Sign On Letters & Statements
MCRC is grateful for the wide variety of opportunities we've had to comment on local, state, and federal legislation, as well as to make public statements in response to political and non-political consumer rights actions throughout the past years. Read below to learn more about the actions we took to strengthen consumer protections and respond to potential threats to the economic rights of Marylanders.
Letters Sent to Governor Hogan and Chief Judge Barbera Urging Stronger Consumer Protections
MCRC sent letters, cosigned by more than 20 advocacy organizations across the state, to Governor Hogan and Maryland Chief Judge Mary Ellen Barbera. The letters request that protections are put in place for residents who have received stimulus checks and may be facing wage garnishments and other post-judgment collections during the public health crisis.
We've asked that post-judgment collections be postponed so that the the $1,200 checks made available by the federal government serve their intended purpose.
Read the letter to Governor Hogan here
Read the letter to Chief Judge Barbera here
Stop the CFPB Rule Change
In the summer of 2019, MCRC submitted comment to the Consumer Protections Bureau, asking them to abandon their proposed change to debt collection regulations. As written the proposed rule change would have expanded protections for debt collectors at the expense of consumers.
Our letter responded to specific concerns that were raised by the proposed rule change. We asked the CFPB to: limit conversations to one call per consumer, rather than one call per debt, require a consumer’s affirmative consent before contacting consumers via electronic communication, allow an opt-out of specific forms of communications, and require attorneys to view account-level documentation to determine they are filing a lawsuit against the right person for the right amount.
Borrower Defense
In August, 2018, MCRC submitted a comment to the Department of Education, asking them to abandon their proposed Borrower Defense rule and, instead, reincorporate key elements of the original version. The original rule, instituted under Obama, is meant to create safeguards for student borrowers to lessen the impact of high-debt, low-return for-profit schools. The Department’s newly proposed BD rule – meant to repeal and replace the Obama-era version – dismantle just about everything protective.
The original rule, while not perfect, would have provided $15 billion in relief to defrauded students, according to the Department of Education’s own estimate. This new proposal was estimated – also by the Department – to reduce the amount of loan forgiveness by $13 billion.
Read MCRC’s comments by clicking here.
