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

moran_cathy
December 17, 2023
Part I discusses projecting income tax deductions on the means test when the year of filing situation looks much like last year. Part II looks at things when they aren’t the same year over year.
Members
image004
April 2, 2023
Consumer law attorney, mentor and educator, Oliver Max Gardner III recently announced that he is retiring. His passion, diligent research and unmatched expertise has served as a north star in consumer law for so many of us. From building a community of like-minded enthusiasts through the renowned Bankruptcy Boot Camp and cultivating an army of consumer litigators to fiercely defending...
August 8, 2021
by William Houston Brown, Adviser, Academy for Consumer Bankruptcy Education, Inc. The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on August 3, 2021, on student loans, and during the Committee hearing, Senator Durbin, Chair of the Committee, stated that he would be introducing an Act to amend student loan discharge provisions in the Bankruptcy Code. That Act was subsequently introduced by...
Members
Copy of Hildebrand-2016
April 17, 2022
In re Galloway, 2022 WL 1017951 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. April 5, 2022) A Chapter 13 trustee’s final audit and notice of completion of payments is not necessary or a precondition to the court granting a discharge to a debtor who has satisfied the requirements of § 1328. (Judge Thorne) Case Summary Tara Galloway filed a Chapter 13 petition in May...
Members
March 8, 2020
By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired) Equal monthly payments and attorney fees. The secured creditor objected to confirmation on basis that the plan improperly deferred its payments until debtor’s attorney fees were paid, and the District Court affirmed confirmation that delayed start of secured equal monthly payments for 21 months. The opinion examines three approaches to the issue: 1)...
Members
Copy of Hildebrand-2016
October 29, 2023
An interesting decision – one we would like for you to weigh in on. Did the Judge get it right? Is this a win for Creditors? Is this yet another case that requires more work from Debtors’ Counsel? Let us hear from you.
Members
September 19, 2021
By Henry E. Hildebrand, III, Chapter 13 Standing Trustee (Nashville, TN) In order for a bankruptcy court to impose sanctions for contempt, Taggart compelsa finding of a violation of a clear and unambiguous order; the bankruptcy court lacks inherent power to issue punitive sanctions under Rule 3002.1. (Jacobs) PHH Mortgage Corporation v. Sensenich, 6 F.4th 503 (2nd Cir. August 2,...
Members
March 21, 2021
By The Honorable Kevin R. Anderson, United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Utah Coming off the longest economic expansion in U.S. history, Chapter 13 filings were at their lowest levels since 2007. With the country entering a sudden and unanticipated recession in February of 2020, we expected to see Chapter 13 filing rates increase; however, the opposite occurred....
Members
Copy of Hildebrand-2016
September 25, 2022
Where a debtor and debtor’s counsel initiated a Chapter 13 petition in an effort to halt a foreclosure against property held by the debtor’s LLC, and where the debtor took no steps to correct the filing, sanctions would be imposed against debtor’s counsel. (Grabill) In re Scaccia, 2022 WL 1216284 (Bankr. E.D. La. April 25, 2022) Case Summary Scaccia owned...
Members
January 3, 2021
By Mark C. Leffler, Boleman Law Firm, PC (Richmond, Hampton, and Va. Beach, VA) Part I: Derby v. Portfolio Recovery Associates Recently, Hon. Keith L. Phillips of the Eastern District of Virginia Bankruptcy Court issued his fourth and final written opinion in the Derby v. Portfolio Recovery Associates adversary proceeding, Adv. Pro. No. 18-03097-KLP, 2020 Bankr. LEXIS 2589 (Bankr. E.D.Va....
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: