Robert Murphy Consumer Rights Attorney in Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Experts in the video say, forced arbitration is used by companies to prevent them from being sued by you. They do this by adding language into their contracts – often in very tiny print – that requires the signer to submit to an arbitration process of their own choice if you have any complaints about their service.
How does this work? When you sign up for student loans or pay to put a loved one in a nursing home or even agree to a certain job position, there could be a section hidden in the small print. For example, when you buy Comcast services, you are given a twenty plus page contract.
What can you do? Besides urging your own Congress members, not much. An organization called Fair Arbitration Now suggests reading the fine print of your contracts and trying one of three tactics:
- If the contract has an opt-out clause, use it.
- If the contract doesn’t have an opt-out clause, ask to opt out anyway (although your odds aren’t good).
- Take your business to a competitor (although it may be hard to find one that doesn’t also use forced arbitration).
Unfair Debt Collection Attorney Fort Lauderdale, Florida
The Bureau alleges company’s conduct is abusive and deceptive
- Misled consumers by falsely promising them it would begin to settle their debts within three to six months when, in reality, services rarely materialized;
- Enrolled consumers despite knowing that their income level made it highly unlikely that they could complete the debt-relief programs;
- Collected upfront “enrollment” fees from consumers who ADSS knew could not afford the monthly payments required by these debt-relief programs, causing the consumers to spend their last savings on fees for services from which they ultimately would not benefit; and
- Failed to settle these consumers’ debts within the promised time, forcing many consumers to drop out of the program and forfeit their “enrollment” fees without having received any debt-relief services.
Abusive debt collection Practices
CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU TAKES ACTION TO STOP FLORIDA COMPANY FROM ENGAGING IN ILLEGAL DEBT-RELIEF PRACTICE
Fair Debt Collection Attorney Florida
U.S. Defendants Who Allegedly Abetted Fake Debt Collector Calls from India Agree to Settle FTC Charges
Callers Often Posed as Law Enforcement Authorities; Defendants will Be Permanently Barred from Debt Collection, Surrender Ill-Gotten Gains
A California man who worked with bogus debt collectors in India has agreed to settle FTC charges that he and his companies deceived and threatened consumers into paying debts that were not owed or that the defendants were not authorized to collect. As part of the settlement, the defendants will turn over nearly all of their assets, amounting to an estimated $170,000, which will be used for consumer refunds. The case against Villa Park, California-based Varang K. Thaker, American Credit Crunchers, LLC, and Ebeeze, LLC, is part of the FTC’s continuing crackdown on fake debt collectors. The settlement order bans the defendants from debt collection, and prohibits them from misrepresenting:
- that they are affiliated with the government or a non-profit group,
- any terms or conditions for buying any good or service,
- any aspects of the good or service, and
- their refund policy.
- falsely told consumers they were delinquent on a loan, they must pay it, and the defendants had the authority to collect it.
- falsely claimed to be law enforcement authorities or attorneys.
- made false threats against consumers who refused to pay the alleged debts, including threats of arrest or imprisonment.
- harassed and threatened consumers so they often paid the alleged debts out of fear of being arrested or sued.
****************************** ****************************** ******************************
- The Law Firm of Robert W. Murphy aggressively litigates claims against abusive debt collectors. If you have been subjected to harassment or abuse by a debt collector, you may have the ability to bring a claim for statutory and actual damages under federal and state law. Our office typically handles such caes on a “results obtained” or contin- meaning, that our fees are paid by the debt collector.
Fake Debt Collectors
CFPB en Español Features Mobile Capability and Answers to Consumers’ Common Financial Questions
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) launched its Spanish language website. The website, which is optimized for mobile use, provides access to essential consumer resources such as how to submit a consumer complaint and answers to consumers’ frequently asked questions.
“The CFPB is dedicated to being as accessible as possible for the greatest number of consumers,” said CFPB Director Richard Cordray. “CFPB en Español can be a trusted resource for Spanish-speaking consumers looking for clear information on consumer rights attorney and services.”
The CFPB’s mission is to make the consumer financial markets work for all Americans and to empower consumers to make informed, responsible financial decisions. Latinos were particularly hard hit by the recent financial crisis and are often targeted for financial scams. Latinos are also more likely to be unbanked, underbanked, or use alternative products like money transfers and payday loans. According to Census data, 37 million people speak primarily Spanish at home, and of those, 45 percent do not speak English very well. It is critical that those consumers have a place to turn for understandable, unbiased consumer financial information.
More than 75 percent of Latinos access the internet from a mobile device, at least occasionally, according to the September 2012 Pew Hispanic Center National Survey of Latinos. CFPB en Español uses responsive design to optimize content for use on both mobile devices and computers in order to better serve all consumers. CFPB en Español currently features 250 Ask CFPB questions with more to come. Ask CFPB is an online, interactive database of consumers’ most frequently asked questions and answers. The answers are written in easy-to-read, plain language by CFPB subject-matter experts and are an objective resource for consumers. The answers cover common financial situations, from paying for college and owning a home to dealing with debt and sending money to another country.
Consumer Rights Attorney
Attorney Murphy applauds the CFPB in its efforts to expand consumer information to all Americans- including the underserved Spanish speaking community. Our law office has aggressively litigated cases against businesses which fail to provide non-English language disclosures when mandated by specific laws or trade regulations. As an example, in one past federal lawsuit, our firm represented a car buyer against an auto dealer that failed to provide Spanish-language material in either the buyer’s guide or the car window sticker, when the transaction was made in Spanish, for violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA).
Attorney General Announces Suit Against JPMorgan Chase for Fraudulent and Unlawful Debt-Collection Practices
Attorney General Kamala D. Harris of California Announces Suit Against JPMorgan Chase for Fraudulent and Unlawful Debt-Collection Practices. LOS ANGELES — Attorney General Kamala D. Harris today filed an enforcement action against JPMorgan Chase & Co. (Chase) alleging that the bank engaged in fraudulent and unlawful debt-collection practices against tens of thousands of Californians. The suit alleges that Chase engaged in widespread, illegal robo-signing, among other unlawful practices, to commit debt-collection abuse against approximately 100,000 California credit card borrowers over at least a three-year period. “Chase abused the judicial process and engaged in serious misconduct against California credit card borrowers,” Attorney General Harris said. “ This enforcement action seeks to hold Chase accountable for systematically using illegal tactics to flood California’s courts with specious lawsuits against consumers. My office will demand a permanent halt to these practices and redress for borrowers who have been harmed.”
shortcuts to obtain judgments against California consumers with speed and ease that could not have been possible if Chase had adhered to the minimum
substantive and procedural protections required by law. “At nearly every stage of the collection process, Defendants cut corners in the name of speed, cost savings, and their own convenience, providing only the thinnest veneer of legitimacy to their lawsuits,” the complaint states.
Chase used California’s judicial system as a mill to obtain default judgments, the suit alleges, using illegal tactics to flood the state’s court system in
order to secure default judgments and garnish wages from Californians.
The alleged misconduct includes:
• Robo-signing: Chase illegally robo-signed various litigation filings, including sworn documents, declarations, and verified complaints, without
reviewing the relevant files or bank records or even reading the documents before signing.
• “Sewer Service”: Chase failed to properly serve notice of debt collection lawsuits against consumers while claiming they had been served as required by
law. This practice, known as “sewer service,” deprives the consumer of any notice of the lawsuit.
• Filing Irregularities: Chase haphazardly assembled its official legal filings. For example, Chase failed to redact consumers’ personal information in
attachments to filings, potentially exposing them to identity theft and in violation of California law. In addition, when asking courts to enter default
judgments against consumers, Chase consistently swore under penalty of perjury that the consumers were not on active military duty. In fact, Chase never
checked. This deprived service members of important legal protections to which they are entitled while on active duty.
Unlawful Debt-Collection Practices
A copy of the CFPB complaint is available here: http://files.consumerfinance.
Consumer Fraud Lawfirm
ILLEGAL DISCRIMINATORY MARKUP
released a bulletin explaining that certain lenders that offer auto loans
through dealerships are responsible for unlawful, discriminatory pricing.
Potentially discriminatory markups in auto lending may result in tens of
millions of dollars in consumer harm each year, and the bulletin provides
guidance to indirect auto lenders within the CFPB’s jurisdiction on how to
address fair lendingrisk.
“Consumers should not have to pay more for a car loan simply based on their
race,” said CFPB Director Richard Cordray. “Today’s bulletin clarifies our
authority to pursue auto lenders whose policies harm consumers through unlawful
When consumers finance automobile purchases from an auto dealership, the dealer
often facilitates indirect financing through a third party lender. The dealer
plays a valuable role by originating the loan and finding financing sources. In
this indirect auto financing process, the lender usually provides the dealer
with an interest rate that the lender will accept for a given consumer.
Indirect auto lenders often allow the dealer to charge the consumer an interest
rate that is costlier for the consumer than the rate the lender gave the dealer.
This increase in rate is typically called “dealer markup.” The lender shares
part of the revenue from that increased interest rate with the dealer. As a
result, markups generate compensation for dealers while frequently giving them
the discretion to charge consumers different rates regardless of consumer
creditworthiness. Lender policies that provide dealers with this type of
discretion increase the risk of pricing disparities among consumers based on
race, national origin, and potentially other prohibited bases. Research
indicates that markup practices may lead to African Americans and Hispanics
being charged higher markups than other, similarly situated, white consumers.
Today’s bulletin explains how the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) applies to
indirect auto lending. The bulletin also provides guidance for indirect auto
lenders on ways to limit fair lending risk. The ECOA makes it illegal for a
creditor to discriminate in any aspect of a credit transaction on prohibited
bases including race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, and
age. The CFPB recommends that indirect auto lenders within its jurisdiction take
steps to ensure that they are operating in compliance with fair lending laws as
applied to dealer markup and compensation policies. These steps may include, but
are not limited to:
Fair Lending Practices
dealer markup policies
part of a robust fair lending compliance program; and
fairly compensating dealers using a different mechanism that does not result in
discrimination, such as flat fees per transaction.
The bulletin is available here: http://files.consumerfinance.