The sold "as is" blurb in the forward flow agreement may still be a problem:
"27. Forster & Garbus’s attorneys do not conduct reviews for warranties or disclaimers of warranties related to debt sales, and did not do so between 2014 and 2016. This means that debt buyers represented by Forster & Garbus may buy and seek to collect debts without any warranty that the debts are valid, accurate, or were owned by the seller. More broadly, this practice suggests that Forster & Garbus is generally unfamiliar with (and fails to conduct significant review of) its clients’ contracts."
"28. ....Where supporting documentation has not been provided by one of its clients and a consumer has not requested substantiation of a debt, Forster & Garbus has generally not sought to investigate or otherwise verify information, such as the debt’s validity or accuracy, before filing suit. It has not sought payment histories, account applications, billing statements, copies of payments, cash-advance check copies, the terms and conditions governing an account, or consumer correspondence.
29. In 2014, of the 45,621 accounts on which Forster & Garbus filed suit, Forster & Garbus possessed original or supporting documentation for only 8,958 of those accounts—19.6% of accounts.
30. In 2015, of the 34,103 accounts on which Forster & Garbus filed suit, Forster & Garbus possessed original or supporting documentation for only 14,965 of those accounts—43.9% of accounts.
31. In 2016, of the 20,006 accounts on which Forster & Garbus filed suit, Forster & Garbus possessed original or supporting documentation for only 15,113 of those accounts—75.5% of accounts. In 2016, Forster & Garbus began to possess more original or supporting documentation for its accounts before filing suit because clients stopped referring accounts to Forster & Garbus until those clients were able to ensure the firm had sufficient information to permit the firm to sue and obtain judgments under the regulations of the Office of Court Administration. "
This hits close to home for me as I live in Commack, NY.
Most interesting is that Forster & Garbus are truly small potatoes in the grand scheme of things. They are a 12 attorney firm and have filed 99,000 lawsuits over 4 or 5 years.
This is unlike the last lawsuit the CFPB brought against Frederick Hanna; who had 400 employees and was filing 100,000 lawsuits per year.
Doesn't seem like anything here would apply to these types of calls from Midland. I'm sure Midland agents are not using iPhones to place their calls. They are using traditional old school ATDS systems under any conservative definition of the term.