to cause a charge              purchase of goods or services following
                                                (o) Established business relationship                to be placed against a customer’s or                  an initial transaction during a single
                                             means a relationship between a seller                   donor’s account without obtaining the                 telephone call. The upsell is a separate
                                             and a consumer based on:                                account number directly from the                      telemarketing transaction, not a
                                                (1) the consumer’s purchase, rental, or              customer or donor during the                          continuation of the initial transaction.
                                             lease of the seller’s goods or services or              telemarketing transaction pursuant to                 An ‘‘external upsell’’ is a solicitation
                                             a financial transaction between the                     which the account will be charged.                    made by or on behalf of a seller different
                                             consumer and seller, within the                            (y) Prize means anything offered, or               from the seller in the initial transaction,
                                             eighteen (18) months immediately                        purportedly offered, and given, or                    regardless of whether the initial
                                             preceding the date of a telemarketing                   purportedly given, to a person by                     transaction and the subsequent
                                             call; or                                                chance. For purposes of this definition,              solicitation are made by the same
                                                (2) the consumer’s inquiry or                        chance exists if a person is guaranteed               telemarketer. An ‘‘internal upsell’’ is a
                                             application regarding a product or                      to receive an item and, at the time of the            solicitation made by or on behalf of the
                                             service offered by the seller, within the               offer or purported offer, the telemarketer            same seller as in the initial transaction,
                                             three (3) months immediately preceding                  does not identify the specific item that              regardless of whether the initial
                                             the date of a telemarketing call.                       the person will receive.                              transaction and subsequent solicitation
                                                (p) Free-to-pay conversion means, in                    (z) Prize promotion means:                         are made by the same telemarketer.
                                             an offer or agreement to sell or provide                   (1) A sweepstakes or other game of
                                             any goods or services, a provision under                chance; or                                            § 310.3 Deceptive telemarketing acts or
                                             which a customer receives a product or                     (2) An oral or written express or                  practices.
                                             service for free for an initial period and              implied representation that a person has                 (a) Prohibited deceptive telemarketing
                                             will incur an obligation to pay for the                 won, has been selected to receive, or                 acts or practices. It is a deceptive
                                             product or service if he or she does not                may be eligible to receive a prize or                 telemarketing act or practice and a
                                             take affirmative action to cancel before                purported prize.                                      violation of this Rule for any seller or
                                             the end of that period.                                    (aa) Seller means any person who, in               telemarketer to engage in the following
                                                (q) Investment opportunity means                     connection with a telemarketing                       conduct:
                                             anything, tangible or intangible, that is               transaction, provides, offers to provide,                (1) Before a customer consents to
                                             offered, offered for sale, sold, or traded              or arranges for others to provide goods               pay 659 for goods or services offered,
                                             based wholly or in part on                              or services to the customer in exchange               failing to disclose truthfully, in a clear
                                             representations, either express or                      for consideration.                                    and conspicuous manner, the following
                                             implied, about past, present, or future                    (bb) State means any state of the                  material information:
                                             income, profit, or appreciation.                        United States, the District of Columbia,                 (i) The total costs to purchase, receive,
                                                (r) Material means likely to affect a                Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana                     or use, and the quantity of, any goods
                                             person’s choice of, or conduct regarding,               Islands, and any territory or possession              or services that are the subject of the
                                             goods or services or a charitable                       of the United States.                                 sales offer; 660
                                             contribution.                                              (cc) Telemarketer means any person                    (ii) All material restrictions,
                                                (s) Merchant means a person who is                   who, in connection with telemarketing,                limitations, or conditions to purchase,
                                             authorized under a written contract                     initiates or receives telephone calls to or           receive, or use the goods or services that
                                             with an acquirer to honor or accept                     from a customer or donor.                             are the subject of the sales offer;
                                             credit cards, or to transmit or process for                (dd) Telemarketing means a plan,                      (iii) If the seller has a policy of not
                                             payment credit card payments, for the                   program, or campaign which is                         making refunds, cancellations,
                                             purchase of goods or services or a                      conducted to induce the purchase of                   exchanges, or repurchases, a statement
                                             charitable contribution.                                goods or services or a charitable                     informing the customer that this is the
                                                (t) Merchant agreement means a                       contribution, by use of one or more                   seller’s policy; or, if the seller or
                                             written contract between a merchant                     telephones and which involves more                    telemarketer makes a representation
                                             and an acquirer to honor or accept                      than one interstate telephone call. The               about a refund, cancellation, exchange,
                                             credit cards, or to transmit or process for             term does not include the solicitation of             or repurchase policy, a statement of all
                                             payment credit card payments, for the                   sales through the mailing of a catalog                material terms and conditions of such
                                             purchase of goods or services or a                      which: contains a written description or              policy;
                                             charitable contribution.                                illustration of the goods or services                    (iv) In any prize promotion, the odds
                                                (u) Negative option feature means, in                offered for sale; includes the business               of being able to receive the prize, and,
                                             an offer or agreement to sell or provide                address of the seller; includes multiple
                                             any goods or services, a provision under                pages of written material or                            659 When a seller or telemarketer uses, or directs

                                                                                                     illustrations; and has been issued not                a customer to use, a courier to transport payment,
                                             which the customer’s silence or failure                                                                       the seller or telemarketer must make the disclosures
                                             to take an affirmative action to reject                 less frequently than once a year, when                required by § 310.3(a)(1) before sending a courier to
                                             goods or services or to cancel the                      the person making the solicitation does               pick up payment or authorization for payment, or
                                             agreement is interpreted by the seller as               not solicit customers by telephone but                directing a customer to have a courier pick up
                                                                                                     only receives calls initiated by                      payment or authorization for payment. In the case
                                             acceptance of the offer.                                                                                      of debt relief services, the seller or telemarketer
                                                (v) Outbound telephone call means a                  customers in response to the catalog and
sroberts on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES




                                                                                                                                                           must make the disclosures required by § 310.3(a)(1)
                                             telephone call initiated by a                           during those calls takes orders only                  before the consumer enrolls in an offered program.
                                             telemarketer to induce the purchase of                  without further solicitation. For                       660 For offers of consumer credit products subject

                                             goods or services or to solicit a                       purposes of the previous sentence, the                to the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.,
                                                                                                                                                           and Regulation Z, 12 CFR 226, compliance with the
                                             charitable contribution.                                term ‘‘further solicitation’’ does not                disclosure requirements under the Truth in Lending
                                                (w) Person means any individual,                     include providing the customer with                   Act and Regulation Z shall constitute compliance
                                             group, unincorporated association,                      information about, or attempting to sell,             with § 310.3(a)(1)(i) of this Rule.



                                        VerDate Mar<15>2010   16:17 Aug 09, 2010   Jkt 220001   PO 00000   Frm 00061   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10AUR2.SGM   10AUR2
                                             48518             Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

                                             if the odds are not calculable in                       customer to place funds in an account                 the debt relief service will initiate
                                             advance, the factors used in calculating                at an insured financial institution, that             attempts with the customer’s creditors
                                             the odds; that no purchase or payment                   the customer owns the funds held in the               or debt collectors or make a bona fide
                                             is required to win a prize or to                        account, the customer may withdraw                    offer to negotiate, settle, or modify the
                                             participate in a prize promotion and                    from the debt relief service at any time              terms of the customer’s debt; the effect
                                             that any purchase or payment will not                   without penalty, and, if the customer                 of the service on a customer’s
                                             increase the person’s chances of                        withdraws, the customer must receive                  creditworthiness; the effect of the
                                             winning; and the no-purchase/no-                        all funds in the account, other than                  service on collection efforts of the
                                             payment method of participating in the                  funds earned by the debt relief service               customer’s creditors or debt collectors;
                                             prize promotion with either instructions                in compliance with § 310.4(a)(5)(i)(A)                the percentage or number of customers
                                             on how to participate or an address or                  through (C).                                          who attain the represented results; and
                                             local or toll-free telephone number to                     (2) Misrepresenting, directly or by                whether a debt relief service is offered
                                             which customers may write or call for                   implication, in the sale of goods or                  or provided by a non-profit entity.
                                             information on how to participate;                      services any of the following material                   (3) Causing billing information to be
                                                (v) All material costs or conditions to              information:                                          submitted for payment, or collecting or
                                             receive or redeem a prize that is the                      (i) The total costs to purchase, receive,          attempting to collect payment for goods
                                             subject of the prize promotion;                         or use, and the quantity of, any goods                or services or a charitable contribution,
                                                (vi) In the sale of any goods or                     or services that are the subject of a sales           directly or indirectly, without the
                                             services represented to protect, insure,                offer;                                                customer’s or donor’s express verifiable
                                             or otherwise limit a customer’s liability                  (ii) Any material restriction,                     authorization, except when the method
                                             in the event of unauthorized use of the                 limitation, or condition to purchase,                 of payment used is a credit card subject
                                             customer’s credit card, the limits on a                 receive, or use goods or services that are            to protections of the Truth in Lending
                                             cardholder’s liability for unauthorized                 the subject of a sales offer;                         Act and Regulation Z,661 or a debit card
                                             use of a credit card pursuant to 15                        (iii) Any material aspect of the                   subject to the protections of the
                                             U.S.C. 1643;                                            performance, efficacy, nature, or central             Electronic Fund Transfer Act and
                                                (vii) If the offer includes a negative               characteristi