credit reporting

Consumer Fraud Whistleblowers Wanted

The Michigan Supreme Court just breathed new life into the state’s once-aggressive Consumer Protection Act (“MCPA”).

From 1999 until last week (July 31, 2026), the MCPA was almost entirely toothless. Even if the MCPA prohibited a deceptive or fraudulent business practice–it outlawed many dishonest billing, advertising, and sales scams–a business holding any sort of business license typically couldn’t be sued successfully under the Act. This was because, in 1999 an activist, “business-friendly” Michigan Supreme Court interpreted a subsection of the Act to mean it did not apply to any licensed industry. Almost every business is legally required to have a state license in Michigan: health care providers, car dealers and service shops, gas stations, banks, chiropractors, lawyers, accountants, child care providers, even barbers. The act was effectively dead.

In a new decision released last week, Attorney General v. Eli Lilly & Co., the Michigan Supreme Court found that licensed businesses can be liable under the MCPA for fraudulent and deceptive practices. This was a common-sense reading of the text of the MCPA itself, which the court acknowledged had been wrongly interpreted in the 1999 decision and cases following it.

The MCPA contains broad prohibitions of deceptive trade practices:

1. Misrepresenting the identity, origin, or quality of what’s sold — false claims about source, sponsorship, certification, geographic origin, ingredients, benefits, grade, style, or passing off used goods as new; also disparaging a competitor by false statements of fact. § 903(1)(a)–(f)

2. Deceptive advertising, pricing, and inducements — advertising with no intent to sell as represented, bait advertising without a quantity disclosure, phony price-reduction claims, “free” offers with buried conditions, rebates contingent on post-closing events, and prize offers tied to sitting through a sales pitch. § 903(1)(g)–(i), (r), (w), (ff)

3. Manufactured need and high-pressure tactics — claiming a repair or replacement is necessary when it isn’t, fabricating a home defect that endangers the family, delivering unrequested goods as though they were ordered, and coercion through the timing and nature of a sales presentation. § 903(1)(j)–(l), (aa)

4. Obscuring legal rights, credit terms, and warranties — creating confusion about a party’s rights, obligations, or remedies, about credit terms, or about a salesperson’s authority to close; unconspicuous warranty disclaimers; unknowing waivers of statutory rights; and having the consumer sign acknowledgments the merchant knows to be false. § 903(1)(m)–(p), (t), (v)

5. Material omissions and false impressions — failing to disclose a material fact the consumer couldn’t reasonably discover, failing to disclose facts made material by the seller’s own affirmative representations, and any statement that leaves the consumer reasonably believing the state of affairs is other than it is. § 903(1)(s), (bb), (cc)

6. Failure to deliver what was promised — promising prompt or timely performance the merchant knows won’t happen, gross discrepancies between oral pitch and written contract, failure to provide promised benefits, and failure to promptly refund deposits or release security interests after cancellation. § 903(1)(q), (u), (y)

7. Exploiting vulnerability and grossly excessive pricing — taking advantage of a consumer’s disability, illiteracy, or inability to understand the language of the agreement, and charging a price grossly in excess of market. § 903(1)(x), (z)

8. Violations of specific statutory mandates — environmental and “degradable/recyclable” marketing claims, home and telephone solicitation rules, conditioning a sale on disclosure of a Social Security number, card-receipt truncation, identity theft protection act violations, misleading tribute-band billing, and the Act’s own cross-referenced sections. § 903(1)(dd)–(ee), (gg)–(ll)

Some of these practices also violated other laws. But the MCPA came with a powerful private enforcement mechanism: unlike other laws prohibiting the same misconduct, the MCPA required the offending business to pay the attorney fees of the defrauded consumer. This was designed to incentivize lawyers to take consumer fraud cases to court, and to enable consumers to hire attorneys even when there were not huge amounts of money at issue. No one in their right mind would pay an attorney $400 per hour to sue a company over a $900 overcharge, even if the overcharge was outright fraudulent. But if the offending business had to pay those attorney fees, that’s a game changer. The MCPA tilted the field in favor of the consumer to keep Michigan’s consumer-facing businesses honest.

For more than 25 years, the MCPA was ineffective. Unscrupulous business owners and executives knew it was ineffective, and consumers were defrauded and deceived by businesses at an alarming and increasing rate. From inscrutable and misleading medical bills to systematically denied insurance claims and everything in between, consumers were mostly out of luck when it came to holding a bad business accountable. A lawyer wouldn’t take your case unless the amount of money you lost was either six figures or more and a slam-dunk case, or you agreed to pay their hourly rate–typically hundreds of dollars per hour. Consumer lawsuits were few and far between, relying on sparse federal consumer laws that only applied to a narrow set of transactions.

That changes now. After the Eli Lilly decision restoring the MCPA prohibitions, we as consumer protection attorneys, and you as consumers and insiders, have the opportunity to make Michigan a place where honesty and fairness are expected, are the norm. A place where deceiving consumers to get their money is rare, but is punished appropriately when it occurs.

Consumer fraud and deceptive practices are often hard for the consumer to even identify. Confusing language in agreements, fast talking, misdirection and outright lies may prevent the consumer from knowing anything about how it is they’re being cheated. But they’re left with the conviction that the business they’ve dealt with cheated them and it has cost them money.

Sometimes consumer fraud and deception are systematic within a business organization–known to insiders but difficult or impossible for the consumer to find out on their own. Unscrupulous businesses may train employees to fudge numbers, change a billing code, charge the client for a service not provided, use a deceptive sales pitch, or otherwise cheat, in ways that unfairly cost the consumer money. Some businesses may incentivize such misconduct through their compensation structure, and look the other way as employees deceive consumers by not performing work the consumer paid for them to perform.

These are only a few examples, but they point up an important truth: insiders–people with detailed knowledge of a deceptive or fraudulent business practice–have been given a potent tool to bring an end to that practice. In short, if you’ve had enough of your employer cheating the individuals and families it deals with, the restoration of the MCPA means that firms like Westbrook Law PLLC can represent the defrauded consumers–in individual cases or class actions–and bring lawsuits to punish the bad business. Those lawsuits sometimes bankrupt the business; in other instances, the business may survive but end the practice.

Enforcement of the MCPA, if done thoroughly, will result in better, more honest and transparent businesses that serve their customers better, statewide, over the long run. Can you imagine a day-to-day life in which you didn’t routinely feel like a business was trying to scam you? That is our vision at Westbrook Law, one case at a time.

If you have detailed knowledge of a deceptive, unfair, or fraudulent business practice that involves consumer transactions, we would love to hear from you. Contact Us

New Class Action Lawsuit Against Mortgage Servicer Real Time Resolutions Claims Threats to Harm Credit Ratings Broke the Law

Mortgage loan servicers typically collect and process payments for mortgage loans on behalf of the owners of those loans. If your loan statements come from Ocwen, Nationstar (now using the quizzical alias “Mr. Cooper”), or Seterus, just to name a few, you are dealing with a servicer. Real Time Resolutions, Inc., another servicer, is the latest target of a consumer class-action lawsuit filed by Westbrook Law PLLC in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, Bushouse v. Real Time Resolutions, Inc.

The new lawsuit alleges that Real Time violated federal and state law through its routine practice of threatening consumers with reporting obsolete, negative credit information about them. Whereas the law does not allow credit reporting of most negative items that are past seven years old, 15 U.S.C. § 1691c(a), the complaint alleges that Real Time continues to threaten negative reporting well beyond the seven-year mark. This practice, which could frighten consumers into paying obsolete debts they no longer have any legal obligation to pay, is alleged to violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692e; the Michigan Occupational Code, M.C.L § 339.915; and the Michigan Mortgage Brokers, Lenders, and Servicers Licensing Act, M.C.L. § 445.1672. The plaintiff seeks damages for herself and other Michigan citizens who received the threatening communications.

Our expertise in credit reporting law–i.e., the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act–and consumer collection law informed this lawsuit and many others on behalf of Michigan consumers. If you have concerns about whether a practice by a debt collector or mortgage servicer is fair or lawful, contact us for a consultation.

TJW

Equifax Leaked Your Personal Information – Now What?/Westbrook Law of Grand Rapids, Michigan

On September 7, 2017, Equifax, one of the “big three” U.S. credit reporting agencies, reported that hackers had gained access to sensitive personal information of 143 million Americans contained within Equifax’s extensive consumer files. If Equifax has a credit file on you–as it does on most Americans–your chances of being affected by this data breach are more than 50%. Equifax has known about this hack since June 29, 2017.

Equifax keeps extensive dossiers of data about consumers and sells that data to prospective creditors, current creditors, and others who subscribe to Equifax’s services. While some news outlets have described the hack as affecting Equifax “customers,” this is not accurate. Equifax has a file on you regardless of whether you have ever consented to it, and it is allowed, subject to the constraints of the Fair Credit Reporting Act 15 U.S.C. § 1681 (“FCRA”), to disclose your information to its subscribers. In other words, you are its product, not its customer.

The data in Equifax’s file typically includes the person’s name, address history, social security number, telephone numbers, a detailed credit history–i.e., open and/or closed loans and credit accounts, amounts owed, amounts and dates of recent payments, and any history of late payments or defaults–and public record information like bankruptcies or judgments. Equifax’s credit file on a consumer typically contains sufficient information to enable an unscrupulous person to steal the consumer’s identify and open fraudulent credit accounts in his or her name. This type of identity theft can result in enormous disruption, including harassment by debt collectors seeking to collect the fraudulently incurred debt, closure or freezing of existing legitimate lines of credit, and inability to obtain new legitimate loans because of damage to the victim’s credit inflicted by failure to repay the fraudulent loans.

Equifax and its main competitors, Trans Union and Experian, are closely regulated by the FCRA and have a duty under the law to ensure “maximum possible accuracy” of consumer reports provided to third parties. Numerous class-action lawsuits have already been filed regarding the data breach, and chances are good that you may be deemed a member of one or more classes and may eventually be entitled to relief accordingly. However, the more immediate concern is potential identity theft and damage to consumers’ credit. If you do not already monitor your credit, now is a good time to start. Note that Equifax, Trans Union and Experian are required by law to provide each consumer with at least one full, free credit report annually. These bureaus provide free credit reports online at www.annualcreditreport.com. In addition, if you are ever denied credit on the basis of an Equifax, Experian, or Trans Union report, you have the legal right to receive a free copy of the report on which the credit denial was based. Exercise this right any time you are denied credit for any reason.

If you discover fraudulent accounts or inaccuracies in any or all of your credit reports, you have the right to dispute the reports and may be entitled to compensation under the FCRA. Westbrook Law PLLC is experienced in representing consumers affected by inaccurate and improper credit reporting, and can provide guidance if you discover credit reporting errors or fraud. Contact us for a consultation.

TJW

Decision in Ricketson v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. Clarifies the Law on Fair Credit Reporting/Westbrook Law of Grand Rapids, Michigan

On July 18, 2017, the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan issued an important decision in the case of Ricketson v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., a case brought by Westbrook Law PLLC under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. In the Ricketson case, the plaintiff challenged Experian’s practice of rejecting consumer disputes without investigating them as required by the FCRA.

After noticing an inaccuracy in his Experian credit report, the plaintiff sent a dispute letter to Experian. Instead of investigating the disputed item as the FCRA requires, Experian sent a letter to the plaintiff stating that it had received a “suspicious request” that it believed was from a third party, and would not be investigating the disputed item. The Ricketson lawsuit resulted.

Experian challenged the lawsuit on various technical grounds. It argued that because the disputed information was never shared with any potential creditors, there could be no harm and no standing to hold Experian liable. It also argued that the evidence could not support a finding that its violation of the FCRA had been willful.

In its opinion, penned by Chief Judge Robert J. Jonker, the court rejected Experian’s arguments, finding that the investigation and disclosure requirements of the FCRA must be construed strictly, in order to avoid exactly the kind of harms the plaintiff suffered – mental stress and emotional distress linked to being deprived of accurate information about his credit standing. The court also held that Experian’s policies and procedures for handling disputes could support a jury verdict of willfulness, and thus give rise to punitive damages.

The FCRA is a comprehensive legal framework that strictly controls procedures for maintaining, correcting, and dispensing credit information about consumers. The court’s decision in Ricketson affirms the continuing vitality of the FCRA in protecting consumers’ rights not only to ensure that the information provided by credit reporting agencies about them is accurate, but also to be kept informed about the contents of the credit reporting agencies’ files.

If you discover that inaccurate information about your accounts, debts, or personal information is being reported by a credit reporting agency, contact us to learn more about your legal rights under the FCRA.

TJW

Experian’s “Suspicious Request” Letter Violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act/Westbrook Law of Grand Rapids, Michigan

One of the three major consumer credit reporting agencies, Experian Information Solutions, has recently undertaken an apparent effort to stymie credit repair organizations and consumer lawyers by refusing to investigate consumer disputes regarding credit report inaccuracies.  Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), Experian and the other CRAs are given 30 days to investigate consumer disputes, and may only refuse to investigate if the dispute lodged by the consumer is “frivolous.”  However, Experian has recently begun rejecting consumer disputes based on the fact that they are “suspicious.”  Although Experian’s “suspicious request” letter does not define what is suspicious about the consumer’s dispute, consumer advocates believe Experian is engaged in a pattern of rejecting disputes in this matter when it appears that the consumer was assisted in drafting the dispute by a credit repair organization or an attorney.  This practice violates the FCRA, robs consumers of the protections the FCRA is intended to afford, and potentially has serious negative consequences to consumers’ credit histories.

If you have had a credit reporting dispute rejected by Experian or any other credit reporting agency, contact us for a free consultation.