Public Workshop: Debt Collection 2.0: Protecting Consumers as Technologies Change, 14010-14014 [2011-6002]

Download as PDF 14010 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Notices least five days advance notice; last minute requests will be accepted, but may be impossible to fill. Federal Communications Commission Julius P. Knapp, Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology. [FR Doc. 2011–6005 Filed 3–14–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712–01–P FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Change in Bank Control Notices; Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies; Correction This notice corrects a notice (FR Doc. 2011–5166) published on page 12739 of the issue for Tuesday, March 8, 2011. Under the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas heading, the entry for Comerica, Inc., Dallas, Texas, is revised to read as follows: A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (E. Ann Worthy, Vice President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201– 2272: 1. Comerica, Inc., Dallas, Texas; to acquire through Comerica Bayou Acquisition Corporation, 100 percent of the voting shares of Sterling Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire Sterling Bank, both of Houston, Texas. Comments on this application must be received by April 1, 2011. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 10, 2011. Robert deV. Frierson, Deputy Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc. 2011–5991 Filed 3–14–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210–01–P FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)). The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:50 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 must be received not later than March 30, 2011. A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice President), 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690–1414: 1. Gary W. Melvin, Alex J. Melvin, David W. Melvin and Laura A. Voyles, all of Sullivan, Illinois; as a group acting in concert, to acquire voting shares of First Mid-Illinois Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire control of First Mid-Illinois Bank & Trust, National Association, both of Mattoon, Illinois. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 10, 2011. Robert deV. Frierson, Deputy Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc. 2011–5992 Filed 3–14–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210–01–P FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Public Workshop: Debt Collection 2.0: Protecting Consumers as Technologies Change Federal Trade Commission (‘‘FTC’’ or the ‘‘Commission’’). ACTION: Public Workshop and Request for Public Comments and Participation. AGENCY: The FTC announces that it will hold a public workshop on April 28, 2011, to address consumer protection issues that have arisen as debt collectors avail themselves of advances in technology. The workshop will explore developments in technology that debt collectors use to gather, store, and manage information about consumers; to comply with the law; to communicate with consumers; and to receive payment. The workshop will provide an opportunity for government regulators, industry members, technologists, consumer advocates, and researchers, to discuss the costs and benefits of these technologies for debt collectors and consumers. It will also address whether and how collectors may use such technologies consistent with applicable laws, including the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Section 5 of the FTC Act, what consumer protection concerns arise from use of these technologies, and what actions, if any, the Commission and other policymakers should take to respond to those concerns. This notice poses a series of questions on which the Commission seeks comment. The event is open to the public, and there is no fee for attendance. For admittance to the workshop, all attendees will be required to show a valid form of government-issued photo identification, such as a driver’s license. SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Additional information about the workshop will be posted on the FTC’s Web site at: https://www.ftc.gov/bcp/ workshops/debtcollectiontech/ index.shtml. Date and Location: The workshop will be held on April 28, 2011, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., at the Federal Trade Commission’s Satellite Building Conference Center, located at 601 New Jersey Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. Workshop Agenda: Additional information, including an agenda and panelist biographies, will be posted on the FTC’s Web site at https:// www.ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/ debtcollectiontech/index.shtml. Public Comments: Interested parties are invited to submit written comments electronically or in paper form, by following the instructions in the Instructions For Filing Comments part of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. Comments filed in electronic form should be submitted by using the following Web link: https:// ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/ debtcollecttechworkshop, and following the instructions on the Web-based form. Comments in paper form should be mailed or delivered to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H–113 (Annex F), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580, in the manner detailed in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. To be considered in preparation for the workshop, comments must be received by Thursday, April 7, 2011. However, comments will be accepted through Friday, May 27, 2011. Requests to Participate as Workshop Panelists: FTC staff will identify and invite individuals with relevant expertise to participate as panelists. In addition, the FTC staff may invite other persons to participate as panelists who submit requests in response to this Federal Register notice. Requests to participate as panelists in the workshop must be received on or before 5 p.m. EST, Tuesday, March 22, 2011. Persons filing requests to participate as panelists will be notified whether they have been selected on or before Wednesday, March 31, 2011. For further instructions, please see the ‘‘Requests to Participate as Workshop Panelists’’ section under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leah Frazier, (202) 326–3224, dctech@ftc.gov, Division of Financial Practices, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Mail Stop NJ–3158, Washington, DC 20580. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: When the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act E:\FR\FM\15MRN1.SGM 15MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Notices srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES (‘‘FDCPA’’), 15 U.S.C. 1692–1692p, was enacted in 1977, debt collectors contacted consumers to collect debts primarily through mail and landline telephone, reflecting the means of communication then available. Technological advances have expanded the tools available to debt collection companies as they attempt to locate consumers, monitor their employees’ practices, communicate with consumers, and receive payment on debts. The Commission examined these developments as part of a broad review of the evolution of the debt collection industry at a public workshop held in 2007. Using data gleaned from the workshop, public comments, and the FTC’s law enforcement experience, the Commission issued a report in 2009, Collecting Consumer Debts: The Challenges of Change—A Workshop Report.1 The Report recognized that the legal framework for consumer debt collection had not been updated to account for many technological advances, and that, in some instances, the Commission lacked data on the use of new technologies in the debt collection system.2 Further exploration of the impact of evolving technology on consumer debt collection is warranted not only in light of questions raised by the 2007 workshop and ensuing Report, but also due to developments that have occurred since then, such as the increasing popularity of social media networking sites.3 Facebook, which did not become available to the general public until 2006, now has approximately 150 million users in the United States,4 and some debt collectors are using it to find and contact debtors.5 The technology that debt collectors use to obtain, store, and manage information about 1 Federal Trade Commission, Collecting Consumer Debts: The Challenges of Change—A Workshop Report (Feb. 2009), available at https:// www.ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/debtcollection/ dcwr.pdf (hereinafter ‘‘Report’’). 2 Id. at 38 (lack of data on frequency of debt collection calls resulting in ‘‘hang-ups’’ or ‘‘dead air’’ calls). The Commission requested that interested parties submit information on the use of certain technologies in debt collection. Id. at 42 (mobile phones); id. at 45 (caller ID); id. at 49 (voice-mail); id. at 50–51 (e-mail and instant messaging). 3 Social media refers to Internet Web sites that enable people to network, communicate, or share information. Examples of social media sites include Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, and LinkedIn. 4 See Facebook, Statistics, https:// www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics (last visited Jan. 25, 2011). 5 See, e.g., Alexis Madrigal, Facebook Warns Debt Collectors About Using Its Service, The Atlantic (Nov. 19, 2010), available at https:// www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/11/ facebook-warns-debt-collectors-about-using-itsservice/66831/#. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:50 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 consumers also continues to evolve.6 In addition, collectors may be using older technologies in new ways. For example, although electronic mail (‘‘e-mail’’) is not a new technology, its use by debt collectors to contact consumers has increased, giving rise to questions about its treatment under the current regulatory scheme.7 Similarly, the use of electronic payments continues to rise.8 Debt collectors, like many retailers, have begun to accept payment from consumers electronically.9 These trends call for a discussion of the relative costs and benefits to consumers and the debt collection industry of these technologies and correspondingly, whether there is a need for action, including changes in law, policy, or industry practice. As discussed below, advances in technology can affect the entire debt collection life cycle, from locating consumers and communicating with them to receiving payment. Information Technologies Advances in technology may assist debt collectors in managing the flow of information about consumers and improving its accuracy. The Internet, through public search engines and proprietary commercial platforms, allows access to large quantities of information about consumers in a consolidated and searchable format.10 Web-based social media channels also contribute to the available pool of data, as they allow consumers to post information about themselves online, including the identities of friends and family members, whom collectors could approach for certain information. Further, a variety of database platforms now exist that purport to aid debt collectors in maintaining and updating 6 See, e.g., Press Release, Collections & Credit Risks, Convoke Systems Adopted By Debt Buyers (Jan. 20, 2011), available at https://www.collections creditrisk.com/news/news-release-convoke-systemsadopted-by-debt-buyers-3004747–1.html; Global Debt Registry Recognized As Visa PCI DSS Validated Service Provider, Business Wire (Jan. 31, 2011), available at https://www.businesswire.com/ news/home/20110131006698/en/Global-DebtRegistry-Recognized-Visa-PCI–DSS. 7 Letter from FTC Secretary Donald S. Clark to Barbara A. Sinsley & Manny H. Newburger, counsel for Vion Holdings LLC. 8 Federal Reserve System, The 2010 Federal Reserve Payments Study: Noncash Payment Trends in the United States: 2006–2009 (Dec. 8, 2010), at 13 (‘‘The number of electronic payments grew 9.3 percent per year from 2006 to 2009. The proportion of electronic payments to overall noncash payments increased from 67.9 percent to 77.6 percent over the same period. The value of electronic payments increased 6.0 percent per year, growing from 45.1 percent of noncash payments in 2006 to 56.3 percent in 2009.’’), available at https:// www.frbservices.org/files/communications/pdf/ press/2010_payments_study.pdf. 9 Report, supra note 1, at 20. 10 Report, supra note 1, at 18–19. PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 14011 information about consumers.11 All of these technologies may enhance collectors’ ability to locate or skip-trace consumers and verify the accuracy of their information. At the same time, however, the collection and retention of what may be sensitive personally identifiable information may raise privacy concerns for consumers. Developments in technology may also aid collection companies in complying with the law by enabling them to better monitor and constrain their individual collectors as they communicate with consumers. For example, certain software may allow companies to track both volume level during calls and the words used and to record calls so that companies can monitor for verbal abuse.12 Other software programs might be used to limit the number of calls per day placed to a telephone number, exclude placing calls to a telephone number before 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. in the relevant area code, or otherwise limit how frequently a collector dials a particular number.13 Communication Technologies Post-FDCPA advances in communication technologies are of particular import, since the existing legal framework focuses heavily on communications between consumers and debt collectors.14 Technology has expanded debt collectors’ capacity to access consumers. Collectors may use automatic or predictive dialers and recorded voice technology to contact people more efficiently. Mobile phones now abound. Indeed, many households have given up land line phones in favor of mobile phones, enabling consumers to receive calls regardless of their location.15 Additionally, means of communication exist today beyond the simple voice and written communications contemplated by the FDCPA. For instance, collectors sometimes send text messages using the Short Messaging System. In addition, at times debt collectors use the Internet to interact with consumers. Internet communications include sending emails and instant messages as well as interacting on social networking sites. While these communication 11 Report, supra note 1, at 17–20. e.g., Anne Rosso, Technology Tug O= War, Collector, Dec. 2010, at 20. 13 See John H. Bedard Jr., Dialer Control, Collector, Feb. 2010, at 32. 14 See, e.g., FDCPA § 805(a)(1), 15 U.S.C. 1692c(a)(1) (time and place restrictions on telephone calls from debt collectors communications); FDCPA §§ 805(c), 809(b) (written notice requirements). 15 Report, supra note 1, at 16 (By June 2008, 16% of consumers had replaced their landline telephones with mobile phones.). 12 See, E:\FR\FM\15MRN1.SGM 15MRN1 14012 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Notices technologies may provide benefits, they raise potential consumer protection concerns as well, including the security of electronic communications, whether such communications satisfy the FDCPA’s written notice requirements, and how they implicate the FDCPA’s prohibition against contacting consumers at inconvenient times or places.16 Payment Technologies Debt collectors, like many retailers, offer payment options to consumers other than cash or check, such as credit, debit, and stored value cards and automated clearinghouse transactions (‘‘ACH’’).17 As discussed in the Report, these technologies can benefit consumers and debt collectors alike by streamlining the payment process and, in some cases, allowing consumers to engage in online negotiations with collectors.18 The Report, however, also identified the potential for unauthorized debits as a significant consumer protection concern arising from the use of electronic payment technologies.19 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES The Workshop The workshop will focus on postFDCPA advancements in information, communication, and payment technologies. Workshop panelists will discuss, among other things, the effects that these technologies have had on the debt collection industry, the prevalence of their use, best practices for their use, what consumer protection concerns they raise, and what responses those concerns may warrant. The Commission seeks public comment and data submission on the topics and questions set forth below or any issue raised by this notice. Comments or data submissions may address the issues raised in these questions or other issues relevant to the topics to be addressed at the workshop. Any interested person may submit written comments. In preparing for the workshop, the Commission will consider comments received by April 7, 2011. Later comments will be accepted as well through May 27, 2011. Topics for comment and discussion include: 1. What technologies have come into existence since the enactment of the FDCPA that have significantly affected consumer debt collection, or are likely 16 FDCPA § 809(a) (written validation notice from collector to consumer); FDCPA §§ 805(c) & 809(b) (written notices from consumer to collector); FDCPA § 805(a)(1) (convenience restrictions). 17 Report, supra note 1, at 20. 18 Report, supra note 1, at 20. 19 Report, supra note 1, at 51–55. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:50 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 to do so in the future? What are the nature and magnitude of these effects? Information Technologies 2. Have any advances in technology been made that could increase the likelihood that collectors will contact the correct consumer regarding the correct debt amount? What are the costs and benefits of using any such technology to consumers and the industry? How commonly is such technology being used? Does its use vary by size or type of debt collector? If its use is not widespread, why is that the case? What role, if any, should the Commission or other policymakers play in fostering the use of such technology? 3. Have technological advances changed how and where debt collectors obtain information about consumers and debt? How have technological advances affected the efficacy of skip-tracing and recovery rates? What are the recent innovations in skip-tracing applications? What are the sources of the data they access about consumers? 4. What technologies do collectors use to maintain information regarding consumers and debts (e.g., how do collectors record consumer disputes)? How do technological advances affect collectors’ ability to ensure both that inaccurate information is removed from collectors’ databases and that information indicating that a consumer should not be contacted is reflected in collectors’ databases? To what extent is information overwritten by collectors in using or transferring to others the contents of databases, and what problems can this cause? 5. Do new information technologies create greater or different privacy or data security risks in the context of debt collection than traditional communication technologies? If so, what are the risks of such technologies, and how are the risks different? What, if anything, should collectors be required to do to prevent or mitigate these risks? What do debt collectors do to keep information on consumers and debts secure? How frequently do data breaches occur? What sorts of breaches occur? 6. What technologies do creditors, debt buyers, and debt collectors use in transferring information among themselves about alleged debtors and debts? What information is transferred, and when and how is it transferred? How has technology affected the availability of media evidencing debt and the ability to store and transfer that material? To what extent are there problems with systems being unable to interact with each other? PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 7. What is the prevalence and feasibility of outsourcing the transfer (and storage) of information to thirdparty firms that act as repositories of information on consumer debts? What are the potential costs and benefits to consumers, collectors, and creditors of such repositories? What role should creditors play with respect to these repositories? Should the Commission or other policymakers mandate or encourage the use or creation of such repositories? 8. To what extent do advances in technology affect the process of selling debts, the ease and speed of selling debts, and the quantity and nature of the information conveyed when debts are sold? Are debt sales negotiated or closed using social media sites or Internet marketplaces? What is the significance, if any, of whether debts are bought or sold via social media or the Internet? What would be the costs and benefits to consumers of buying or selling debts through these media? 9. How do current federal and state laws apply to debt collectors’ use of post-FDCPA information technologies? How, if at all, should the law be changed to take into account the costs and benefits of these technologies to consumers and collectors? Communication Technologies 10. What are the costs and benefits to collectors and consumers of using various methods to communicate with consumers? Are the costs and benefits different for traditional communication technologies (e.g., letters and landline telephone calls) compared with new communication technologies (e.g., social networking sites, e-mail, text messages, etc.)? 11. Should debt collectors be required to obtain consumer consent to use particular methods of communication to contact consumers? If so, which communication methods and why? Should it depend on whether the consumer provided the creditor or collector with the necessary contact information? If consent should be required, what, if anything, should collectors be required to do to obtain such consent? How likely are consumers to provide such consent? 12. Do new communication technologies create any greater or different privacy or data security risks in the context of debt collection than traditional communication technologies? If so, which communication methods create greater or different risks? What are the risks of such methods, and how are the risks different? What, if anything, should E:\FR\FM\15MRN1.SGM 15MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Notices collectors be required to do to prevent or mitigate these risks? 13. Do new communication technologies in the context of debt collection create different risks of deception, unfairness, or abuse, compared to those associated with traditional technologies? If so, which technologies, and why? 14. What proportion of debt collectors’ communications to consumers proceed by various modalities (e.g., letters, e-mail messages, calls to mobile phones, use of artificial or prerecorded voices, etc.)? Are there variations by size of collection firm or type of debt subject to collection? If so, what are the variations? 15. How do current Federal and State laws apply to debt collectors’ and consumers’ use of post-FDCPA communication technologies? How, if at all, should the law be changed to take into account the costs and benefits of these technologies to collectors and consumers? srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES Payment Technologies 16. What proportion of consumer payments to debt collectors proceed by various payment methods (e.g., paper checks, ACH debits, or online credit card payment portals)? Are there variations by size of collection firm or type of debt subject to collection? If so, how? 17. What are the costs and benefits to collectors and consumers of accepting consumer payments using electronic payment technologies (e.g., direct ACH debits, electronic checks, online payment portals) as compared to traditional payment technologies (e.g., paper checks, credit card payments)? 18. Does debt collector use of electronic payment technologies create any greater or different privacy or data security risks in the context of debt collection than in the general retail industry? If so, which payment technologies create greater or different risks? What are the risks of such methods, and how are the risks different? What, if anything, should collectors be required to do to prevent or mitigate these risks? 19. Do electronic payment technologies in the context of debt collection create different risks of deception, unfairness, or abuse, compared to those associated with traditional technologies? If so, which technologies, and why? 20. How, if at all, should collectors be required to obtain and document consumer consent to making a payment using various payment technologies? Should requirements for collectors VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:50 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 differ from requirements for general retailers? 21. How do current federal and state laws apply to debt collectors’ use of post-FDCPA payment technologies? How, if at all, should the law be changed to take into account the costs and benefits of these technologies to consumers and collectors? Instructions for Filing Comments Interested parties are invited to submit written comments electronically or in paper form. Comments should refer to ‘‘Debt Collection 2.0, Project No. P114802’’ to facilitate the organization of comments. Please note that your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including on the publicly accessible FTC Web site, https://www.ftc.gov/os/ publiccomments.shtm. To be considered in preparation for the workshop, comments must be received by April 7, 2011, although the Commission will accept comments until May 27, 2011. Because comments will be made public, they should not include any sensitive personal information, such as any individual’s Social Security Number; date of birth; driver’s license number or other state identification number, or foreign country equivalent; passport number; financial account number; or credit or debit card number. Comments also should not include any sensitive health information, such as medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, comments should not include any ‘‘[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which is obtained from any person and which is privileged or confidential * * *, ’’ as provided in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled ‘‘Confidential,’’ and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).20 Because paper mail addressed to the FTC is subject to delay due to heightened security screening, please consider submitting your comments in electronic form. Comments filed in electronic form should be submitted using the following Web link: https:// 20 The comment must be accompanied by an explicit request for confidential treatment, including the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record. The request will be granted or denied by the Commission’s General Counsel, consistent with applicable law and the public interest. See FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c). PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 14013 ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/ debtcollecttechworkshop (and following the instructions on the Web-based form). If this document appears at https://www.regulations.gov/#!home, you may also file an electronic comment through that Web site. The Commission will consider all timely comments that regulations.gov forwards to it. You may also visit the FTC Web site at https:// www.ftc.gov to read this notice and the related news release. A comment filed in paper form should include the ‘‘Debt Collection 2.0, Project No. P114802’’ reference both in the text and on the envelope, and should be mailed or delivered to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H–113 (Annex F), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580. The FTC is requesting that any comment filed in paper form be sent by courier or overnight service, if possible, because U.S. postal mail in the Washington area and at the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security precautions. The FTC Act and other laws the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives, whether filed in paper or electronic form. Comments received will be available to the public on the FTC Web site, to the extent practicable, at https://www.ftc.gov/os/ publiccomments.shtm. As a matter of discretion, the Commission makes every effort to remove home contact information for individuals from the public comments it receives before placing those comments on the FTC Web site. More information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, may be found in the FTC’s privacy policy at https://www.ftc.gov/ftc/ privacy.shtm. Requests To Participate as Workshop Panelists The FTC staff will identify and invite individuals with relevant expertise to participate as panelists. In addition, the FTC staff may invite other persons to participate as panelists who submit requests in response to this Federal Register notice. Requests to participate as workshop panelists must be received in writing by 5 p.m. EST on Tuesday, March 22, 2011, and should refer to ‘‘Debt Collection 2.0—Panelist Participation Request.’’ Such requests (except requests containing any confidential material) E:\FR\FM\15MRN1.SGM 15MRN1 14014 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Notices should be submitted in electronic form to dctech@ftc.gov and should be captioned: ADebt Collection 2.0— Panelist Participation Request.’’ If the request to participate contains any material for which confidential treatment is requested, it must be filed in paper (rather than electronic) form, and the first page of the document must be clearly labeled ‘‘Confidential.’’ Please include an original and two copies of each document submitted in paper form. Requests submitted in paper form should include this reference both in the text and on the envelope, and should be sent by overnight delivery or courier to the following address: Debt Collection 2.0, c/o Leah Frazier, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Mail Stop 3158, Washington, DC 20580. Requests to participate as workshop panelists should include the following information: (1) A brief biographical description, ´ ´ resume, or curriculum vitae, including name and affiliation; (2) A statement setting forth the potential panelist’s expertise in or knowledge of one or more issues likely to be addressed by the workshop; (3) A list of the topic(s) that the potential panelist would like to address, and a one-paragraph summary of the potential panelist’s unique perspective or knowledge of each such topic; and (4) Contact information, including a daytime telephone number, facsimile number, and e-mail address (if available). Parties filing requests to participate as workshop panelists will be notified whether they have been selected on or before Thursday, March 31, 2011. The FTC Act and other laws the Commission administers permit the collection of requests to participate as workshop panelists to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. More information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, may be found in the FTC’s privacy policy at https://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy/htm. By direction of the Commission. Donald S. Clark, Secretary. [FR Doc. 2011–6002 Filed 3–14–11; 8:45 am] srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES BILLING CODE 6750–01–P FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Public Roundtables: Protecting Consumers in the Sale and Leasing of Motor Vehicles Federal Trade Commission (FTC or Commission). AGENCY: VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:50 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 Notice announcing public roundtables, requesting participation, and providing opportunity for comment. ACTION: On July 21, 2010, President Obama signed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act). Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the FTC is authorized to prescribe rules under Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) with respect to unfair or deceptive acts or practices by motor vehicle dealers. To explore consumer protection issues pertaining to motor vehicle sales and leasing, the FTC is hosting a series of public roundtables in 2011. The roundtables will be held in three to five cities around the United States, starting in April 2011. The roundtables will provide an opportunity for regulators, consumer advocates, industry participants, and other interested parties to discuss consumer protection issues in connection with motor vehicle sales and leasing. This notice addresses various topics and questions that the Commission expects to discuss at the first roundtable. This notice also provides an opportunity for comment. DATES: The first roundtable will occur on April 12, 2011. Dates for the additional roundtables to be held in 2011 will be posted on the FTC Web site at https://www.ftc.gov. Requests to participate as a panelist for the first roundtable, and any written comments on roundtable topics, must follow the instructions provided below under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION and be received by March 28, 2011, to be considered in preparing for the roundtable. ADDRESSES: The first roundtable will be held at Wayne State University Law School, in Detroit, Michigan on April 12, 2011. Further information about all of the roundtables will be posted on the FTC=s Web site at https://www.ftc.gov. All of the roundtables will be free and open to the public. Those who plan to attend a roundtable are encouraged to preregister by sending an email listing their name and affiliation to Preregister MotorVehicleRoundtables1@ftc.gov. This information will be used for planning purposes only. Those who wish to participate as a panelist at a roundtable, and those who wish to submit comments, should follow the instructions in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. Whether or not selected to participate, persons may submit written comments on roundtable topics. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katherine Worthman or Carole Reynolds, Attorneys, Division of SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Financial Practices, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326– 3224. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background Having access to a motor vehicle is essential for many consumers to fulfill their daily obligations. However, purchasing or leasing a car is usually a substantial expense. For many consumers, aside from housing costs, a car purchase or lease is their most expensive financial transaction.1 With prices averaging more than $28,000 for a new vehicle and $14,000 for a used vehicle from a dealer, most consumers seek to lease or finance the purchase of a new or used car. Consumers may seek financing from their local bank or credit union, as well as from the dealer selling the vehicle. Financing obtained at the dealership, whether it is provided by a third party or directly by the dealer, may provide benefits for many consumers such as convenience, special manufacturer-sponsored programs, access to a variety of banks and financial entities, or access to credit otherwise unavailable to a buyer. Dealer-arranged financing, however, can be a complicated, opaque process and could potentially involve unfair or deceptive practices. As the nation’s consumer protection agency,2 the Commission is committed to protecting consumers in connection with these financial transactions. 1 The average price of a new car sold in the U.S. is $28,966, according to the National Automobile Dealers Association. See NADA DATA 2010, at 2, available at https://www.nada.org/Publications/ NADADATA/2010/default (2009 data). Average used car prices range from $8,459 (independent companies) to $14,976 (dealerships). See NIADA Used Car Industry Report 2010, at 18, available at https://www.niada.com/PDFs/Publications/ 2010IndustryReport.pdf (citing data from the National Independent Automobile Dealers Association Report and CNW Marketing Research), and NADA DATA 2010, at 2, respectively (2009 data). 2 The Commission currently has enforcement authority over most non-bank entities for numerous consumer protection statutes, including, for example, Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act), 15 U.S.C. 45, which broadly proscribes unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce; the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. 1601–1666j, and the Consumer Leasing Act, 15 U.S.C. 1667–1667f, and their implementing Regulation Z, 12 CFR 226; the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. 1691–1691f, and its implementing Regulation B, 12 CFR 202; the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C. 1693–1693r, and its implementing Regulation E, 12 CFR 205; and the privacy provisions of the Gramm-Leach Bliley Act, 15 U.S.C. 6801–6809. Subject to various provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Commission generally retains its enforcement authority for these various statutes; in some instances, that authority may be concurrent with the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB). E:\FR\FM\15MRN1.SGM 15MRN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 50 (Tuesday, March 15, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14010-14014]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6002]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION


Public Workshop: Debt Collection 2.0: Protecting Consumers as 
Technologies Change

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission (``FTC'' or the ``Commission'').

ACTION: Public Workshop and Request for Public Comments and 
Participation.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FTC announces that it will hold a public workshop on April 
28, 2011, to address consumer protection issues that have arisen as 
debt collectors avail themselves of advances in technology. The 
workshop will explore developments in technology that debt collectors 
use to gather, store, and manage information about consumers; to comply 
with the law; to communicate with consumers; and to receive payment. 
The workshop will provide an opportunity for government regulators, 
industry members, technologists, consumer advocates, and researchers, 
to discuss the costs and benefits of these technologies for debt 
collectors and consumers. It will also address whether and how 
collectors may use such technologies consistent with applicable laws, 
including the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Section 5 of the 
FTC Act, what consumer protection concerns arise from use of these 
technologies, and what actions, if any, the Commission and other 
policymakers should take to respond to those concerns. This notice 
poses a series of questions on which the Commission seeks comment.
    The event is open to the public, and there is no fee for 
attendance. For admittance to the workshop, all attendees will be 
required to show a valid form of government-issued photo 
identification, such as a driver's license. Additional information 
about the workshop will be posted on the FTC's Web site at: https://www.ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/debtcollectiontech/index.shtml.
    Date and Location: The workshop will be held on April 28, 2011, 
from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., at the Federal Trade Commission's 
Satellite Building Conference Center, located at 601 New Jersey Avenue, 
NW., Washington, DC.
    Workshop Agenda: Additional information, including an agenda and 
panelist biographies, will be posted on the FTC's Web site at https://www.ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/debtcollectiontech/index.shtml.
    Public Comments: Interested parties are invited to submit written 
comments electronically or in paper form, by following the instructions 
in the Instructions For Filing Comments part of the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section below. Comments filed in electronic form should be 
submitted by using the following Web link: https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/debtcollecttechworkshop, and following 
the instructions on the Web-based form. Comments in paper form should 
be mailed or delivered to the following address: Federal Trade 
Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H-113 (Annex F), 600 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580, in the manner detailed 
in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. To be considered in 
preparation for the workshop, comments must be received by Thursday, 
April 7, 2011. However, comments will be accepted through Friday, May 
27, 2011.
    Requests to Participate as Workshop Panelists: FTC staff will 
identify and invite individuals with relevant expertise to participate 
as panelists. In addition, the FTC staff may invite other persons to 
participate as panelists who submit requests in response to this 
Federal Register notice. Requests to participate as panelists in the 
workshop must be received on or before 5 p.m. EST, Tuesday, March 22, 
2011. Persons filing requests to participate as panelists will be 
notified whether they have been selected on or before Wednesday, March 
31, 2011. For further instructions, please see the ``Requests to 
Participate as Workshop Panelists'' section under SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leah Frazier, (202) 326-3224, 
dctech@ftc.gov, Division of Financial Practices, Federal Trade 
Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Mail Stop NJ-3158, 
Washington, DC 20580.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: When the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

[[Page 14011]]

(``FDCPA''), 15 U.S.C. 1692-1692p, was enacted in 1977, debt collectors 
contacted consumers to collect debts primarily through mail and 
landline telephone, reflecting the means of communication then 
available. Technological advances have expanded the tools available to 
debt collection companies as they attempt to locate consumers, monitor 
their employees' practices, communicate with consumers, and receive 
payment on debts. The Commission examined these developments as part of 
a broad review of the evolution of the debt collection industry at a 
public workshop held in 2007. Using data gleaned from the workshop, 
public comments, and the FTC's law enforcement experience, the 
Commission issued a report in 2009, Collecting Consumer Debts: The 
Challenges of Change--A Workshop Report.\1\ The Report recognized that 
the legal framework for consumer debt collection had not been updated 
to account for many technological advances, and that, in some 
instances, the Commission lacked data on the use of new technologies in 
the debt collection system.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Federal Trade Commission, Collecting Consumer Debts: The 
Challenges of Change--A Workshop Report (Feb. 2009), available at 
https://www.ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/debtcollection/dcwr.pdf 
(hereinafter ``Report'').
    \2\ Id. at 38 (lack of data on frequency of debt collection 
calls resulting in ``hang-ups'' or ``dead air'' calls). The 
Commission requested that interested parties submit information on 
the use of certain technologies in debt collection. Id. at 42 
(mobile phones); id. at 45 (caller ID); id. at 49 (voice-mail); id. 
at 50-51 (e-mail and instant messaging).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further exploration of the impact of evolving technology on 
consumer debt collection is warranted not only in light of questions 
raised by the 2007 workshop and ensuing Report, but also due to 
developments that have occurred since then, such as the increasing 
popularity of social media networking sites.\3\ Facebook, which did not 
become available to the general public until 2006, now has 
approximately 150 million users in the United States,\4\ and some debt 
collectors are using it to find and contact debtors.\5\ The technology 
that debt collectors use to obtain, store, and manage information about 
consumers also continues to evolve.\6\ In addition, collectors may be 
using older technologies in new ways. For example, although electronic 
mail (``e-mail'') is not a new technology, its use by debt collectors 
to contact consumers has increased, giving rise to questions about its 
treatment under the current regulatory scheme.\7\ Similarly, the use of 
electronic payments continues to rise.\8\ Debt collectors, like many 
retailers, have begun to accept payment from consumers 
electronically.\9\ These trends call for a discussion of the relative 
costs and benefits to consumers and the debt collection industry of 
these technologies and correspondingly, whether there is a need for 
action, including changes in law, policy, or industry practice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Social media refers to Internet Web sites that enable people 
to network, communicate, or share information. Examples of social 
media sites include Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, and LinkedIn.
    \4\ See Facebook, Statistics, https://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics (last visited Jan. 25, 2011).
    \5\ See, e.g., Alexis Madrigal, Facebook Warns Debt Collectors 
About Using Its Service, The Atlantic (Nov. 19, 2010), available at 
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/11/facebook-warns-debt-collectors-about-using-its-service/66831/#.
    \6\ See, e.g., Press Release, Collections & Credit Risks, 
Convoke Systems Adopted By Debt Buyers (Jan. 20, 2011), available at 
https://www.collectionscreditrisk.com/news/news-release-convoke-systems-adopted-by-debt-buyers-3004747-1.html; Global Debt Registry 
Recognized As Visa PCI DSS Validated Service Provider, Business Wire 
(Jan. 31, 2011), available at https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110131006698/en/Global-Debt-Registry-Recognized-Visa-PCI-DSS.
    \7\ Letter from FTC Secretary Donald S. Clark to Barbara A. 
Sinsley & Manny H. Newburger, counsel for Vion Holdings LLC.
    \8\ Federal Reserve System, The 2010 Federal Reserve Payments 
Study: Noncash Payment Trends in the United States: 2006-2009 (Dec. 
8, 2010), at 13 (``The number of electronic payments grew 9.3 
percent per year from 2006 to 2009. The proportion of electronic 
payments to overall noncash payments increased from 67.9 percent to 
77.6 percent over the same period. The value of electronic payments 
increased 6.0 percent per year, growing from 45.1 percent of noncash 
payments in 2006 to 56.3 percent in 2009.''), available at https://www.frbservices.org/files/communications/pdf/press/2010_payments_study.pdf.
    \9\ Report, supra note 1, at 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed below, advances in technology can affect the entire 
debt collection life cycle, from locating consumers and communicating 
with them to receiving payment.

Information Technologies

    Advances in technology may assist debt collectors in managing the 
flow of information about consumers and improving its accuracy. The 
Internet, through public search engines and proprietary commercial 
platforms, allows access to large quantities of information about 
consumers in a consolidated and searchable format.\10\ Web-based social 
media channels also contribute to the available pool of data, as they 
allow consumers to post information about themselves online, including 
the identities of friends and family members, whom collectors could 
approach for certain information. Further, a variety of database 
platforms now exist that purport to aid debt collectors in maintaining 
and updating information about consumers.\11\ All of these technologies 
may enhance collectors' ability to locate or skip-trace consumers and 
verify the accuracy of their information. At the same time, however, 
the collection and retention of what may be sensitive personally 
identifiable information may raise privacy concerns for consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Report, supra note 1, at 18-19.
    \11\ Report, supra note 1, at 17-20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Developments in technology may also aid collection companies in 
complying with the law by enabling them to better monitor and constrain 
their individual collectors as they communicate with consumers. For 
example, certain software may allow companies to track both volume 
level during calls and the words used and to record calls so that 
companies can monitor for verbal abuse.\12\ Other software programs 
might be used to limit the number of calls per day placed to a 
telephone number, exclude placing calls to a telephone number before 8 
a.m. or after 9 p.m. in the relevant area code, or otherwise limit how 
frequently a collector dials a particular number.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See, e.g., Anne Rosso, Technology Tug O= War, Collector, 
Dec. 2010, at 20.
    \13\ See John H. Bedard Jr., Dialer Control, Collector, Feb. 
2010, at 32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Communication Technologies

    Post-FDCPA advances in communication technologies are of particular 
import, since the existing legal framework focuses heavily on 
communications between consumers and debt collectors.\14\ Technology 
has expanded debt collectors' capacity to access consumers. Collectors 
may use automatic or predictive dialers and recorded voice technology 
to contact people more efficiently. Mobile phones now abound. Indeed, 
many households have given up land line phones in favor of mobile 
phones, enabling consumers to receive calls regardless of their 
location.\15\ Additionally, means of communication exist today beyond 
the simple voice and written communications contemplated by the FDCPA. 
For instance, collectors sometimes send text messages using the Short 
Messaging System. In addition, at times debt collectors use the 
Internet to interact with consumers. Internet communications include 
sending e-mails and instant messages as well as interacting on social 
networking sites. While these communication

[[Page 14012]]

technologies may provide benefits, they raise potential consumer 
protection concerns as well, including the security of electronic 
communications, whether such communications satisfy the FDCPA's written 
notice requirements, and how they implicate the FDCPA's prohibition 
against contacting consumers at inconvenient times or places.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See, e.g., FDCPA Sec.  805(a)(1), 15 U.S.C. 1692c(a)(1) 
(time and place restrictions on telephone calls from debt collectors 
communications); FDCPA Sec. Sec.  805(c), 809(b) (written notice 
requirements).
    \15\ Report, supra note 1, at 16 (By June 2008, 16% of consumers 
had replaced their landline telephones with mobile phones.).
    \16\ FDCPA Sec.  809(a) (written validation notice from 
collector to consumer); FDCPA Sec. Sec.  805(c) & 809(b) (written 
notices from consumer to collector); FDCPA Sec.  805(a)(1) 
(convenience restrictions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Payment Technologies

    Debt collectors, like many retailers, offer payment options to 
consumers other than cash or check, such as credit, debit, and stored 
value cards and automated clearinghouse transactions (``ACH'').\17\ As 
discussed in the Report, these technologies can benefit consumers and 
debt collectors alike by streamlining the payment process and, in some 
cases, allowing consumers to engage in online negotiations with 
collectors.\18\ The Report, however, also identified the potential for 
unauthorized debits as a significant consumer protection concern 
arising from the use of electronic payment technologies.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Report, supra note 1, at 20.
    \18\ Report, supra note 1, at 20.
    \19\ Report, supra note 1, at 51-55.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Workshop

    The workshop will focus on post-FDCPA advancements in information, 
communication, and payment technologies. Workshop panelists will 
discuss, among other things, the effects that these technologies have 
had on the debt collection industry, the prevalence of their use, best 
practices for their use, what consumer protection concerns they raise, 
and what responses those concerns may warrant.
    The Commission seeks public comment and data submission on the 
topics and questions set forth below or any issue raised by this 
notice. Comments or data submissions may address the issues raised in 
these questions or other issues relevant to the topics to be addressed 
at the workshop. Any interested person may submit written comments. In 
preparing for the workshop, the Commission will consider comments 
received by April 7, 2011. Later comments will be accepted as well 
through May 27, 2011.
    Topics for comment and discussion include:
    1. What technologies have come into existence since the enactment 
of the FDCPA that have significantly affected consumer debt collection, 
or are likely to do so in the future? What are the nature and magnitude 
of these effects?

Information Technologies

    2. Have any advances in technology been made that could increase 
the likelihood that collectors will contact the correct consumer 
regarding the correct debt amount? What are the costs and benefits of 
using any such technology to consumers and the industry? How commonly 
is such technology being used? Does its use vary by size or type of 
debt collector? If its use is not widespread, why is that the case? 
What role, if any, should the Commission or other policymakers play in 
fostering the use of such technology?
    3. Have technological advances changed how and where debt 
collectors obtain information about consumers and debt? How have 
technological advances affected the efficacy of skip-tracing and 
recovery rates? What are the recent innovations in skip-tracing 
applications? What are the sources of the data they access about 
consumers?
    4. What technologies do collectors use to maintain information 
regarding consumers and debts (e.g., how do collectors record consumer 
disputes)? How do technological advances affect collectors' ability to 
ensure both that inaccurate information is removed from collectors' 
databases and that information indicating that a consumer should not be 
contacted is reflected in collectors' databases? To what extent is 
information overwritten by collectors in using or transferring to 
others the contents of databases, and what problems can this cause?
    5. Do new information technologies create greater or different 
privacy or data security risks in the context of debt collection than 
traditional communication technologies? If so, what are the risks of 
such technologies, and how are the risks different? What, if anything, 
should collectors be required to do to prevent or mitigate these risks? 
What do debt collectors do to keep information on consumers and debts 
secure? How frequently do data breaches occur? What sorts of breaches 
occur?
    6. What technologies do creditors, debt buyers, and debt collectors 
use in transferring information among themselves about alleged debtors 
and debts? What information is transferred, and when and how is it 
transferred? How has technology affected the availability of media 
evidencing debt and the ability to store and transfer that material? To 
what extent are there problems with systems being unable to interact 
with each other?
    7. What is the prevalence and feasibility of outsourcing the 
transfer (and storage) of information to third-party firms that act as 
repositories of information on consumer debts? What are the potential 
costs and benefits to consumers, collectors, and creditors of such 
repositories? What role should creditors play with respect to these 
repositories? Should the Commission or other policymakers mandate or 
encourage the use or creation of such repositories?
    8. To what extent do advances in technology affect the process of 
selling debts, the ease and speed of selling debts, and the quantity 
and nature of the information conveyed when debts are sold? Are debt 
sales negotiated or closed using social media sites or Internet 
marketplaces? What is the significance, if any, of whether debts are 
bought or sold via social media or the Internet? What would be the 
costs and benefits to consumers of buying or selling debts through 
these media?
    9. How do current federal and state laws apply to debt collectors' 
use of post-FDCPA information technologies? How, if at all, should the 
law be changed to take into account the costs and benefits of these 
technologies to consumers and collectors?

Communication Technologies

    10. What are the costs and benefits to collectors and consumers of 
using various methods to communicate with consumers? Are the costs and 
benefits different for traditional communication technologies (e.g., 
letters and landline telephone calls) compared with new communication 
technologies (e.g., social networking sites, e-mail, text messages, 
etc.)?
    11. Should debt collectors be required to obtain consumer consent 
to use particular methods of communication to contact consumers? If so, 
which communication methods and why? Should it depend on whether the 
consumer provided the creditor or collector with the necessary contact 
information? If consent should be required, what, if anything, should 
collectors be required to do to obtain such consent? How likely are 
consumers to provide such consent?
    12. Do new communication technologies create any greater or 
different privacy or data security risks in the context of debt 
collection than traditional communication technologies? If so, which 
communication methods create greater or different risks? What are the 
risks of such methods, and how are the risks different? What, if 
anything, should

[[Page 14013]]

collectors be required to do to prevent or mitigate these risks?
    13. Do new communication technologies in the context of debt 
collection create different risks of deception, unfairness, or abuse, 
compared to those associated with traditional technologies? If so, 
which technologies, and why?
    14. What proportion of debt collectors' communications to consumers 
proceed by various modalities (e.g., letters, e-mail messages, calls to 
mobile phones, use of artificial or prerecorded voices, etc.)? Are 
there variations by size of collection firm or type of debt subject to 
collection? If so, what are the variations?
    15. How do current Federal and State laws apply to debt collectors' 
and consumers' use of post-FDCPA communication technologies? How, if at 
all, should the law be changed to take into account the costs and 
benefits of these technologies to collectors and consumers?

Payment Technologies

    16. What proportion of consumer payments to debt collectors proceed 
by various payment methods (e.g., paper checks, ACH debits, or online 
credit card payment portals)? Are there variations by size of 
collection firm or type of debt subject to collection? If so, how?
    17. What are the costs and benefits to collectors and consumers of 
accepting consumer payments using electronic payment technologies 
(e.g., direct ACH debits, electronic checks, online payment portals) as 
compared to traditional payment technologies (e.g., paper checks, 
credit card payments)?
    18. Does debt collector use of electronic payment technologies 
create any greater or different privacy or data security risks in the 
context of debt collection than in the general retail industry? If so, 
which payment technologies create greater or different risks? What are 
the risks of such methods, and how are the risks different? What, if 
anything, should collectors be required to do to prevent or mitigate 
these risks?
    19. Do electronic payment technologies in the context of debt 
collection create different risks of deception, unfairness, or abuse, 
compared to those associated with traditional technologies? If so, 
which technologies, and why?
    20. How, if at all, should collectors be required to obtain and 
document consumer consent to making a payment using various payment 
technologies? Should requirements for collectors differ from 
requirements for general retailers?
    21. How do current federal and state laws apply to debt collectors' 
use of post-FDCPA payment technologies? How, if at all, should the law 
be changed to take into account the costs and benefits of these 
technologies to consumers and collectors?

Instructions for Filing Comments

    Interested parties are invited to submit written comments 
electronically or in paper form. Comments should refer to ``Debt 
Collection 2.0, Project No. P114802'' to facilitate the organization of 
comments. Please note that your comment--including your name and your 
state--will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, 
including on the publicly accessible FTC Web site, https://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm. To be considered in preparation for the 
workshop, comments must be received by April 7, 2011, although the 
Commission will accept comments until May 27, 2011.
    Because comments will be made public, they should not include any 
sensitive personal information, such as any individual's Social 
Security Number; date of birth; driver's license number or other state 
identification number, or foreign country equivalent; passport number; 
financial account number; or credit or debit card number. Comments also 
should not include any sensitive health information, such as medical 
records or other individually identifiable health information. In 
addition, comments should not include any ``[t]rade secret or any 
commercial or financial information which is obtained from any person 
and which is privileged or confidential * * *, '' as provided in 
Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 
16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). Comments containing material for which confidential 
treatment is requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly 
labeled ``Confidential,'' and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 
4.9(c).\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The comment must be accompanied by an explicit request for 
confidential treatment, including the factual and legal basis for 
the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment 
to be withheld from the public record. The request will be granted 
or denied by the Commission's General Counsel, consistent with 
applicable law and the public interest. See FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 
4.9(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because paper mail addressed to the FTC is subject to delay due to 
heightened security screening, please consider submitting your comments 
in electronic form. Comments filed in electronic form should be 
submitted using the following Web link: https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/debtcollecttechworkshop (and following 
the instructions on the Web-based form). If this document appears at 
https://www.regulations.gov/#!home, you may also file an electronic 
comment through that Web site. The Commission will consider all timely 
comments that regulations.gov forwards to it. You may also visit the 
FTC Web site at https://www.ftc.gov to read this notice and the related 
news release.
    A comment filed in paper form should include the ``Debt Collection 
2.0, Project No. P114802'' reference both in the text and on the 
envelope, and should be mailed or delivered to the following address: 
Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H-113 (Annex 
F), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580. The FTC is 
requesting that any comment filed in paper form be sent by courier or 
overnight service, if possible, because U.S. postal mail in the 
Washington area and at the Commission is subject to delay due to 
heightened security precautions.
    The FTC Act and other laws the Commission administers permit the 
collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as 
appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive 
public comments that it receives, whether filed in paper or electronic 
form. Comments received will be available to the public on the FTC Web 
site, to the extent practicable, at https://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm. As a matter of discretion, the Commission makes 
every effort to remove home contact information for individuals from 
the public comments it receives before placing those comments on the 
FTC Web site. More information, including routine uses permitted by the 
Privacy Act, may be found in the FTC's privacy policy at https://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.shtm.

Requests To Participate as Workshop Panelists

    The FTC staff will identify and invite individuals with relevant 
expertise to participate as panelists. In addition, the FTC staff may 
invite other persons to participate as panelists who submit requests in 
response to this Federal Register notice.
    Requests to participate as workshop panelists must be received in 
writing by 5 p.m. EST on Tuesday, March 22, 2011, and should refer to 
``Debt Collection 2.0--Panelist Participation Request.'' Such requests 
(except requests containing any confidential material)

[[Page 14014]]

should be submitted in electronic form to dctech@ftc.gov and should be 
captioned: ADebt Collection 2.0--Panelist Participation Request.'' If 
the request to participate contains any material for which confidential 
treatment is requested, it must be filed in paper (rather than 
electronic) form, and the first page of the document must be clearly 
labeled ``Confidential.'' Please include an original and two copies of 
each document submitted in paper form. Requests submitted in paper form 
should include this reference both in the text and on the envelope, and 
should be sent by overnight delivery or courier to the following 
address: Debt Collection 2.0, c/o Leah Frazier, Federal Trade 
Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Mail Stop 3158, Washington, 
DC 20580.
    Requests to participate as workshop panelists should include the 
following information:
    (1) A brief biographical description, r[eacute]sum[eacute], or 
curriculum vitae, including name and affiliation;
    (2) A statement setting forth the potential panelist's expertise in 
or knowledge of one or more issues likely to be addressed by the 
workshop;
    (3) A list of the topic(s) that the potential panelist would like 
to address, and a one-paragraph summary of the potential panelist's 
unique perspective or knowledge of each such topic; and
    (4) Contact information, including a daytime telephone number, 
facsimile number, and e-mail address (if available).
    Parties filing requests to participate as workshop panelists will 
be notified whether they have been selected on or before Thursday, 
March 31, 2011.
    The FTC Act and other laws the Commission administers permit the 
collection of requests to participate as workshop panelists to consider 
and use in this proceeding as appropriate. More information, including 
routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, may be found in the FTC's 
privacy policy at https://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy/htm.

    By direction of the Commission.
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-6002 Filed 3-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.