Quick analysis: Do you remember… when September was still unpredictable?

FDCPA filings in September had an almost 10% increase over those in August, while FCRA dipped by 26% and TCPA reversed a big August slump and grew by almost 14%. However, all statutes are still on track to fulfill destinies that were set early this year.

In other words, it was a chaotic month that barely had an impact on the overall filing trends. Welcome to our world.

One interesting little related observation… while monthly numbers have been all over the place, there is one set of numbers that have not once broken form this year: YTD trends. Every single month in 2016 has had FDCPA down from the same month in 2015, while every single month in 2016 has seen both TCPA and FCRA up over the same month in 2015.

2016-jan-sept-monthly-fdcpa-tcpa-fcra

Another interesting little observation… This happens to be the month that FDCPA filings have officially dipped to more than 1000 below this time in 2015, and that TCPA filings have officially surpassed 2015 filings by more than 1000.

Crazy, no? It is not hard to put together where all of those FDCPA lawsuits are going…

On to the stats:

Comparisons: Current Period: Previous Period: Previous Year Comp:
Sep 01, 2016
Sep 30, 2016
Aug 01, 2016
Aug 31, 2016
Sep 01, 2015
Sep 30, 2015
CFPB Complaints  3120 4221 -26.1% 3192 -2.3%
FDCPA lawsuits  927 848 9.3% 923 0.4%
FCRA lawsuits  283 383 -26.1% 352 -19.6%
TCPA lawsuits  449 395 13.7% 318 41.2%
YTD CFPB Complaints  29793 31564 -5.6%
YTD FDCPA lawsuits  8027 9093 -11.7%
YTD FCRA lawsuits  2930 2562 14.4%
YTD TCPA lawsuits  3712 2648 40.2%

 

Complaint Statistics:

3120 consumers filed CFPB complaints against debt collectors and about 1341 consumers filed lawsuits under consumer statutes from Sep 01, 2016 to Sep 30, 2016. Here is an approximate breakdown:

  • 3120 CFPB Complaints
  • 927 FDCPA, 161 Class Action (17.4%)
  • 449 TCPA, 119 Class Action (26.5%)
  • 283 FCRA, 26 Class Action (9.2%)

Litigation Summary (scroll down for CFPB data):

  • Of those cases, there were about 1341 unique plaintiffs (including multiple plaintiffs in one suit).
  • Of those plaintiffs, about 541, or (40%), had sued under consumer statutes before.
  • Combined, those plaintiffs have filed about 3671 lawsuits since 2001
  • Actions were filed in 168 different US District Court branches.
  • About 986 different collection firms and creditors were sued.

The top courts where lawsuits were filed:

  • 117 Lawsuits: Illinois Northern District Court – Chicago
  • 70 Lawsuits: New York Eastern District Court – Brooklyn
  • 64 Lawsuits: California Central District Court – Los Angeles
  • 48 Lawsuits: Georgia Northern District Court – Atlanta
  • 45 Lawsuits: Florida Middle District Court – Tampa
  • 39 Lawsuits: Florida Southern District Court – Fort Lauderdale
  • 35 Lawsuits: California Central District Court – Southern Division – Santa Ana
  • 33 Lawsuits: Nevada District Court – Las Vegas
  • 32 Lawsuits: California Southern District Court – San Diego
  • 30 Lawsuits: Pennsylvania Eastern District Court – Philadelphia

The most active consumer attorneys were:

  • Representing 54 Consumers: TODD M FRIEDMAN
  • Representing 37 Consumers: AHMAD TAYSEER SULAIMAN
  • Representing 37 Consumers: MOHAMMED OMAR BADWAN
  • Representing 34 Consumers: CRAIG B SANDERS
  • Representing 33 Consumers: MATTHEW THOMAS BERRY
  • Representing 33 Consumers: ADRIAN ROBERT BACON
  • Representing 32 Consumers: CELETHA CHATMAN
  • Representing 32 Consumers: MICHAEL JACOB WOOD
  • Representing 27 Consumers: AMY LYNN BENNECOFF GINSBURG
  • Representing 23 Consumers: NATHAN CHARLES VOLHEIM

Statistics Year to Date:
12125 total lawsuits for 2016, including:

  • 8027 FDCPA
  • 2930 FCRA
  • 3712 TCPA

Number of Unique Plaintiffs for 2016: 11154 (including multiple plaintiffs in one suit)

The most active consumer attorneys of the year:

  • Representing 351 Consumers: TODD M FRIEDMAN
  • Representing 289 Consumers: MATTHEW THOMAS BERRY
  • Representing 229 Consumers: DAVID H KRIEGER
  • Representing 227 Consumers: ADRIAN ROBERT BACON
  • Representing 219 Consumers: PAUL JONATHAN SIEG
  • Representing 209 Consumers: DAVID SCOTT KLAIN
  • Representing 198 Consumers: SERGEI LEMBERG
  • Representing 194 Consumers: MICHAEL JACOB WOOD
  • Representing 193 Consumers: AHMAD TAYSEER SULAIMAN
  • Representing 191 Consumers: CELETHA CHATMAN

——————————————————————————————————-
CFPB Complaint Statistics:

There were 3120 complaints filed against debt collectors from Sep 01, 2016 to Sep 30, 2016.

Total number of debt collectors complained about: 734

The types of debt behind the complaints were:

  • 998 Other (i.e. phone, health club, etc.) (32%)
  • 657 I do not know (21%)
  • 533 Credit card (17%)
  • 516 Medical (17%)
  • 119 Mortgage (4%)
  • 112 Payday loan (4%)
  • 88 Auto (3%)
  • 60 Non-federal student loan (2%)
  • 37 Federal student loan (1%)

Here is a breakdown of complaints:

  • 1286 Cont’d attempts collect debt not owed (41%)
  • 863 Disclosure verification of debt (28%)
  • 374 Communication tactics (12%)
  • 248 False statements or representation (8%)
  • 182 Improper contact or sharing of info (6%)
  • 167 Taking/threatening an illegal action (5%)

The top five subissues were:

  • 710 Debt is not mine (23%)
  • 634 Not given enough info to verify debt (20%)
  • 377 Debt was paid (12%)
  • 216 Frequent or repeated calls (7%)
  • 201 Attempted to collect wrong amount (6%)

The top states complaints were filed from are:

  • 371 Complaints: CA
  • 365 Complaints: TX
  • 307 Complaints: FL
  • 191 Complaints: NY
  • 181 Complaints: GA
  • 115 Complaints: IL
  • 103 Complaints: PA
  • 102 Complaints: OH
  • 100 Complaints: AZ
  • 99 Complaints: NJ

The status of the month’s complaints are as follows:

  • 3120 (100%)

This includes 2883 (92%) timely responses to complaints, and 237 (8%) untimely responses.

Of the company responses, consumers accepted 0 (%) of them, disputed 483 (15%) of them, and 2637 (85%) were N\A.

The top five days for complaints were:

  • 160 Complaints: Thu, 09/29/2016
  • 156 Complaints: Thu, 09/15/2016
  • 156 Complaints: Thu, 09/22/2016
  • 149 Complaints: Wed, 09/07/2016
  • 141 Complaints: Mon, 09/12/2016

 

API Access


We offer two powerful APIs to businesses that communicate with consumers:

  • The primary Litigious Consumer Scrub uses a combination of name, geography (and optionally SSN) to identify consumers who have filed lawsuits in the past.
  • The Litigious Consumer Phone Scrub pulls every phone number from our proprietary database of litigants and runs your phones against ours.

These APIs allow you to check your data against our database on the fly. Clients love using this to handle risk management without missing a beat in their daily workflow.

Workers Comp Scrub


Workers Comp-inspired FDCPA lawsuits are growing aggressively, particularly in Florida. Only WebRecon can tell you who in your database may have a Florida Worker’s Comp case filed that could trigger litigation against you.

You can’t stop 100% of all lawsuits, but if you collect medical in Florida and you don’t have a process in place to show the court that you have a way to check every file against the Workers Comp database, then you have lost the case before it even begins.

Knock these suits out of the park with the Workers Comp Scrub.

Our Monthly Client Newsletter with The Litigant Hotsheet


Anyone can get our guest newsletter, but only clients get the version with the Litigant Hotsheet –  identifying the most active consumer Plaintiffs filing suit in jurisdictions around the country each month. Grab a coffee, shut your door and open your database to make sure you are doing all you can to stay safe.

Individual Vendor Consumer Complaint Search


Just like Vendor Monitoring, but without the monitoring. Search any business’s history of consumer complaints (Litigation, CFPB, BBB, State AG) with the click of a button! Great for on-the-fly gut checks of the companies you do business with.

Vendor Monitoring


Through vicarious liability, you can be held accountable for the bad behavior of your vendors. If they abuse consumers, for all intents and purposes, so do you. This is a big freakin’ deal!

But fear not, friend. WebRecon can track consumer litigation, CFPB, BBB and State AG Office complaints against the companies you do business with.

When a new complaint of any kind is filed against any of the companies you are monitoring, we’ll automatically push a report out to you with all of the publicly available details so you can react accordingly and if necessary, protect your interests.

The Litigious Consumer Phone Scrub


Would you knowingly dial a number attached to a consumer with a history of litigation? Of course not.

But thousands of companies do just that, every single day. If you’d like to know who they are, simply review the court dockets. They are the ones getting sued the most.

Sure, you can stop dialing consumers. But your marketing and operations teams might not be too excited about that plan.

Another idea? Identify the consumers most likely to sue you, based on previous litigation histories, and just don’t call them.

Identify high-risk phones quickly & easily, before you expose yourself to unnecessary risk.

Litigation Context Search


This is really cool.

Our primary search engine is really designed to search for parties to litigation. Need to know more about a consumer plaintiff? That’s easy. Defendant? Check. Lawyer? No problem.

But if you need to find all 1099C lawsuits filed in July 2020… not so much.

Which is why we developed the Context Search. We have pulled out and indexed the full text from over 140k consumer lawsuits and made them available to you in a search engine, with more than 1000 new lawsuits added each month. Use it to search the text of filed litigation so you can easily identify those hard-to-define trends and cases worth following.

Individual Search Engine


Instantly and easily search our proprietary database for any lawsuit participant – Plaintiff, Defendant or Attorney.

In the results, we’ll show you the full consumer litigation history of any participant, including the “docket data” (who, what, why, where, when) and – in many cases – we can even provide a copy of their actual filed lawsuits.

You can also search by phone, date range, federal/state, class action, court, statute, etc. We offer a ton of flexibility to get you the exact search result you are looking for.

The Litigant Alert Ongoing Monitoring Process


Just like our one-time batch process, but without the whole “one time” thing.

When one of your consumers files new litigation against anyone in the future, you should be the first to know. Our monitoring service can make that happen.

WebRecon can monitor your entire database (or any segment of it) for future instances of consumer litigation filed by the very consumers you are working with, right now!

It is simple to add new consumers to the watchlist, remove inactive accounts, download full reports, etc.

Best of all, we only charge you for the volume of your monitoring database – not the frequency of the searches. Search daily, weekly, every Tuesday and Friday, the 15th of each month, whatever – it is totally up to you! You won’t pay a penny more.

The Litigant Alert One-Time Batch Process


This is our flagship service. Find out why hundreds of companies won’t contact any consumers before running them through WebRecon’s Litigant Alert.

This process identifies consumers with a history of litigation quickly & easily. If they have ever filed lawsuits under FDCPA, TCPA, FCRA or similar statutes, you’ll find out here. 

WebRecon’s proprietary database is simply the most comprehensive collection of dangerous consumer litigation data in existence. 

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.