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

February 24, 2019
On June 26, 2017, Bradford W. Caraway was appointed as the Chapter 13 Standing Trustee for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division. He replaced D. Sims Crawford who had been appointed as a United States Bankruptcy Judge for the Northern District of Alabama. Trustee Caraway maintains his office in Birmingham. At the time of his appointment as Standing Trustee,...
Members
William-1_print_2019
On June 6, the Supreme Court’s unanimous opinion in Siegel v. Fitzgerald1 held that the increase in U.S. Trustee fees in Chapter 11 cases violated the uniformity requirement of the Constitution’s Bankruptcy Clause,2 because the fee increase in 2017 only applied to in the U.S. Trustee districts and didn’t apply to the Bankruptcy Administrator districts in Alabama and North Carolina....
November 7, 2021
By Sean G. O'Hair, Staff Attorney to Chapter 13 Standing Trustee Nancy Curry (Los Angeles, CA) Recent changes to the Handbook for Chapter 13 Standing Trustees promise to bring renewed scrutinyto the reasonableness of document requests by a chapter 13 trustee for documents that are not otherwise required to be provided by law.1 The basic idea appears to be that...
Members
Hayes Jury
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
October 31, 2021
By Eric K. Fox, Esq. (Hendersonville, TN) Jane Debtor has a home with a mortgage. An unsecured creditor obtains a judgment against Jane for, say, a credit card debt. Creditor’s attorney records a certified copy of the judgement order with the county register of deeds, thereby converting the unsecured claim against Jane in personam, to a secured claim against her...
Members
November 15, 2020
By David Cox,1 Cox Law Group, PLLC (Lynchburg, VA) Click here for Part 1 II. Dealing With Balloon, Short Term and Related Mortgage Secured Claims Under §§ 1322(c)(2) And 1325(a)(5). § 1322(c)(2) provides that: “Notwithstanding subsection (b)(2) and applicable nonbankruptcy law . . . It looks like you are not signed in or registered! This content is only available to...
Members
JamesDavis
February 25, 2024
“Over the years courts have struggled to apply the lien-avoidance provisions under § 522(f) to jointly owned property. . . .Things get even more confusing when the debtor owns property as a tenancy by the entireties. That antiquated form of ownership has odd characteristics that do not fit well into the § 522(f) calculation.”
Members
November 14, 2021
By Henry E. Hildebrand, III, Chapter 13 Standing Trustee for the Middle District of TN (Nashville) The automatic stay does not require a creditor pursuing a prepetition nonbankruptcy court action to dismiss that action once a bankruptcy case is filed; requesting continuances and attending status conferences do not constitute “continuation” of the prepetition action for purposes of the automatic stay....
Members
February 16, 2020
By Lawrence R. Ahern, III, Brown & Ahern (Nashville, TN) Introduction This series has focused on the four bankruptcy-related bills that were enacted during the 116th Congress and signed into law on August 23, 2019. One bill, the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (SBRA), will be effective February 19, 2020. It appears in its entirety in Appendix B to...
Members
December 20, 2020
By Robert S. Thomas, II,1 Chapter 13 Standing Trustee for the District of Maryland (Baltimore) All stakeholders strive to make the Chapter 13 program efficient and beneficial to all parties. The Chapter 13 program has evolved over the years to better serve debtors and creditors. This is due in part because of the remarkable actions taken daily by our Bankruptcy...

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: