CFPB Warns Companies Against Tricking Consumers Into Expensive Pay-By-Phone Fees

Bureau Concerned About Companies Misleading Consumers About Pay-By-Phone Fees,
Keeping Them in the Dark About Much Cheaper Options

RELEASE: July 31, 2017

CFPB issued a bulletin warning companies about tricking consumers into expensive pay-by-phone fees. The Bureau is concerned about companies potentially misleading consumers about the purpose and amount of certain pay-by-phone fees or keeping them in the dark about much cheaper payment options. The bulletin also reviews guidelines to help consumer financial companies comply with the law.

The bulletin is available at: http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201707_cfpb_compliance-bulletin-phone-pay-fee.pdf
 
Most financial service companies give consumers several options to make payments. Some consumers may choose to pay bills by phone using an automated system or speaking with a live customer representative. Companies may charge different pay-by-phone fees depending on what method of payment the consumer uses, such as payment by electronic check, debit card, or credit card. Consumers may also be charged an additional fee to expedite phone payments, though many companies offer consumers no-fee or lower-fee pay-by-phone options that post after a delay. In its supervision and enforcement activities, the Bureau identified harmful practices regarding pay-by-phone fees such as: 

  • Misleading consumers about pay-by-phone fees: The Bureau is concerned about companies misrepresenting the purpose and amount of pay-by-phone fees, which can result in consumers incurring charges for services they don’t need. For example, a recent Bureau enforcement action alleged that a company and its service provider misled consumers into paying a $14.95 pay-by-phone fee by deceptively calling it a “processing” charge. The fee was actually for posting payment to the account the same day. Consumers paying by phone ended up being charged for expedited payment even though most of them did not need to post payment on the same day. Moreover, many were not aware of no-cost payment alternatives that would post after a delay.
  • Keeping consumers in the dark about much cheaper payment options: Some companies do not disclose their fees in writing upfront to consumers. Instead, they may depend solely on phone representatives to disclose the relevant fees to consumers before the charge is imposed. These representatives may then fail to inform consumers about significant price differences between available pay-by-phone options. This may substantially harm consumers who wind up using much more expensive options because they are not informed that significantly cheaper options are available.

CFPB does not mandate any particular way to inform consumers about pay-by-phone options and fees. However, the Bureau expects companies to review their practices for potential risks of violating consumer financial laws and to address any issues.  Appropriate risk management and due diligence can help companies avoid harming consumers through unlawful practices and help them comply with federal laws. The CFPB recommends that financial institutions take steps to ensure that they are following laws related to pay-by-phone fees. Companies should review state and federal laws to confirm they can charge such fees, and review their policies and procedures. Companies should also review consumer complaints about fees that are charged.

No Author Biography has been linked to this Article.

Related Articles

January 20, 2019
By Lawrence R. Ahern III, Brown & Ahern (Nashville, TN) PART I: Statutes, Rules & Supreme Court (In)actions Introduction Click here for Part II Click here for Part III Click here for Part IV What is the effect of an arbitration clause in bankruptcy? When . . . It looks like you are not signed in or registered! This content...
Members
ahern_larry_regular
April 30, 2023
Introduction One new rule and amendments to 16 rules took effect December 1, 2022.  Many reflected changes necessitated by the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (SBRA), and had been in place in the same or similar form on an interim basis since that legislation took effect.  Part 1 of this series summarized . . . It looks like you...
Members
November 24, 2019
____________________________ Prior to his appointment as a bankruptcy judge for the District of Utah in September of 2015, Judge Anderson served for seventeen years as the Standing Chapter 13 Trustee for the District of Utah. During this time, he administered over 70,000 Chapter 13 cases. Judge Anderson was elected president of the National Association of Chapter 13 Trustees (NACTT), and...
Members
October 20, 2019
By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired) Objection sustained to one-year late proof of claim. The mortgage creditor did not object to confirmation nor file a proof of claim until one year after the bar date in the Chapter 13 case. The trustee objected to the claim, which asserted a higher arrearage than provided for in the confirmed plan. Section...
Members
Copy of Hildebrand-2016
October 23, 2022
A referral fee by retained special counsel paid to debtor’s attorney violates the prohibition in § 504 in that it constitutes an unauthorized splitting of attorney’s fees. (Williamson) In re Davis, 638 B.R. 198 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. March 31, 2022) Case Summary Four years after Lisa Davis filed her Chapter 13 petition, she was involved in an auto accident resulting...
Members
July 12, 2020
By Wayne Silver, Wayne Silver Law (Redwood City, CA) There you are, client on the witness stand, judge listening intently, story being told on direct exactly the way you prepared her, things going just swimmingly. And then opposing counsel stands and utters those two lovely words…”Objection, hearsay.” Huh? That’s ridiculous, you confidently think to yourself, just as you hear the...
Members
March 14, 2021
By Mark S. Wheeler, Staff Attorney to M.O. Marshall, Standing Chapter 13 Trustee (Chicago, IL) (Used with expressed permission. Published February 2021 in the Northern District of Illinois Bankruptcy Court Liaison Committee Newsletter.) Despite appearing before the Senior Bankruptcy Judge for the Northern District of Illinois perhaps hundreds of times over the last 29 years, I was uncharacteristically nervous to...
hayes
March 24, 2024
Bankruptcy Court in Texas awards sanctions of $825,940.55 for bad faith filing and prosecution of a proof of claim. (Yes it’s an 11 but still, $825k!)
Members
January 27, 2019
1/18/19 the Treasury Department and the IRS issued final regulations and three related pieces of guidance, implementing the new qualified business income (QBI) deduction (section 199A deduction). The new QBI deduction, created by the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) allows many owners of sole proprietorships, partnerships, S corporations, trusts, or estates to deduct up to 20 percent of...
October 13, 2019
IRS officials announced on 10/8/19 that a new payment option has been added to the private debt collection program to make it easier for those who owe to pay their tax debts. Taxpayers now can choose the convenient option of a preauthorized direct debit to make one payment or a series of payments toward their federal tax debt. With direct...
Members

Looking to Become a Member?

ConsiderChapter13.org offers a forum to advance continuing education of consumer bankruptcy via access to insightful articles, informative webinars, and the latest industry news. Join now to benefit from expert resources and stay informed.

Webinars

These informative sessions are led by industry experts and cover a range of consumer bankruptcy topics.

Member Articles

Written by industry experts, these articles provide in-depth analysis and practical guidance on consumer bankruptcy topics.

Industry News

The Academy is the go-to source for the latest news and analysis in the Chapter 13 bankruptcy industry.

To get started, please let us know which of these best fits your current position: