Home > Managing Debt > CFPB: Debt Collector Misled AT&T Customers

Comments 0 Comments

Millions of AT&T mobile phone consumers were caught up in a debt collection effort that led to legal action against a third-party collector, according to complaint filed by Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on Monday.

The complaint alleges EOS, a Massachusetts-based collection firm, reported and collected on old cellphone debt that consumers disputed and was not verified. The debts were sold to EOS and its subsidiary US Asset Management in 2012 by AT&T.

The complaint involve more than 3 million collection accounts — the largest debt portfolio ever purchased by the firm from the cellphone provider. However, according to it, the portfolio consisted “mainly of old accounts that AT&T had sent to multiple collection agencies.” And many of the debts were ineligible for collection, the CFPB alleged.

The outstanding debt totaled $2.3 billion, but EOS paid $35.4 million for it – not much more than a penny on the dollar. Still, the portfolio contained accounts that should not have been subject to collection, and AT&T was unable to substantiate some of the alleged debts, the CFPB said.

“Contrary to the sales agreement with AT&T, the portfolio contained time-barred debt, fraudulent debt, and debts consumers disputed as having been paid or settled,” the CFPB wrote in a press release.

A consent order made public by the CFPB would require EOS to overhaul its debt collection practices, refund at least $743,000 to consumers, and pay a $1.85 million civil money penalty.

AT&T is not the subject of the CFPB complaint or consent order, and has not been accused of any wrongdoing.

“Today’s action was specifically regarding the illegal conduct by EOS. Regarding AT&T, the Bureau does not confirm or deny any subjects or matters under investigation,” bureau spokeswoman Moira Vahey said.

AT&T did not immediately return requests for comment about the legal action against its third-party debt collector.

EOS said in a press release that it had already worked to improve its policies and procedures and welcomed the legal resolution.

“Prior to the audit by the CFPB, EOS CCA had taken extensive steps to revamp its compliance management system,” the firm wrote. “The Consent Order requirements outlined by the CFPB represent policies and procedures already implemented at the company. EOS CCA cooperated fully with the CFPB during the course of its audit and has chosen to the settle matters to move forward and demonstrate its commitment to protecting and treating consumers fairly.”

Per the complaint, not long after the sale of AT&T’s portfolio, in January 2013, a senior manager at EOS warned that there were problems with the portfolio. Nevertheless, the company continued to report inaccurate information about the debts to credit reporting agencies, and continued to attempt collection, even after consumers disputed the debts or the firm was unable to verify the debts were still owed, the CFPB said.

The firm also took the unexplained step of reporting all three million accounts as disputed by the account holder shortly after acquiring the portfolio. A month later, EOS reversed course and deleted most of the dispute flags. In early October 2012, it reinstated the dispute flags; then a few weeks later, deleted most of those dispute histories. EOS did not respond to a question seeking an explanation of this behavior.

In June 2014, EOS took steps to identify accounts that had potentially been paid, including contacting AT&T for additional information. According to the complaint, AT&T’s response was incomplete.

“A&TT reviewed only a subset of the accounts EOS provided and concluded that 20% of the accounts it reviewed had been paid or settled,” the CFPB said. “AT&T did not, however, give EOS any information or documentation revealing whether the remaining accounts on EOS’s list were still outstanding.”

The firm has now identified 10,000 accounts that may have been paid or resolved.

“EOS does not have sufficient, or in some cases, any documentation from AT&T to refute consumers’ claims that the vast majority of these accounts have been paid or resolved,” the CFPB said.

EOS made false and misleading representations when attempting to collect on the debts, the CFPB said.

“EOS continued to represent that consumers owed the amounts claimed on particular accounts even after learning that AT&T Portfolio contained unreliable data with respect to some accounts, including previously paid or settled accounts,” it said. EOS also kept reporting the consumers to the credit reporting agencies.

“After buying a portfolio of debt, EOS soon learned of several red flags that raised doubts about the debt’s validity. Even so, EOS still proceeded to collect certain disputed and unverified debts,” CFPB Director Richard Cordray said in a press release. “It is unacceptable that consumers were harmed by these practices and that the company supplied inaccurate information to the credit reporting companies, so today we are taking action to stop it.”

Under the consent order, EOS would be barred from collecting on an AT&T debt that a consumer has disputed and the firm is unable to substantiate. The firm would also barred from reselling debts for five years.

Debt collection accounts can damage your credit, so it’s always a good idea to monitor your credit report and dispute any fraudulent ones with the credit reporting agencies. You can pull your credit reports for free each year at AnnualCreditReport.com and see your credit scores for free each month on Credit.com.

More on Managing Debt:

Image: AntonioGuillem

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

Certain credit cards and other financial products mentioned in this and other articles on Credit.com News & Advice may also be offered through Credit.com product pages, and Credit.com will be compensated if our users apply for and ultimately sign up for any of these cards or products. However, this relationship does not result in any preferential editorial treatment.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Our Owners

Credit.com is owned by Progrexion Holdings Inc. which is the owner and administrator of a number of business related to credit and credit repair, including CreditRepair.com, and eFolks. In addition, Progrexion also provides services to Lexington Law Firm as a third party provider. Despite being owned by Progrexion, it is not the role of the Credit.com editorial team to advocate the use of the company’s other services. In articles, reporters may mention credit repair as an option, for example, but we’ll also be sure to note the various alternatives to that service. Furthermore, you may see ads for credit repair services on Credit.com, but the editorial team isn’t responsible for the creation or implementation of those ads, anymore than reporters for the New York Times or Washington Post are responsible for the ads on their sites.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

- The Credit.com Editorial Team