Category Archives: Debt Buyer Industry

The First of Its Kind, FTC Study Shines a Light on the Debt Buying Industry, Finds Consumers Would Benefit from Use of Better Data in Debt Collection

For Release

The Federal Trade Commission today announced the results of the first empirical study of debt buyers – companies that are in the business of buying consumer debts and trying to collect on them.

As the Commission has found in its prior work, debt collectors who have insufficient information may approach the wrong consumers, try to collect the wrong amount, or both.  The report, titled The Structure and Practices of the Debt Buying Industry, found there is room for improvement in the information debt buyers have when they contact consumers and try to collect.

The study analyzed more than 5,000 portfolios of consumer debt containing nearly 90 million consumer accounts with a face value of $143 billion.  By dollar amount, most of the debt studied (71 percent) was credit card debt, but the study also included mortgage, medical, utility, telecommunications, and other consumer debt.  The study evaluated the types of information debt buyers received from creditors both at and after the time of purchase, as well as the contracts governing the relationship between debt buyers and creditors.

The report notes that debt buying plays an important role in consumer credit.  Debt buyers paid pennies on the dollar (an average of about 4 cents, with older debt selling for less than newer debt) for the billions of dollars in debts they bought from creditors.  The proceeds from these sales have helped to reduce creditors’ losses from lending money, allowing them to provide more credit at lower prices.

But, as the report points out, debt buying also raises significant consumer protection concerns:  Consumers each year disputed an estimated one million or more debts that debt buyers attempted to collect.  Prior FTC experience has found that consumers often dispute the amount of the debt or that they owe the debt at all.  Debt buyers verified only about half of the disputed debts, which means that buyers either could not verify or did not attempt to verify about 500,000 debts each year.

The report also found that at the time of purchase, creditors provided debt buyers with some important information concerning debts, including the name, address, and telephone number, and social security number of the debtor; the creditor’s account number; the outstanding balance on the account; and the dates of account opening and last payment.  Buyers, however, did not receive some key information about debts purchased, such as whether consumers previously disputed the debts or whether collectors previously verified the debts.  Creditors also imposed limitations on the ability of debt buyers to obtain information and documents about accounts after sale.  Most contracts between creditors and debt buyers stated that the creditors did not warrant that the information they provided to buyers about debts was accurate.

The report cites a need for further research.  The study focused on nine of the nation’s largest debt buyers, which comprised more than 75 percent of the industry, and did not include data from any smaller debt buyers.  The study also did not consider the practices debt buyers used when taking legal action against consumers, or the accuracy of the information debt buyers received and used to collect debts.  Further research on these and other debt buyer topics would be beneficial to policymakers.

The Commission vote to issue the report was 4-0-1, with Commissioner Joshua D. Wright not participating.

Source: Federal Trade Commission

Download the PDF file .

Defending Junk-Debt-Buyer Lawsuits

Peter A. Holland
Peter A. Holland

Peter A. Holland of University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law has just written Defending Junk-Debt-Buyer Lawsuits, Clearinghouse Review, Vol. 46, No. 1-2, May-June 2012.  Here’s the abstract:

Junk debt buyer lawsuits have overwhelmed the courts all across the United States. These lawsuits wreak havoc on consumers and their families. Often overlooked is the fact that judgments against consumers which are based on junk debt are part of a zero sum game, where every bogus judgment deprives a legitimate creditor of the chance to get paid from scarce resources. Thus, the legitimate creditor to whom money is owed is materially harmed by the junk debt buyer who extracts money based on an illegitimate claim, or who causes someone to declare bankruptcy. Providing representation to this otherwise unrepresented population will not only help individual consumers. It could improve the entire U.S. economy, by preserving precious resources to pay what is legitimately owed, and avoiding paying for what is not. This article surveys the landscape of the junk debt buyer industry and provides advice for consumer advocates engaged in the battle against unscrupulous junk debt buyers.

Source: SSRN

Download the PDF file .

Debts, Defaults and Details: Exploring the Impact of Debt Collection Litigation on Consumers and Courts – 6 Virginia Law & Business Review 257 (2011)

Mary Spector
Mary Spector

Mary Spector of Southern Methodist University – Dedman School of Law has written Debts, Defaults and Details: Exploring the Impact of Debt Collection Litigation on Consumers and Courts, 6 Virginia Law & Business Review 257 (2011).  Here’s the abstract:

This Article explores consumer collection litigation through original research from more than five hundred cases filed in the Dallas County courts. It analyzes the data within the context of the modern debt collection industry, paying special attention to the role of debt buyers and to the peculiar legal issues their involvement raises. After explaining the methodology and mechanics used to gather and analyze the data, the Article discusses the data collected, identifying and analyzing the most significant findings and placing them within a larger legal landscape. While the research confirms anecdotal reports of litigation abuse in consumer collection cases, it also reveals some surprising patterns. For example, the research indicates that consumer default was not the most common outcome and that minimal effort by consumers often considerably helped to protect their rights and favorably to conclude the litigation. The Article concludes by discussing some of the implications for the judicial system and by suggesting additional areas of research that would increase understanding of the challenges the litigation presents for parties, their lawyers, and the courts.

Source: SSRN

The One Hundred Billion Dollar Problem in Small Claims Court: Robo-Signing and Lack of Proof in Debt Buyer Cases

Peter A. Holland
Peter A. Holland

Peter A. Holland of University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law has just written The One Hundred Billion Dollar Problem in Small Claims Court: Robo-Signing and Lack of Proof in Debt Buyer Cases, Journal of Business & Technology Law, Vol. 6, p. 259 (2011).   Here’s the abstract:

Recent years have seen the rise of a new industry which has clogged the dockets of small claims courts throughout the country. It is known as the “debt buyer” industry. Members of this $100 billion per year industry exist for no reason other than to purchase consumer debt which others have already deemed uncollectable, and then try to succeed in collecting where others have failed. Debt buyers pay pennies on the dollar for this charged off debt, and then seek to collect, through hundreds of thousands of lawsuits, the full face value of the debt. The emergence and vitality of this industry presents several legal, ethical and economic issues which merit exploration, study and scholarly debate.

This article focuses on the problem of robo-signing and the lack of proof in debt buyer cases. Although this problem has received limited attention from the media and from regulators, there is a paucity of legal scholarship about debt buyers in general, and this problem in particular. This article demonstrates that robo-signing and fraud are rampant in this industry, and that the debt buyers who pursue these claims often lack proof necessary to show that they own the debt, and often lack proof even that a debt was ever owed in the first place. The fact that this lack of proof has led to consumers being sued twice on the same debt demonstrates the due process concerns which are implicated when courts enter judgments against consumers based on robo-signing and insufficient proof.

This article calls on courts to hold plaintiffs in debt buyer cases to the same standards required of other litigants. Courts must require a demonstration of personal knowledge of the matter at issue before any affidavit is accepted, before any person testifies, and before any documents are admitted into evidence.

Source: SSRN

Download the PDF file .