Collecting

Consumer

The Challenges of Change

A Workshop Report 

Federal Trade Commission

February 2009

Collecting Consumer Debts:

The Challenges of Change

A Workshop Report 

February 2009

Federal Trade Commission

William E. Kovacic, Chairman

Pamela Jones Harbour, Commissioner

Jon Leibowitz, Commissioner

J. Thomas Rosch, Commissioner
This report is also available on the Internet. The online version of this report contains hyperlinks 

to news releases, reports, articles, workshop comments, transcripts, brochures, policy statements, 

and other information referenced in this report. You can find the online report at

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/debtcollection/dcwr.pdf.
Collecting Consumer Debts: The Challenges of Change

Contents

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

II. The Debt Collection Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

III. Legal Framework of Debt Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

A. Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

B. Section 5 of the FTC Act. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

C. State Debt Collection Laws. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

D. Privacy and Data Security Laws. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

IV. The Role of the Federal Trade Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

V. Changes in Debt Collection Industry and Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

A. Increased Consumer Debt and Delinquency Levels. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

B. Debt Collection Industry Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

C. Evolution in Debt Collection Methods: Communication Technologies. . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

D. Information Collection and Storage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

1. Increases in Data Storage Capacity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

2. Improvement in Database Technologies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

E. Payment Methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

VI. Modernizing the Debt Collection System and Legal Framework . . . . . . . 21

A. Information Flow in the Debt Collection System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

1. Problems with Information Flow in the Debt Collection System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

2. Solutions to Information Flow Problems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

3. Future Directions in Information Flow. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

B. New Technologies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

1. Communication Technologies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

2. Payment Technologies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

C. Debt Collection Litigation and Arbitration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

1. Litigation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

2. Arbitration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

3. Collecting on Judgments and Awards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

4. Time-Barred Debt and Discharged Debt. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

5. Future Directions in Litigation and Arbitration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

D. Debt Collection Legal and Regulatory Systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

1. Private Enforcement of the FDCPA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

2. Government Enforcement of the FDCPA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

3. Rulemaking to Implement the FDCPA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

VII. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
A Workshop Report 

Appendix A: Fair Debt Collection Practices Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

Appendix B: FTC Actions Related to Debt Collection Since 1977 . . . . . . . . . B-1

Appendix C: Individual and Organizational Comments Submitted in

Connection with the Workshop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1
i

Collecting Consumer Debts: The Challenges of Change

Executive Summary

Overview

In late 2007, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) convened a public 

workshop to evaluate the need for changes in the debt collection system, including the Fair Debt 

Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), to protect consumers better. Based on the workshop record 

and its experience, the Commission concludes that the debt collection legal system needs to 

be reformed and modernized to reflect changes in consumer debt, the debt collection industry, 

and technology. This report sets forth these changes and the modifications to the law the FTC 

believes are needed to provide better consumer protection without unduly burdening debt 

collection.

As explained in detail in the body of the report, the Commission’s principal conclusions and 

proposals are:

3 Major problems exist in the flow of information within the debt collection system.

O The law needs to be changed to require that debt collectors have better information, 

making it more likely their attempts to collect are for the right amount and are directed 

to the right consumer.

O The law also needs to be amended to mandate that collectors provide better 

information to consumers explaining their rights under the FDCPA.

3 Debt collection laws need to be modernized to take account of changes in technology.

O Debt collectors generally should be allowed to use all communication technologies, 

including new and emerging technologies, to contact consumers. The law, however, 

must be carefully crafted and applied to avoid collectors’ use of communication 

technologies in a manner that causes consumers to incur charges, or otherwise subjects 

them to unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts and practices.

O Debt collectors generally should be allowed to use newer electronic payment methods 

to receive payments from consumers. To deter unauthorized access to the accounts of 

consumers through the use of these methods, however, the law needs to be changed 

to require that collectors obtain express verifiable consent from consumers before 

accessing their accounts.
A Workshop Report

ii

3 Certain debt collection litigation and arbitration practices appear to raise substantial 

consumer protection concerns.

O Among the concerns expressed were whether, given the current volume of state 

court debt collection lawsuits, some of the cases filed lack a sufficient evidentiary 

basis, whether procedural aspects of such lawsuits achieve the appropriate balance in 

protecting the interests of consumers and debt collectors, and whether the arbitration 

process adequately addresses consumer interests and is sufficiently transparent.

O Because the workshop record does not contain adequate information for the FTC to 

determine the nature and extent of these concerns, the agency will convene regional 

roundtables this year with state court judges and officials, debt collectors, collection 

attorneys, consumer advocates, arbitration firms, and other interested stakeholders 

to obtain more information about these concerns and develop possible solutions. 

The participation of state officials in these roundtables will be critical, because debt 

collection litigation and arbitration involve many issues of state as well as federal law.

3 Debt collection law must evolve to include a regulatory process that ensures that legal 

requirements keep pace with changes in the marketplace. 

O The law therefore should be changed to grant the Commission the authority to issue 

regulations to implement the FDCPA.

3 Debt collection law enforcement must be pursued aggressively to deter collectors from 

engaging in conduct that harms consumers. 

O Private actions, not FTC actions, were intended to be and should continue to be 

the main means of promoting industry compliance with the FDCPA. To increase 

deterrence, the law should be changed to increase the statutory damage amounts 

available in private FDCPA actions to reflect inflation since 1977.

O To hold more individuals, rather than just companies, responsible, and to obtain 

stronger monetary remedies, the FTC has modified its law enforcement approach in 

recent years, and the agency will continue to pursue enforcement in a way that will 

increase compliance with the law.

Summary and Recommendations

Consumer credit is a critical component of today’s economy. Credit allows consumers to 

purchase goods and services for which they are unable or unwilling to pay the entire cost at the 

time of purchase. By extending credit, however, creditors take the risk that consumers will not 
iii

Collecting Consumer Debts: The Challenges of Change

repay all or part of the amount they owe. If consumers do not pay their debts, creditors may 

become less willing to lend money to consumers, or may increase the cost of borrowing money. 

Creditors typically use collectors to try to recover on debts to decrease the amount of their lost 

revenues. Debt collection thus helps keep credit available and its cost as low as possible.

Debt collection activities, however, also may harm consumers. In 1977, Congress passed 

legislation to protect consumers from harmful debt collection practices and to protect ethical 

collectors from competitive disadvantage. The result was the landmark Fair Debt Collection 

Practices Act, which established specific standards of conduct for the collection industry. 

Consumer groups, labor groups, state and federal law enforcement officials, and collection 

industry trade associations supported the law’s passage. The Federal Trade Commission is 

the primary governmental enforcer of the FDCPA. Consumers also may file their own actions 

against debt collectors who violate the statute. 

The FDCPA prohibits abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices, and specifies 

numerous practices that are barred. Some debt collectors, such as those entities recently sued 

by the Commission, continue to use these unlawful practices. There was a general consensus at 

the workshop that the practices prohibited by Congress in the FDCPA harm consumers and that 

the prohibitions should be enforced vigorously. The Commission therefore believes there is a 

continuing need for both public and private actions to deter violations of the statute. 

The FTC hosted its two-day workshop in October 2007, thirty years after the FDCPA 

was enacted. The goals of the workshop were to explore changes in the collection industry 

and examine their impact on consumers and businesses. In announcing the workshop, entitled 

“Collecting Consumer Debts: The Challenges of Change,” the Commission solicited public 

comments on a number of topics. Experts representing consumer groups, the collection 

industry, academia, and government agencies participated in the workshop and submitted written 

comments. This report describes the information the Commission received in connection with 

the workshop and how the agency intends to respond to the consumer protection problems that 

information revealed. 

Debt Collection Industry Transformation

The Commission finds that the nature of consumer debt has changed in numerous important 

ways since enactment of the FDCPA. The amount of consumer debt has risen dramatically. The 

types of debt that consumers owe also have changed since 1977. Although all types of debt have 

increased, mortgage debt and credit card debt have increased the most, especially during the past 

decade. The five main types of delinquent debt that creditors now place with collectors are credit 
A Workshop Report

iv

card, telecommunication (e.g., mobile phone), electric utility, healthcare, and government (e.g., 

taxes) debt. 

The debt collection industry has transformed during the past three decades. The workshop 

record shows that the third-party collection industry has increased its inflation-adjusted revenue 

more than sixfold and increased the number of collection industry jobs more than fourfold. The 

industry also has experienced significant consolidation as a result of mergers and acquisitions, 

as well as changes in technology. The most significant change in the debt collection business in 

the past decade, however, has been the advent and growth of debt buying (i.e., the purchasing, 

collecting, and reselling of debts in default). 

The invention and use of new technologies also has fundamentally altered the debt 

collection business. Communication technologies, in particular, have spurred profound changes 

in this industry. Debt collectors no longer must use individually-typed letters and manuallydialed telephone calls to contact consumers. Collectors now are able to easily and relatively 

inexpensively mass-produce and send letters to debtors. Collectors also now use sophisticated 

automated dialing and interactive voice recording technologies to efficiently place telephone 

calls to consumers. Consumers likewise use new communication technologies to handle 

incoming calls. They receive calls on mobile telephones as well as on landline telephones, and 

they use Caller ID services and answering machines to filter the calls they receive. Collectors 

and consumers also are beginning to explore communicating with each other through other new 

technologies such as email, text messaging, and social networking sites.

Technological changes not directly tied to communication also have had a profound impact 

on the debt collection industry. Technological innovations have increased exponentially the 

ability of creditors and debt collectors to obtain, store, and transfer data about consumers and 

their debts. Changes in database technologies have dramatically enhanced the ability of debt 

collectors to aggregate disparate pieces of information about consumers, thus making it cheaper 

and easier to locate and contact consumers. Technological innovations have also altered the 

methods that consumers can use to pay their debts. With the emergence of electronic payment 

technologies and systems—such as credit cards, debit cards, stored value cards, electronic benefit 

transfers, and automated check clearinghouse debits—consumers now have available a host of 

options for paying their debts in addition to paying by cash or check.

Information Flow in the Debt Collection System

The FTC believes that there are currently two major problems in the flow of information 

in the debt collection system. The first major problem is that debt collectors have inadequate 
v

Collecting Consumer Debts: The Challenges of Change

information when they seek to collect from consumers. This increases the likelihood that 

collectors will reach the incorrect consumer, try to collect the wrong amount, or both.

Following the workshop, representatives of creditors, debt buyers, and debt collectors 

have commenced discussions as to how to enhance the information flow in the debt collection 

process. These discussions are critical in weighing carefully the costs and benefits of collecting, 

maintaining, and transferring information. Although such discussions hold promise, the FTC 

nevertheless believes it is important to change the law now to require that collectors have and 

convey to consumers more information in validation notices. To address this concern, the FTC 

recommends that Section 809(a) of the FDCPA be amended to require that debt collectors obtain 

and provide in the “validation notices” they send to consumers: (1) the name of the original 

creditor; and (2) an itemization of (a) the principal, (b) the total of all interest, and (c) the total of 

all fees and other charges that make up the debt.

A related information problem is that the limited information debt collectors obtain in 

verifying debts is unlikely to dissuade them from continuing their attempts to collect from 

the wrong consumer or the wrong amount. If a consumer disputes a debt, the collector is 

required to obtain verification of the debt and provide it to the consumer before renewing its 

collection efforts. Many collectors currently do little more to verify debts than confirm that their 

information accurately reflects what they received from the creditor. This is not likely to reveal 

whether collectors are trying to collect from the wrong consumer or collect the wrong amount. 

The FTC therefore concludes that collectors need to do more to increase the likelihood that the 

information they acquire during the verification process will correct errors. Specifically, the 

Commission recommends that Section 809(b) of the FDCPA be amended to require that, if a 

consumer disputes a debt, the debt collector must undertake a “reasonable” investigation that is 

responsive to the specific dispute the consumer has raised.

The second major problem with the current flow of information in the debt collection 

system is that collectors generally do not provide adequate information to consumers explaining 

their rights under the FDCPA. This makes it more difficult for consumers to exercise these 

rights. The Commission therefore recommends that Section 809(a) of the FDCPA be amended to 

require that debt collectors inform consumers in validation notices that (1) if they send a timely 

written dispute or request for verification, the debt collector must suspend collection efforts until 

it has provided the verification in writing; and (2) if they request in writing that the debt collector 

cease contacting them, the collector must comply.
A Workshop Report

vi

The FTC believes that the changes described above will improve the flow of information 

in the debt collection system. The Commission, however, will continue to monitor the flow of 

information closely and make further recommendations as needed to improve it. 

New Technologies

The Commission concludes that debt collection laws need to be modernized to take 

account of changes in technology, especially changes in communication technologies. The FTC 

believes that debt collectors generally should be allowed to use all communication technologies, 

including new and emerging technologies, to contact consumers. However, the law also must be 

carefully crafted to avoid collectors’ use of communication technologies in a manner that causes 

consumers to incur charges, or otherwise subjects consumers to unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts 

and practices.

Many of the changes in the law that the Commission recommends concern telephone calls 

between debt collectors and consumers. Most consumers in the United States now own mobile 

phones, and collectors would like to be able to contact consumers on these phones. However, 

calls placed to mobile phones and text messages sent to such phones frequently cause consumers 

to incur charges. Consumers should not have to pay to be contacted by a debt collector. Given 

the widespread prevalence of mobile calling plans that charge consumers based on the calls and 

text messages they receive, the FTC concludes that the law should incorporate a presumption 

that consumers will incur a charge for a call or text message made to their mobile phones. Thus, 

the law would generally prohibit debt collectors from contacting consumers via cell phones. 

However, the Commission also concludes that debt collectors should be permitted to contact 

consumers on their cell phones if, among other things, they have obtained prior express consent 

to such contacts. 

Even if a collector is permitted to call a consumer’s cell phone, the collector must comply 

with Section 805(a)(1) of the FDCPA, which prohibits calls at times that the collector knows or 

should know are inconvenient to the consumer— before 8:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m., local time 

at the consumer’s location, unless the debt collector has knowledge to the contrary. Because a 

cell phone number’s area code is not necessarily where the consumer is located, however, it may 

be difficult for collectors to determine whether they are calling consumers during permissible 

hours. The Commission believes that the law should be changed to permit debt collectors, 

provided that they have obtained a consumer’s prior express consent to contact him or her via his 

or her mobile phone, to call the mobile phone between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. in the time zone 

of the consumer’s home address, unless the collector knows or should know that calls during 

those hours are inconvenient for the consumer. 
vii

Collecting Consumer Debts: The Challenges of Change

Many collectors and consumers now record debt collection calls. There was a consensus 

at the workshop that the authority to tape calls would benefit both collectors and consumers, 

because it would provide a record to resolve disputes as to what transpired during the calls. 

Some state laws, however, permit the taping of calls, including calls between debt collectors and 

consumers, only if both parties consent. The Commission concludes that permitting consumers 

across the nation to tape debt collection calls without the debt collectors’ consent would likely 

benefit consumers by enabling them to document abusive, deceptive, and unfair collection 

tactics. However, to accomplish this, federal law would need to preempt state law in those states 

that require both parties to consent. We take no position as to whether these state laws should 

be preempted in this instance. This matter should be carefully considered by Congress after 

obtaining input from the states on the merits of this approach. 

The debt collection legal system needs to be modernized to reflect new payment 

technologies as well as new communication technologies. The Commission believes that the 

use of newer electronic payments methods (e.g., remotely created paper checks or electronic 

transmission through the ACH system) generally benefits debt collectors and consumers by 

making debt payments more convenient, less expensive, and faster. The use of these systems 

to pay debts, however, poses some risks to consumers as well. Collectors may be able to 

obtain unauthorized access to the accounts of consumers through the use of these new payment 

methods. To address these concerns, the FTC recommends that the law be changed to require 

that debt collectors obtain express verifiable authorization from consumers before accessing their 

accounts and that collectors retain records of the authorization for a reasonable period of time.

Finally, a number of issues arose in connection with the workshop related to technologies 

on which insufficient information is available to allow the Commission to develop specific policy 

recommendations at this time. These issues are identified in the report, and the FTC welcomes 

information that bears on them. Such information is and will continue to be critical as the 

agency strives to ensure that consumers remain protected as technology advances. 

Debt Collection Litigation and Arbitration

Few topics discussed at the workshop provoked more heated discussion than the impact of 

debt collection litigation and arbitration on consumers. The workshop record nevertheless does 

not contain adequate information for the Commission to fully assess the nature and extent of 

consumer concerns about debt collection litigation and arbitration, or the costs and benefits of 

possible changes to address those concerns. Moreover, because virtually all collection lawsuits 

are decided in state court through the application of state substantive and procedural law, the 
A Workshop Report

viii

FTC does not at this time recommend any changes to the FDCPA or other federal law to address 

state debt collection litigation issues. 

Nevertheless, the Commission believes that it can play an important role in developing more 

and better information about possible solutions to issues raised about debt collection litigation 

and arbitration, including issues such as time-barred debt and garnishment of federally-exempt 

funds. The FTC therefore will convene regional roundtables this year to discuss problems in 

debt collection litigation and arbitration and possible solutions with state court judges, debt 

collectors, collection attorneys, consumer advocates, arbitration firms, and other interested 

stakeholders. The Commission also may undertake law enforcement action to address conduct 

related to debt collection litigation and arbitration to the extent that such conduct violates the 

FDCPA, the FTC Act, or other laws that the Commission enforces.

FDCPA Rulemaking

The workshop record reveals how the passage of time and changes in technology and 

markets have created problems and uncertainties in the debt collection legal system for creditors, 

debt collectors, consumers, and others. To address such concerns more quickly in the future, 

the FTC recommends that Congress give the Commission the authority to issue rules under the 

FDCPA. The Commission recommends that Congress empower the agency to issue rules to 

address problems that exist today as well as to issue rules as necessary to combat new issues and 

concerns as they arise. 

FDCPA Enforcement

The FDCPA was intended to be and should be primarily a self-enforcing statute. Thus, 

private action rather than government law enforcement should be the main means of promoting 

industry compliance with the law. For private actions to be an effective deterrent, however, the 

damages available to successful litigants must be sufficient. The amount of statutory damages 

available to private litigants under the FDCPA has not been changed in more than thirty years. 

The FTC therefore recommends that Congress update the FDCPA’s statutory damage amounts to 

reflect inflation during that period and, in the future, increase these amounts periodically. 

Debt collection enforcement is also a priority for the Commission’s financial practices 

program. Since the FDCPA was enacted, the FTC has brought more than 60 enforcement 

actions alleging law violations related to debt collection. The Commission has modified its law 

enforcement approach in recent years to heighten deterrence. The agency has sought not only 

increased civil penalties for FDCPA violations, but also consumer redress and disgorgement 

as forms of equitable monetary relief under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act. In addition, in 
ix

Collecting Consumer Debts: The Challenges of Change

appropriate cases, the Commission has obtained immediate injunctive relief in federal court, 

including asset freezes and the appointment of receivers. The FTC also has successfully alleged 

that both debt collection companies and the individuals responsible for the companies’ practices 

are liable. The Commission will continue an aggressive law enforcement program that will 

increase compliance with the law. 

Future Directions

The Commission believes that the debt collection system and the legal framework that 

governs it both need modernizing. The Commission hopes that the workshop and this report 

will help produce changes in debt collection law that will better protect consumers from abuse, 

unfairness, and deception while fostering competition among collection industry participants. 

Another important result of the workshop is the dialogue it fostered among critical participants 

in the debt collection system: consumer advocates, industry leaders, and government regulators. 

Representatives from all of these sectors have urged the Commission to continue to serve as 

a catalyst for progress on debt collection issues, and it intends to do so. Toward that end, the 

agency welcomes empirical data or any other information about debt collection issues.
A Workshop Report

x
1

Collecting Consumer Debts: The Challenges of Change

I. Introduction

Consumer credit is a critical component of today’s economy. Credit allows consumers to 

purchase goods and services for which they are unable or unwilling to pay the entire cost at the 

time of purchase. By extending credit, however, creditors take the risk that consumers will not 

repay all or part of the amount they owe. If consumers do not pay their debts, creditors may 

become less willing to lend money to consumers, or may increase the cost of borrowing money. 

Creditors typically use collectors to try to recover on debts to decrease the amount of their lost 

revenues. Debt collection thus helps keep credit available and its cost as low as possible.

Debt collection activities, however, also may harm consumers. In 1977, Congress passed 

legislation to protect consumers from abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices 

and to protect ethical collectors from competitive disadvantage.1 The result was the landmark 

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”),2 which established specific standards of conduct 

for the collection industry. Consumer groups, labor groups, state and federal law enforcement 

officials, and collection industry trade associations supported the law’s passage.3 The Federal 

Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) is the primary governmental enforcer of the 

FDCPA,4 but consumers also may file their own actions against debt collectors who violate the 

statute.5 

In October 2007, thirty years after the FDCPA was enacted, the FTC hosted a two-day 

workshop to explore changes in the collection industry and examine their impact on consumers 

and businesses.6 In announcing the workshop, entitled “Collecting Consumer Debts: The 

Challenges of Change,” the Commission solicited public comments on a number of topics.7 

1. S. Rep. No. 95-382, at 1 (1977), reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1695, 1697 [hereinafter Senate Report].

2. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692p. A copy of the statute is included as Appendix A and is available at 

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/credit/cre27.pdf.

3. Senate Report, supra note 1, at 2.

4. FDCPA § 814(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1692l(a). As discussed below, debt collectors also are governed by Section 5 

of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), which more generally prohibits unfair and deceptive 

acts and practices in or affecting commerce.

5. FDCPA § 813, 15 U.S.C. § 1692k.

6. See FTC Workshop, Collecting Consumer Debts: The Challenges of Change (Oct. 10-11, 2007) [hereinafter 

FTC Workshop]. A webcast of the workshop, a transcript of the event, and other related materials are available 

at http://www.ftc.gov/debtcollectionworkshop. References to the workshop transcript identify the speaker, the 

day of the workshops (i.e., first or second), and the transcript page. 

7. The request for comments is available at http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/debtcollection/descrip.pdf.
A Workshop Report

2

Experts representing consumer groups, the collection industry, academia, and government 

agencies participated in the workshop8 and submitted written comments.9 

As reflected in the workshop record, consumers’ use of credit and the debt collection 

industry have undergone significant changes since the FDCPA was enacted. In this report, the 

Commission summarizes those changes, describes information that workshop participants and 

commenters provided, lays out principles to guide future debt collection policymaking, and 

suggests possible options to effectuate those principles. 

Part II of this report presents a brief overview of the debt collection process; Part IIII 

discusses the legal framework in which debt collection takes place; and Part IV addresses the role 

of the Federal Trade Commission. Part V discusses changes in the debt collection industry and 

practices since the FDCPA was enacted. Part VI contains the Commission’s recommendations 

for modernizing the debt collection system and legal framework. Part VII is a brief conclusion.

II. The Debt Collection Process

The debt collection process commences when a company issuing credit to a consumer (e.g., 

a credit card issuer or telecommunications company) determines that the account is delinquent 

and that the consumer must be contacted about the debt. In an effort to obtain payment, many 

credit issuers have their own collection departments contact delinquent consumers via telephone 

calls, collection letters (often referred to as “dunning letters” or “dunning notices”), and other 

communication methods.10

8. The workshop agenda is available at http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/debtcollection/agenda.pdf.

9. The comments are available at http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/debtcollectionworkshop/index.shtm. A list of 

individuals and organizations who submitted comments is provided in Appendix C. Throughout this report, 

citations to comments identify the commenter’s name, followed by the term “Comment” and the page of the 

comment being referenced.

10. Robert M. Hunt, Overview of the Collections Industry at slide 14, 2007 Workshop [hereinafter Hunt 

Presentation]. See also Robert M. Hunt Comment at 13 n.9 (citing Bureau of Labor Statistics data showing 

that issuers of credit cards alone employed nearly 18,000 collectors in 2004, which constituted 4% of the 

450,000 people in the United States who were employed as bill and account collectors). Some creditors hire 

outside companies, often referred to as “first-party collectors,” to collect on accounts that are between 30 and 

90 days past due but not yet charged off as losses by the creditor. See Kaulkin Ginsberg, The Kaulkin Report: 

The Future of Receivables Management 62 (7th ed. 2007).
3

Collecting Consumer Debts: The Challenges of Change

If a credit issuer’s in-house collectors are not successful in collecting during a limited period 

(usually between six months and a year), the issuer will “charge off the account.”11 At this point, 

the issuer typically will place the account with a third-party collector – either a contingency 

collection agency (“contingency agency”) or a collection law firm. If the credit issuer places 

the account with a contingency agency, the credit issuer and agency will enter into a contract 

under which the agency will have a specific period (ranging from several weeks to several years) 

during which to collect.12 If the contingency agency is successful in collecting on the debt, it will 

be paid a portion of the amount collected, with the average contingent fee rate in 2005 reported 

to be 28%.13

If the account is placed with a collection law firm, the firm may file suit against the 

consumer to collect. Collection law firms generally are paid either on an hourly basis or on 

a contingent fee basis.14 Many of these firms also engage in collection practices that mirror 

those of contingency agencies, such as placing telephone calls and sending collection letters.15 

If a collection law firm is successful in collecting, it generally is paid a portion of the amount 

collected.16 Rather than being paid contingency fees or hourly fees, some collection law 

firms also purchase debts and derive revenue from collections through judicial or non-judicial 

processes.17

If a creditor sells an account to a debt buyer, the account usually is sold as part of a large 

portfolio. Once a debt buyer has acquired a portfolio, it does one of the following: (1) retains 

the entire portfolio and collects on it; (2) retains and collects on part of the portfolio and resells 

the remaining accounts; or (3) resells the entire portfolio.18 To the extent that a debt buyer retains 

all or part of a portfolio, it may (similar to the creditor that originally owned the debt) collect 

using its own collectors or place an account with a contingency agency or collection law firm. 

11. Kaulkin Ginsberg, supra note 10, at 37; Debt Marketplace, Inc. Comment at 2. A credit issuer “charging off 

an account” means that the account is no longer listed as an account receivable on its books, and its value is 

charged against the credit issuer’s reserves for losses. Id. at 3. See also Nat’l Consumer Law Ctr., Fair Debt

Collection 14-15 (6th ed. 2008) [hereinafter NCLC Treatise] (“Collection efforts continue on many chargedoff debts for a substantial period of time after it is charged off. Any payment on the charged-off debt is then 

treated as income—a recovery on a bad debt—on the debt collector’s books.” (citing Uniform Retail Credit 

Classification and Account Management Policy, 65 Fed. Reg. 36,903 (June 12, 2000))).

12. Kaulkin Ginsberg, supra note 10, at 37.

13. ACA International (ACA) noted that in 1965 its members reported an average contingent rate of 40%, but the 

rate had dropped to 28% by 2005. See ACA Comment (June 6, 2007) at 70. 

14. Kaulkin Ginsberg, supra note 10, at 73-74.

15. Id.

16. Id.

17. Id. at 74. 

18. Id. at 49.
A Workshop Report

4

Many accounts are purchased and resold by a number of different debt buyers over a period of 

years before all collection efforts finally cease.

Debt buyers generally pay 5% or less of the amount owed on delinquent accounts they 

purchase.19 The amount they pay varies based on a number of factors, key among them being 

the age of the debt and the number of collectors who have already attempted to collect it. The 

longer an account has been delinquent and the greater the number of collectors who have 

already attempted to collect on it, the less likely it is that the consumer will pay the debt. As 

the likelihood of payment drops, so does the amount debt buyers are willing to pay for the debt. 

Ultimately, the process of selling and collecting on an account continues until either the debt is 

paid or the cost of collecting on the debt exceeds its expected value.

III. Legal Framework of Debt Collection

Debt collectors are subject to regulation under a number of federal and state statutes, some 

specific to debt collection practices, and others with general application. In addition to the 

FDCPA and state and local debt collection laws, debt collectors must comply with Section 5 of 

the Federal Trade Commission Act,20 the Fair Credit Reporting Act,21 the Gramm-Leach-Bliley 

Act,22 and numerous other statutes.23

A. Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

The FDCPA is the heart of the federal regulatory scheme for debt collectors. Congress 

enacted the statute “to eliminate abusive debt collection practices by debt collectors, to 

insure that debt collectors who refrain from using abusive debt collection practices are not 

competitively disadvantaged, and to promote consistent State action to protect consumers 

against debt collection abuses.”24 It generally prohibits deceptive, unfair, and abusive debt 

collection practices, including “obscene or profane language, threats of violence, telephone calls 

at unreasonable hours, misrepresentation of a consumer’s legal rights, disclosing a consumer’s 

19. Id. at 50 (estimating that debt buyers paid roughly 5 cents on the dollar in 2006 for charged-off credit card 

accounts, with the price varying based on different types and ages of portfolios); Hunt Presentation, supra note 

10, & Tr. I at 45 (“Most of the debt is sold for something like 3 cents to 5 cents on the dollar.”). But see Gary 

E. Wood, Tr. I at 74 (debt buyers “can’t really buy much for a nickel anymore; it’s more expensive”).

20. 15 U.S.C. § 45(a).

21. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1681x.

22. 15 U.S.C. §§ 6801-6809 (imposing requirements on financial institutions with respect to annual privacy 

notices, procedures for providing customers an opt-out from having certain information shared with 

nonaffiliated third parties, and safeguarding customers’ personally identifiable information).

23. See, e.g., ACA Comment (June 6, 2007) at 5-6, 76; DBA International (DBA) Comment (June 2, 2007) at 4-5. 

24. FDCPA § 802(e), 15 U.S.C. § 1692(e).
5

Collecting Consumer Debts: The Challenges of Change

personal affairs to friends, neighbors, or an employer, obtaining information about a consumer 

through false pretense, impersonating public officials and attorneys, and simulating legal 

process.”25

The FDCPA applies to third-party “debt collectors,” a term that includes contingency 

agencies, collection law firms, and debt buyers, but generally does not include creditors’ in-house 

collectors.26 Congress’s rationale for applying the statute only to third-party collectors was that, 

“[u]nlike creditors, who generally are restrained by the desire to protect their good will when 

collecting past due accounts, independent collectors are likely to have no future contact with the 

consumer and often are unconcerned with the consumer’s opinion of them.”27

The Federal Trade Commission has primary enforcement authority under the FDCPA. 

The statute also tasks seven other federal agencies with FDCPA enforcement responsibility for 

entities within their jurisdiction.28 Few of the entities these other agencies regulate are “debt 

collectors” under the FDCPA. 

If a Commission investigation reveals FDCPA violations, the agency, through its own 

attorneys, can file suit in federal court seeking preliminary and permanent injunctive relief that 

would prohibit the collector from continuing to violate the Act, award restitution to consumers, 

order the disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, and impose other ancillary relief under Section 13(b) 

of the FTC Act.29 Alternatively, the Commission may request that the Department of Justice file 

suit in federal court on behalf of the FTC, seeking a civil penalty and injunctive relief.

25. Senate Report, supra note 1, at 2.

26. FDCPA § 803(6)(A), 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6)(A). A creditor, however, brings itself within the FDCPA’s coverage 

if it uses a “name other than his own which would indicate that a third person is collecting or attempting to 

collect such debts.” FDCPA § 803(6), 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6).

27. Senate Report, supra note 1, at 2. Consistent with this reasoning, the Commission receives significantly fewer 

complaints per collector for creditors relative to third-party collectors. Nevertheless, complaints about creditor 

collection practices remain a significant concern that the FTC addresses through law enforcement actions under 

Section 5 of the FTC Act. See, e.g., In the Matter of Applied Card Sys., Inc., FTC Docket No. C-4125 (Oct. 6, 

2004); FTC v. Citigroup Inc., No. 010CV-0606 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 6, 2001). At the workshop, neither consumer 

advocates nor industry representatives recommended that the FDCPA be generally expanded to cover creditors. 

Thus, there is no basis in the workshop record for the Commission to assess the costs and benefits of such an 

expansion of FDCPA coverage, including how such an expansion would affect entities like national banks that 

are subject to regulation by other federal agencies. 

28. FDCPA § 814(b), 15 U.S.C. § 1692l(b). These agencies are the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 

the Federal Reserve Board, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of Thrift Supervision, the 

National Credit Union Administration, the Department of Transportation, and the Department of Agriculture.

29. FTC Act § 13(b), 15 U.S.C. § 53(b), authorizes the Commission to sue in federal district court to obtain 

a preliminary injunction against entities that the Commission has reason to believe are violating any law 

enforced by the Commission. The court may grant the preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order 

if the Commission shows that, weighing the equities and considering the Commission’s likelihood of ultimate 

success, the action would be in the public interest. Section 13(b) also permits federal district courts to issue a 

permanent injunction if the Commission seeks that remedy. FTC Act § 13(b)(2), 15 U.S.C. § 53(b)(2). 
A Workshop Report

6

The FDCPA also gives consumers a private right of action. Consumers can file suit 

individually or as members of a class.30 Consumers may be awarded any actual damages they 

sustain.31 In addition, individual consumers may receive “statutory” damages of up to $1,000, 

and class action plaintiffs may receive a statutory recovery “not to exceed the lesser of $500,000 

or 1 per centum of the net worth of the debt collector.”32 Courts further may require debt 

collectors to pay consumers’ court costs and attorney fees.33

B. Section 5 of the FTC Act

Certain practices that violate the FDCPA also violate Section 5 of the FTC Act.34 Thus, the 

Commission uses the FTC Act to halt unfair or deceptive debt collection practices by creditors 

and other entities not covered by the FDCPA.35 In addition, in its enforcement actions against 

debt collectors covered by the FDCPA,36 the Commission often alleges that the same practices 

violate both Section 5 and one or more FDCPA provisions.37

C. State Debt Collection Laws

Although states cannot enforce the FDCPA, most states have their own debt collection laws. 

State debt collection regulatory schemes vary, but common approaches include statutes that: 

(1) set licensing standards for collection agencies; (2) proscribe specific types of misconduct and 

provide a private right of action for injured consumers; and (3) provide criminal penalties for 

certain misconduct, such as simulating legal process.38 The FDCPA does not preempt such state 

30. See FDCPA § 813, 15 U.S.C. § 1692k.

31. FDCPA § 813(a)(1), 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(1). 

32. FDCPA § 813(a)(2), 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2).

33. FDCPA § 813(a)(3), 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3).

34. 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). To augment this general Section 5 authority, Congress passed the FDCPA to confer on the 

FTC the specific authority to challenge unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts and practices of debt collectors.

35. See, e.g., In the Matter of Applied Card Sys., Inc., FTC Docket No. C-4125 (Oct. 6, 2004); FTC v. Citigroup 

Inc., No. 010CV-0606 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 6, 2001). 

36. In a settlement announced in November 2008, for example, the Commission alleged that the debt collector 

frequently misrepresented that consumers’ wages would be garnished if they did not pay. The FTC complaint 

alleged that these misrepresentations violated both Section 5 of the FTC Act and Section 807(4) of the FDCPA. 

United States v. Acad. Collection Serv., Inc., No. 2:08-cv-01576-KJD-GWF (D. Nev. Nov. 14, 2008). See also

FTC v. Rawlins & Rivera, Inc., No. 6:07-cv-146 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 31, 2007); FTC v. Capital Acquisitions & 

Mgmt. Corp., No. 04C7781 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 2, 2004). 

37. If the Commission is able to prove a violation of one statute but not the other, “double pleading” allows the 

court to find a violation of at least one law. In the more usual circumstance where the Commission is able to 

prove a violation of both Section 5 and the FDCPA, double pleading gives the Commission the flexibility to 

seek relief for consumers under both laws.

38. NCLC Treatise, supra note 11, at 731-41. Some state debt collection statutes extend coverage to creditors 

collecting their own debts. Id. 
7

Collecting Consumer Debts: The Challenges of Change

debt collection laws unless they are inconsistent with the FDCPA, and then only to the extent of 

the inconsistency.39 A state statute is not inconsistent with the FDCPA if it affords consumers 

greater protection than the FDCPA.40

D. Privacy and Data Security Laws

The Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) imposes data privacy and accuracy standards on 

credit reporting agencies41 and companies, including debt collectors, that use consumer reports 

or furnish information to them. The FDCPA and the FCRA are closely related in that debt 

collectors frequently report delinquent account information to credit reporting agencies, and 

delinquent accounts listed in credit reports are likely to be subject to debt collection. 

Debt collectors and other entities that furnish information to credit reporting agencies 

(“furnishers”) violate the FCRA if they report information they know or have reasonable cause 

to believe is inaccurate.42 The FCRA also provides procedures for consumers to dispute the 

completeness or accuracy of information, including delinquent accounts, appearing on their 

credit reports. It requires that credit reporting agencies and furnishers investigate disputes 

addressed to credit reporting agencies.43 In addition, under a proposed rule, furnishers would 

be required to investigate disputes addressed directly to them.44 The Act further imposes 

special rules for the reporting of medical debt,45 as well as rules for reporting the correct date of 

delinquency. Credit reporting agencies use the date of delinquency to determine when the sevenyear period for reporting an account as delinquent has expired.46

In 2003, the FCRA was amended to address, among other things, identity theft. In 

particular, the FCRA prohibits the sale of a debt if a credit reporting agency notifies the owner 

39. FDCPA § 816, 15 U.S.C. § 1692n. 

40. Id. 

41. The FCRA uses the term “consumer reporting agency” when referring to credit reporting agencies. FCRA 

§ 603(f), 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(f).

42. FCRA § 623(a)(1)(A), 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)(1)(A).

43. FCRA § 611(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a); FCRA § 623(b)(1), 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)(1).

44. 72 Fed. Reg. 70,944, 70,983-84 (Dec. 13, 2007) (to be codified at 16 C.F.R. § 660.4) (“FCRA Direct Dispute 

Rule”). This proposed rule was published pursuant to a provision added to the FCRA in 2003, FCRA 

§ 623(a)(8), 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)(8), and the final rule is expected to be issued in the near future. Another 

proposed rule would require information furnishers, including debt collectors, to establish written policies 

and procedures regarding the accuracy and integrity of information they supply to credit reporting agencies. 

72 Fed. Reg. 70,944, 70,983 (to be codified at 16 C.F.R. § 660.3) (implementing FCRA § 623(e), 15 U.S.C. 

§ 1681s-2(e)) (“FCRA Accuracy and Integrity Rule”).

45. FCRA § 623(a)(9), 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)(9). See also FCRA § 605(a)(6), 15 U.S.C. § 1681c(a)(6).

46. FCRA § 623(a)(5), 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)(5).
A Workshop Report

8

of the debt that it relates to identity theft.47 The amended FCRA also requires that, if a debt 

collector acting on behalf of a creditor is notified that the debt may be fraudulent or the result of 

identity theft, the collector must forward that information to the creditor.48

In addition to the FCRA, other statutes may impose privacy requirements on debt collectors. 

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (“GLBA”),49 for instance, governs the collection, sharing, and 

safeguarding of nonpublic personal information by “financial institutions,”50 a term that includes 

debt collectors.51 GLBA also requires debt collectors to implement appropriate safeguards to 

protect the security and integrity of “customer” information.52

The HIPAA Privacy Rule,53 which implements the Health Insurance Portability and 

Accountability Act of 1996,54 likewise regulates the privacy and sharing of personal medical 

information. Debt collectors who receive or create “protected health information,” for example 

while attempting to collect medical debts, may be covered under the Privacy Rule.55 If so, they 

are restricted from sharing such information without patient consent. They also must comply 

with certain requirements under the Security Rule implementing HIPAA.56

47. FCRA § 615(f), 15 U.S.C. § 1681m(f).

48. FCRA § 615(g), 15 U.S.C. § 1681m(g).

49. 15 U.S.C. §§ 6801-6809.

50. 15 U.S.C. § 6809(3).

51. 16 C.F.R. § 313.1(b). See generally, Federal Trade Commission, How To Comply with the Privacy of 

Consumer Financial Information Rule of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act: A Guide for Small Business, available 

at http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/business/idtheft/bus67.shtm. See also Federal Trade Commission, 

Frequently Asked Questions for the Privacy Regulation, available at http://www.ftc.gov/privacy/glbact/glb-faq.

htm.

52. The FTC’s Safeguards Rule implements GLBA’s security requirements for entities under the FTC’s 

jurisdiction. See 16 C.F.R. pt. 314. The Safeguards Rule applies only to information about a consumer who is 

a “customer” of a financial institution, as that term is defined in the GLB Privacy Rule. Therefore, companies 

that are subject to the Safeguards Rule are either (1) financial institutions such as debt buyers that have 

“customer relationships” with consumers, or (2) financial institutions such as contingency debt collectors who 

receive customer information from another financial institution. See generally Federal Trade Commission, 

Financial Institutions and Customer Information: Complying with the Safeguards Rule, available at

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/business/idtheft/bus54.shtm.

53. Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information (“Privacy Rule”), 45 C.F.R. §§ 160 & 

164, subpts. A & E.

54. 42 U.S.C. § 300gg-42.

55. The term “protected health information” under HIPAA “includes any individually identifiable health 

information. Identifiable refers not only to data that is explicitly linked to a particular individual (that’s 

identified information). It also includes health information with data items which reasonably could be 

expected to allow individual identification.” University of Miami, Miller School of Medicine, Privacy/ Data

Protection Project, available at http://privacy.med.miami.edu/glossary/xd_protected_health_info.htm (last 

visited Dec. 11, 2008) (emphasis in original).

56. 45 C.F.R. §§ 160 & 164, subpts. A & C.
9

Collecting Consumer Debts: The Challenges of Change

Section 5 of the FTC Act may also impose duties on debt collectors relating to the security 

of consumer information.57 It is unfair for a debt collector to fail to take reasonable measures 

to protect sensitive consumer information if the failure causes, or is likely to cause, substantial 

injury to consumers that is not offset by benefits to consumers or competition and that consumers 

cannot reasonably avoid.58 Similarly, it is deceptive for a debt collector to promise to keep 

consumer data secure or to take specified measures to keep it secure, but then fail to do so.59

IV. The Role of the Federal Trade Commission

In implementing and enforcing the FDCPA, the Commission (1) investigates and brings law 

enforcement actions; (2) educates consumers and businesses; and (3) monitors the marketplace 

and develops policy proposals. Law enforcement is of paramount importance in protecting the 

rights of consumers. Since the FDCPA was enacted, the FTC has brought more than 60 law 

enforcement actions alleging illegal debt collection practices.60 In most of these actions, thirdparty debt collectors were charged with violating the FDCPA. The Commission, however, also 

has challenged the debt collection practices of creditors and other entities under Section 5 of 

the FTC Act. Defendants in FTC actions challenging debt collection practices as unlawful have 

paid tens of millions of dollars in disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, consumer redress, and civil 

penalties. 

In addition to investigating and bringing enforcement actions, the FTC educates consumers 

and businesses about the FDCPA and other debt collection-related laws the agency enforces. The 

Commission informs consumers of their rights under the FDCPA and how to exercise them. The 

FTC also educates consumers about the requirements that the FDCPA places on debt collectors. 

The FTC uses written materials, its website, one-on-one guidance, and public appearances to 

educate consumers. The Commission has published several brochures that explain the FDCPA 

57. See generally Federal Trade Commission, Protecting Personal Information: A Guide for Business, available at 

http://www.ftc.gov/infosecurity.

58. The Commission has alleged that a number of companies violated the FTC Act by engaging in unfair security 

practices. See, e.g., In the Matter of TJX Cos., FTC Docket No. C-4227 (July 29, 2008); In the Matter of Reed 

Elsevier Inc. and Seisint, Inc., FTC Docket No. C-4226 (July 29, 2008); United States v. ChoicePoint, Inc., 

No. 106-CV-0198 (N.D. Ga.) (settlement entered on Feb. 15, 2006); In the Matter of CardSystems Solutions, 

Inc., FTC Docket No. C-4168 (Sept. 5, 2006); In the Matter of DSW, Inc., FTC Docket No. C-4157 (March 7, 

2006); In the Matter of BJ’s Wholesale Club, Inc., FTC Docket No. C-4148 (Sept. 20, 2005). 

59. The FTC has alleged that a number of companies violated the FTC Act by making deceptive security claims. 

See, e.g., In the Matter of Guidance Software, Inc., Docket No. C-4187 (April 23, 2007); In the Matter of 

Nations Title Agency, Inc., FTC Docket No. C-4161 (June 19, 2006); United States v. ChoicePoint, Inc., No. 

106-CV-0198 (N.D. Ga.) (settlement entered Feb. 15, 2006); In the Matter of Superior Mortgage Corp., FTC 

Docket No. C-4153 (Dec. 14, 2005); In the Matter of Petco Animal Supplies, Inc., FTC Docket No. C-4133 

(March 4, 2005). 

60. For a list of the Commission’s cases alleging illegal debt collection practices, see Appendix B.
A Workshop Report

10

and other debt collection topics in consumer-friendly terms.61 Tens of thousands of consumers 

view these brochures every year, either in paper form or electronically on the FTC’s web site.

Consumer contact representatives in the FTC’s Consumer Response Center provide oneto-one guidance to consumers throughout the country who call them on a toll-free number. A 

large percentage of the calls to the Center are from consumers complaining about debt collectors. 

More generally, the Commission educates the public through interviews on local talk shows and 

presentations to consumer groups. 

The Commission also provides guidance to creditors and debt collectors to improve 

industry compliance with the FDCPA and other laws. The FTC issues formal advisory opinions 

addressing particularly significant debt collection issues.62 The Commission staff also delivers 

speeches and participates in panel discussions at conferences each year. The FTC staff further 

responds to telephone calls from collection industry members and consumer groups seeking 

guidance. 

Finally, the Commission develops policy proposals on debt collection issues. Each year 

the Commission submits a report to Congress addressing the agency’s efforts to enforce and 

implement the FDCPA.63 These annual reports describe the number and types of consumer 

complaints the Commission receives about debt collectors, summarize recent FTC enforcement 

actions alleging illegal collection practices, and outline consumer and industry education 

initiatives the agency has undertaken. If appropriate, these annual reports also include 

recommendations from the Commission as to changes in debt collection laws that would be in 

the public interest. The FTC is submitting its most recent FDCPA Annual Report to Congress in 

February 2009, in conjunction with the release of this report.64

The FTC’s two-day 2007 debt collection workshop and comment proceedings are part of the 

FTC’s policy development process. So, too, is this report summarizing the workshop findings 

and making policy recommendations for the future.

61. The brochures are available at http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/menus/consumer/credit/debt.shtm.

62. See, e.g., FTC Adv. Op. to USFN (Mar. 19, 2008), available at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2008/03/P084801fdcpa.

pdf; FTC Adv. Op. to ACA International (Oct. 5, 2007), available at http://www.ftc.gov/os/closings/staff/

P064803fairdebt.pdf. 

63. The FDCPA mandates that the FTC submit these annual reports. FDCPA § 815, 15 U.S.C. § 1692m. 

64. Federal Trade Commission Annual Report 2009: Fair Debt Collection Practices Act [hereinafter 2009 FTC

Annual Report], available at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2009/02/P094804fdcpareport.pdf. The Commission’s 

previous annual report, Federal Trade Commission Annual Report 2008: Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

[hereinafter 2008 FTC Annual Report], is available at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2008/03/P084802fdcpareport.pdf. 
11

Collecting Consumer Debts: The Challenges of Change

V. Changes in Debt Collection Industry and Practices

A. Increased Consumer Debt and Delinquency Levels

Since the enactment of the FDCPA, consumer debt has risen dramatically.65 More and more 

Americans incur greater levels of debt, much of it attributable to mortgage debt and consumer 

debt.66 Between 1985 and 2007, outstanding household debt in the United States increased 

from approximately 60% of annual disposable income to more than 125%, a jump due mostly to 

increased mortgage debt.67 One workshop presenter noted that in the mid-1980s, it would have 

taken the average household seven months of after-tax income to pay off its household debt.68 As 

of 2007, however, an average household would have needed fifteen months of after-tax income 

to pay off its household debt.69 While household-debt-to-income ratios of consumers have nearly 

doubled,70 lower interest rates and longer repayment terms have enabled many consumers to 

remain current on their debts.71

The nature of consumer debt has also shifted. Revolving consumer debt (which includes 

mostly credit card debt) increased at a compound annual growth rate of 5% between 1997 and 

65. Debt levels have risen more in some groups than in others. For example, the debt level among seniors is rising 

more rapidly than among other groups in the population. National Consumer Law Center & the National 

Association of Consumer Advocates (NCLC-NACA) Comment at 14. Credit card debt reportedly increased 

by 47% for those between age 55 and 64 from 1992 through 2001, but rose by 89% for those age 65 and over 

during the same period. Heather C. McGhee & Tamara Draut, Retiring in the Red: The Growth of Debt Among 

Older Americans, (2004), available at http://archive.demos.org/pubs/retiring_2ed.pdf. For those between 

65 and 69 years old – presumably, the newly-retired or nearly-retired – credit card debt was reported to have 

increased 217% during those years. Id. at 3. 

66. See, e.g., Bill Hampel, Overview of Household Debt Exposure at slide 6, 2007 Workshop [hereinafter Hampel 

Presentation]; Hampel, Tr. I at 21. See also Kaulkin Ginsberg, supra note 10, at 5-6. In Hampel’s data, total 

“household” debt consists of mortgage debt plus “consumer” debt (e.g., credit card debt, installment loans, 

etc.). 

67. Hampel Presentation, supra note 66, at slide 3. The ratio of household indebtedness to annual disposable 

income peaked at 126% in the third quarter of 2007. Since then it has backed off slightly, to stand at 123% 

as of the third quarter of 2008, the latest available data. This remains well above the levels typical of the past 

two decades. Bill Hampel (FTC correspondence on file with Federal Trade Commission, Division of Financial 

Practices); Federal Reserve Flow of Funds, Table L.100, available at http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/

z1/Current/z1r-4.pdf; Federal Reserve Flow of Funds, Table F.10, available at http://www.federalreserve.gov/

releases/z1/Current/z1r-3.pdf. 

68. Hampel Presentation, supra note 66, at slide 3; Hampel, Tr. I at 21. 

69. Hampel Presentation, supra note 66, at slides 4-5, 13; Hampel, Tr. I at 22. Most of the increase comes from the 

size of a household’s mortgage debt rather than consumer debt.

70. The percentage of disposable household income needed to make required payment on debts, or the “debt 

service ratio,” also increased over the decade between 1997 and 2007, and prominent industry analysts predict 

that the debt service ratio will continue to rise. See Kaulkin Ginsberg, supra note 10, at 8-9. 

71. Hampel Presentation, supra note 66, at slide 4; Hampel, Tr. I at 24-25. 
A Workshop Report

12

2007.72 During the same period, non-revolving consumer debt (which includes secured and 

unsecured loans for education and other personal property, but does not include home mortgages) 

increased at the much higher compound annual growth rate of 7.4%.73 Mortgage debt (which 

includes consumer mortgage loans, home equity loans, and home equity lines of credit) increased 

at a compound annual growth rate of 6.1% between 2004 and 2007.74

The rate of delinquency for consumer accounts remained relatively stable during the 

decade between 1997 and 2007.75 However, with the recent economic downturn, there has been 

an increase in consumer delinquency levels. For example, in January 2009, late payments on 

U.S. credit cards topped record levels, and defaults rose sharply to just below all-time highs.76 

Charge-offs on prime, general-purpose credit cards reached 7.5% in December 2008, 40% higher 

than in December 2007. Charge-offs on retail store credit cards were at 10.51% in December 

2008, up 44% from a year before.77 Similarly, the percentage of borrowers 60 or more days past 

due on their mortgage loans increased for the seventh straight quarter in the third quarter of 2008, 

reaching a national average of 3.96%.78 That figure is approximately 54% higher than the figure 

for the third quarter of 2007.79

B. Debt Collection Industry Overview

Debt collection in the United States has grown into a multi-billion dollar industry that 

employs thousands of collectors, domestically and abroad. The five types of debt that credit 

issuers historically have most often charged off and placed with collectors are credit card, 

telecommunication (e.g., wireless telephone), electric utility, healthcare, and government (e.g., 

taxes) debt.80 Similarly, ACA International’s Top Collection Markets Survey for 2006 found new 

debt collection business most prominent in the hospital, credit card, and telecommunications 

market sectors.81 

72. As of June 2007, American consumers held an average of almost $3,000 in credit card debt. Kaulkin

Ginsberg, supra note 10, at 7.

73. See id. at 6-7. 

74. See id. at 8. 

75. See ACA Comment (June 6, 2007) at 29-31. 

76. Al Yoon, US Credit Card Delinquencies at Record Highs – Fitch, Reuters, Feb. 4, 2009, available at

http://www.reuters.com/articlePrint?articleId=USN0428871920090204.

77. Id.

78. Press Release, TransUnion, Mortgage Loan Delinquency Rates Rise for Seventh Straight Quarter (Dec. 8, 

2008), available at http://newsroom.transunion.com/index.php?s=43&item=502.

79. Id. 

80. See Kaulkin Ginsberg, supra note 10, at 11. 

81. See ACA International, Top Collection Markets Survey (2007), at 7. 
13

Collecting Consumer Debts: The Challenges of Change

Since the early 1970s, the third-party collection industry has experienced a greater than 

sixfold increase in inflation-adjusted revenue and a greater than fourfold increase in collection 

industry jobs.82 One workshop presenter reported that third-party collection agencies, including 

contingency agencies, collection law firms, and debt buyers, employed over 152,000 persons in 

2007.83 Some experts also predict substantial future growth for the debt collection industry. For 

example, industry analysts estimate that revenues from the United States contingency collection 

market will increase from $10 billion in 200684 to $11.6 billion in 2011.85

The debt collection industry also has experienced significant consolidation. In 1987, the 

four largest debt collectors were responsible for 11.4% of total collection industry revenues, and 

the twenty largest collectors generated 24.7%.86 By 2002, the top four debt collectors garnered 

19.2% of total collection industry revenues, and the twenty largest took in 35.2%.87 As discussed 

in the next section, technological innovations appear to have supported the trend toward larger 

collection agencies. Another major source of consolidation seems to have been mergers and 

acquisitions. As an industry analyst described it, the debt collection industry “has been defined 

at least in part in terms of high-profile mergers and acquisitions.”88

The most significant change in the debt collection business in recent years has been the 

advent and growth of debt buying. Some companies simply buy debt and seek to recover on 

it. In addition to these companies, debt buyers also include collection law firms, contingency 

collection agencies, and investors who purchase and resell portfolios of delinquent debt.89 Debt 

buyers purchase charged-off debt from credit card issuers, retail merchants, telecommunications 

providers, utilities, and other credit providers.90 Purchased debt typically is classified by its age 

and the number of debt collectors who have attempted to collect it before it was sold.91 Credit 

card debt constitutes about 90% of all debt sold today.92 Debt buying increased substantially 

82. Hunt Presentation, supra note 10, at slide 3; Hunt, Tr. I at 38.

83. Id.

84. Kaulkin Ginsberg, supra note 10, at 37.

85. See id. at 47.

86. Hunt Presentation, supra note 10, at slide 9; Hunt, Tr. I at 45.

87. Id.

88. Kaulkin Ginsberg, supra note 10, at 96. 

89. See id. at 48. 

90. DBA Comment (June 2, 2007) at 2. 

91. Kaulkin Ginsberg, supra note 10, at 48.

92. See ACA Comment (June 6, 2007) at 40. 
A Workshop Report

14

over the decade between 1997 and 2007, and industry analysts estimate that debt buying will 

grow at an 11% rate over the next five years and reach annual revenues of $6.2 billion by 2011.93

Like debt buyers, debt collection law firms recently have experienced significant growth 

and change.94 Debt collection attorneys collect on all types of consumer debt, including credit 

card accounts, healthcare debts, mortgages, and auto loans.95 The National Association of 

Retail Collection Attorneys (“NARCA”) estimates that owners of debt refer 5% of delinquent 

accounts to collection law firms.96 Collection law firms file actions to collect on debts from 

original creditors, collection agencies, and debt buyers.97 In addition, some collection law firms 

compete with contingency agencies in collecting on debt or with debt buyers in purchasing debt 

for collection.98 Industry analysts estimate that collection law firms in the United States had 

revenues of $1.17 billion in 2006,99 and that this figure will grow at a rate of 16% a year to $2.3 

billion by 2011.100

C. Evolution in Debt Collection Methods: Communication 

Technologies

New technologies have fundamentally transformed the debt collection industry, 

broadening the scope of operations from local and regional to national, and sometimes even to 

international.101 Technological innovation has facilitated the creation of very large, full-service 

debt collection operations, while simultaneously enabling smaller, niche-focused collection 

93. See id. at 61.

94. See id. at 73.

95. National Association of Retail Collection Attorneys (NARCA) Comment (June 5, 2007) at 2.

96. Id. at 4.

97. Kaulkin Ginsberg, supra note 10, at 73.

98. Id. 

99. Id. at 75.

100. Id. at 86.

101. See ACA Comment (June 6, 2007) at 37 (noting that technology deployed over the past decade has resulted in 

more first-party collection being moved offshore for both efficiency and cost-effectiveness); id. at 65 (stating 

that “[t]echnology has deconstructed natural geographic barriers in the collection industry”). The Commission 

has encountered these new international business arrangements in its law enforcement work. In 2007, for 

example, the Commission filed suit for violations of the FDCPA and the FTC Act against a California company 

that set up a debt collection call center in Mexico and used Voice over Internet Protocol (“VoIP”) technology 

to contact consumers in the United States. See FTC v. Tono Records, Case No. CV-07-3786 JFW (Rcx) (C.D. 

Calif. June 12, 2007). 
15

Collecting Consumer Debts: The Challenges of Change

operations to thrive.102 Technological innovations also have given debt collectors more efficient 

and effective methods for tracking and contacting consumers.103

In 1977, when the FDCPA was enacted, debt collection operations were typically local or 

regional.104 One workshop participant observed that the debt collection business thirty years ago 

was “based on paper transactions . . . [r]ecipe cards, file boxes being handed from creditor to 

debt collector, a very informal, low-tech operation.”105 The high cost of long-distance telephone 

collection calls and a lack of options for affordable production and delivery of printed collection 

materials limited the operations of collectors. Consequently, debt collectors contacted consumers 

primarily by telephone calls placed to landline telephones or letters sent by United States mail.106 

These contacts were time-consuming: collectors spent time not only talking with consumers, but 

also dialing the telephone and waiting for the consumer to answer; letters were typically typed 

one by one.

In the years since the FDCPA was enacted, the adoption of computerized word processing 

and desktop publishing has made it possible for debt collectors to send customized massmailings with ease.107 Landline telephones have been supplemented, and, in some cases, 

supplanted, by alternative communication technologies. Mobile phones, email, pagers, and 

facsimile machines provide a host of options for debt collectors to reach consumers, both at 

home and on the go.108 Answering machines and voicemail systems make it possible for debt 

collectors to communicate with consumers who are unavailable to speak on the phone.109

102. See ACA Comment (June 6, 2007) at 27-28 (creditors hire third-party debt collectors “to take advantage of 

the expertise, technological advantages, and other efficiencies conferred by debt collectors which, in turn, 

permits credit grantors to downwardly adjust the minimum amount of debt deemed recoverable”); id. at 

7-8 (“the majority of ACA members, however, are small businesses,” noting that 2500 of the organization’s 

approximately 3500 collection company members employ fewer than twenty people); Rozanne Andersen, Tr. 

I at 62 (noting that technology has “created some parity between those smaller collection agencies . . . and the 

larger collection agencies, because through the use of predictive dialers and auto dialers and other technologies, 

even the smallest collection agency can now collect on a nationwide basis and is no longer local in scope.”).

103. See ACA Comment (June 6, 2007) at 28 (“Technology and the efficiencies of third-party collectors permit 

lower balance accounts to be recovered more so than in the past.”).

104. Id. at 5.

105. Andersen, Tr. I at 61.

106. See, e.g., Lawrence A. Laskey, Tr. I at 206 (“In 1977, communication was through the United States mail or 

by landline telephone. You knew who you were talking to and with whom you were leaving a message. You 

knew the local time and where they were when you talked to them.”).

107. See, e.g., DBA Comment (June 2, 2007) at 9 (noting that large collectors often outsource mailings to “letter 

vendors,” but that mail can be bar-coded “to track and notate returned mail directly to the debt buyer’s 

computer system.”); Barbara A. Sinsley, Tr. I at 97 (noting that technology aids in compliance).

108. National Council of Higher Education Loan Programs (NCHELP) Comment at 4-5, 6.

109. Commercial Law League of America (CLLA) Comment at 1-2 (noting that when the FDCPA was enacted, 

answering machines were rare and voicemail had not yet been invented).
A Workshop Report

16

Automated dialing and interactive voice recording also have made debt collectors’ calling 

campaigns substantially more efficient.110 ACA noted that “[p]erhaps the single most significant 

change in technology since the enactment of the FDCPA is the use of predictive dialers,” which 

were employed by approximately 50% of ACA members surveyed in 2005.111 Predictive dialers 

are automated computer systems that determine the number of calls to make based on the time of 

day, the number of collectors logged on to the system, and the average length of time collectors 

speak with consumers.112 These dialers permit debt collectors to be far more productive, because 

they eliminate the time spent dialing and waiting for a consumer to answer. 

Call recording technologies also have emerged, making it possible for collectors to preserve 

every collection call.113 Debt collection supervisors may review the calls of their collectors. 

Creditors and other owners of debt also may review the collection calls of their contingency 

collection agencies or collection law firms.114

Consumers have swiftly adopted many new telephone technologies. For example, by June 

2008 some 263 million subscribers, more than 84% of the United States population, owned 

cell phones.115 By that date 16% of consumers had entirely replaced their landline telephones 

with cell phones.116 One research firm reported that in 2007 the percentage of Americans 

in cellphone-only households for the first time exceeded the percentage in landline-only 

households.117 In addition, many consumers now manage in-bound telephone calls through the 

use of technologies such as answering machines, voicemail systems, and caller identification 

110. Kaulkin Ginsberg, supra note 10, at 63.

111. ACA Comment (June 6, 2007) at 56.

112. Hunt Comment at 16. Hunt adds that “[t]hese calculations are more accurate when more collectors are used 

and, combined with the high fixed costs of such systems, may explain part of the increasing scale of collection 

agencies.” Id.

113. Robert L. DiGennaro, Tr. I at 119.

114. See, e.g., Mark E. Davitt, Tr. I at 120 (“You have to do audits. You have to pull up calls from individuals and 

review those calls.”); Ira Leibsker, Tr. I at 123 (“I have auditors coming in from my clients almost on a weekly 

basis, a different client every week, who is auditing conversations.”). 

115. CTIA (The Wireless Association), Wireless Quick Facts (2008), available at http://www.ctia.org/advocacy/

research/index.cfm/AID/10323. 

116. Id. One commenter estimated that even more consumers – 20% – have traded in their landlines for cell 

phones. CLLA Comment at 2.

117. Alex Mindlin, “Cellphone-Only Homes Hit Milestone,” N.Y. Times (Aug. 27, 2007), available at http://

www.nytimes.com/2007/08/27/technology/27drill.html?scp=1&sq=Cell%20Phones%20Overtake%20

Landlines&st=cse. At the time of the survey by Mediamark Research, 14.0% of United States adults lived in 

households with one or more cell phones, but no landline; 12.3 % lived in households with a landline, but no 

cell phone. Id.
17

Collecting Consumer Debts: The Challenges of Change

services (“Caller ID”). Consumers use these technologies to screen calls before answering and 

to ensure that calls are not missed if they are unavailable to answer the phone.118 

Consumers similarly have begun to use other new communication technologies. Email 

has become a common method of communication for consumers, with approximately 80% of 

United States heads-of-households reporting that they have used this tool.119 Some even newer 

technologies, such as text messaging and social networking sites, promise continuing changes in 

how consumers communicate.120 

D. Information Collection and Storage

Technological innovations over the past thirty years have increased exponentially creditors’ 

and debt collectors’ ability to obtain, store, and transfer data about consumers and their debts. In 

response to this new capability, many industry members use more efficient means of transferring 

data and store more data for longer periods of time than their predecessors.121

1. Increases in Data Storage Capacity

A key factor in the growth of information technologies is the dramatic increase in the ability 

to retain data. The FTC’s 2006 Tech-ade hearings addressed the subject of data storage.122 An 

analyst who specializes in data storage research noted that over 2.5 million pages of text can now 

be stored in the same space that fifty years ago could hold only a short paragraph.123 According 

to the same expert, data storage capacity continues to increase by 50% each year.124 

The combination of steady increases in affordable storage capacity and increased collection 

of information in (and conversion of data to) digital formats has led to important changes in how 

118. Laskey, Tr. I at 206.

119. See Jim Duffy, 20% of U.S. Has Never Sent E-mail, PC World, May 17, 2008, available at

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/146019/20_of_us_has_never_sent_email.html. 

120. ACA Comment (June 6, 2007) at 5 (“Other technologies portend even further refinements in the collection 

process by the use of electronic mail, text messages, and cellular phones.”). Some sources predict that debt 

collection efforts may soon spread to social networking sites, such as MySpace and Facebook. See Posting 

of Jeff Michael to Credit/Debt Recovery Blog, available at http://credit.typepad.com/credit/2007/11/thefuture-of-d.html (Nov. 8, 2007, 20:48 EST) (predicting that debt collectors may use such sites both to obtain 

information about consumers and to communicate with them). 

121. See, e.g., ACA Comment (June 6, 2007) at 55 (“The electronic availability of this information allows debt 

collectors to readily access underlying account information, such as contracts or signed documents”).

122. Computing Power and How It Will Be Used in the Marketplace of the Next Tech-ade, FTC Hearings on 

Protecting Consumers in the Next Tech-ade (Nov. 6-8, 2006) [hereinafter Tech-ade]. The agenda, podcasts, 

transcripts, and report are available at http://www.ftc.gov/techade. Citations to the Tech-ade transcripts follow 

the same conventions mentioned supra note 6. 

123. Sal Capizzi, Tech-ade Tr. II at 145.

124. Id.
A Workshop Report

18

debt collection is conducted.125 Increased data storage capacity has fostered the use of document 

imaging, which “allows the user to create an electronically searchable version of a hardcopy 

document.”126 According to ACA, nearly 60% of debt collectors who responded to a 2007 

survey use document imaging.127 Document imaging reduces the cost of document retention and 

allows easy access to information.128 Industry commenters at the workshop noted that imaging 

technology enables “debt collectors to readily access underlying account information, such as 

contracts or signed documents.”129 Digitized data can easily be shared between a creditor and a 

contingency collection agency or collection law firm, or provided when a debt buyer purchases a 

portfolio. 

The general trend toward office automation, together with increased data storage capability 

and the emergence of document imaging technology, has also made it feasible and cost-effective 

for some debt collection activities to be conducted from offshore.130 According to industry 

sources, this trend is particularly prominent among creditors collecting their own debt.131 In 

addition to making collection from offshore more practicable, these same technological trends 

may decrease the cost of collection, thereby making it economical to collect smaller amounts 

than in the past.132 

2. Improvement in Database Technologies

Another trend that has significantly changed debt collection over the past thirty years is the 

ability of companies to aggregate disparate pieces of information about consumers. Companies 

maintain their own proprietary databases containing customer data, but also have at their disposal 

a vast array of information from third-party information providers. Among other things, the 

information in these third-party databases can be used to locate a consumer, determine whether 

125. Hunt, Tr. I at 43.

126. ACA Comment (June 6, 2007) at 55.

127. ACA, 2008 Agency Benchmarking Survey (2008) [hereinafter ACA 2008 Survey]; ACA Comment (June 6, 

2007) at 55 (noting that the results of a 2005 survey showed approximately 40% of respondents were using 

document imaging at that time).

128. See National Institute of Standards and Technology, ATP Focused Program Competition 97-04 Digital Data 

Storage, Nov. 1994, available at http://www.atp.nist.gov/press/97-04dds.htm.

129. ACA Comment (June 6, 2007) at 55.

130. Id. at 37.

131. See, e.g., id. at 37; Kaulkin Ginsberg, supra note 10, at 64-66.

132. ACA Comment (June 6, 2007) at 27-28. Because labor costs are lower in many offshore locations than in the 

United States, the cost for creditors to hire collectors has decreased. With this decrease in the labor costs of 

collection, it has become viable for creditors to collect debts with a lower expected value than in the past. 
19

Collecting Consumer Debts: The Challenges of Change

there is a reason the consumer should not be contacted about the debt, and predict whether, if 

contacted, he or she is likely to pay.133

Creditors use database technology to maintain the account information of consumers to 

whom they have extended credit. In most instances, creditors record and retain in searchable 

form information about the borrower – name, Social Security number (“SSN”), address, 

employer, references, and more. This information no longer resides on one or more sheets of 

paper, as it often did when the FDCPA was enacted.134 Instead, creditors either key or scan 

the relevant information into computer databases where it can readily be stored, searched, or 

transferred. Creditors use this information for general business purposes and any in-house 

collection efforts. In addition, a creditor may transfer the information to a contingency collector 

or to a debt buyer.135

Database technology also has changed the techniques that creditors and debt collectors use 

to find consumers. Individuals who specialize in tracking people down are often referred to as 

“skiptracers.” As recently as twenty years ago, skiptracers trying to locate a consumer were 

limited largely to calling references, trying to find neighbors through paper copies of reverselook-up directories, and, often, visiting the consumer’s former neighborhood in person.136 Today, 

however, skiptracers typically access huge electronic databases that aggregate public and private 

sources of information such as telephone numbers, SSNs, real estate records, court records, and 

marriage records.137 By entering a consumer’s name and identifying information, a skiptracer 

can obtain a great deal of information about the consumer,138 including the names of relatives, 

addresses where the consumer has lived, and other people who lived at those addresses at the 

same time.139 Free telephone directories are also widely available on the Internet, providing 

ready access to contact information for consumers nationwide.140

In addition to the databases that help debt collectors locate consumers, other databases 

disclose whether a debt cannot be collected because it has been discharged in a bankruptcy 

proceeding or the consumer who incurred the debt is now deceased. A debt buyer representative 

133. Michael C. Lamb, Tr. II at 21; Hunt, Tr. I at 62-63.

134. Andersen, Tr. I at 61.

135. See, e.g., Kathleen M. Pierce, Tr. I at 286.

136. Lamb, Tr. II at 12.

137. Lamb, Tr. II at 15.

138. Even though technology has increased the quantity of information now available to skiptracers, they may 

identify the wrong consumer as the debtor if the quality of that information is poor. 

139. Lamb, Tr. II at 14.

140. DBA Comment (June 2, 2007) at 9. The FCRA also permits debt collectors and skiptracers to obtain credit 

reports on consumers in connection with collecting credit accounts. FCRA § 604(a)(3)(A); 15 U.S.C. 

§ 1681b(a)(3)(A).
A Workshop Report

20

noted that, before a debt buyer takes any collection action on an account, “it is customary – 

probably beyond customary – to send the file out to be scrubbed for bankrupt and deceased 

accounts.”141

After acquiring location information about a consumer and determining based on database 

information that he or she is neither bankrupt nor deceased, debt collectors sometimes use 

mathematical scoring models to predict whether they will be able to collect the accounts in a 

portfolio.142 Collectors use these scoring models in much the same way that creditors use credit 

scores to predict the likelihood that a prospective borrower will repay borrowed money. In fact, 

debt buyers often use scoring models to determine initially whether to purchase a portfolio of 

delinquent accounts and, if so, how much to pay for it.143

E. Payment Methods

New technologies also have altered how consumers pay debt collectors. Payment options 

have greatly expanded since the FDCPA was enacted, when consumers primarily paid by cash 

or check. Many new electronic payment (“e-payment”) technologies and systems, such as 

credit cards, debit cards, stored value cards, electronic benefit transfers, and automated check 

clearinghouse (“ACH”) debits, have emerged.144 These new methods can facilitate instantaneous 

payment, and consumers can use them to pay over the telephone or the Internet. The availability 

of these new, convenient payment mechanisms has given rise to new debt collection business 

models, such as companies that allow online debt negotiation and payment.145

Consumers and businesses have embraced the use of these new payment methods in 

many consumer transactions. In all consumer transactions, e-payments have been used more 

frequently than check payments since at least 2003. In 2006, more than two-thirds of all noncash payment transactions were e-payments.146 According to NACHA–The Electronic Payments 

141. Robin R. Pruitt, Tr. II at 37.

142. See, e.g., Hunt, Tr. I at 62-63 (noting that the ability to use scoring models to predict the likelihood of 

repayment is a significant change in technology available to debt collectors over the past thirty years).

143. Kaulkin Ginsberg, supra note 10, at 56.

144. Jeanne Hogarth, Tech-ade, supra note 122, Tr. III at 6; see also Emily Gaumer, Your Card Please, Collector, 

Mar. 2005, at 45-46.

145. See, e.g., Ann McDonald, Collecting in Cyberspace, Collections & Credit Risk, Feb. 2005, at 20.

146. Federal Reserve System, The 2007 Federal Reserve Payments Study: Noncash Payment Trends in the

United States 2003-2006 (Dec. 10, 2007), 4-5, available at http://www.frbservices.org/files/communications/

pdf/research/2007_payments_study.pdf [hereinafter 2007 Federal Reserve Payments Study]. Although 

electronic payments are made far more frequently than check payments, as of 2006 they still comprised less 

than half by value of all noncash money paid. Id. at 9. 
21

Collecting Consumer Debts: The Challenges of Change

Association, annual ACH payment147 volume continues to double every five years.148 Debit card 

volume has also increased significantly,149 with consumers more and more frequently using debit 

cards for day-to-day transactions.150 Although the Commission is not aware of data addressing 

the prevalence of new payment methods in paying debts in collection, the use of e-payments to 

pay debts seems likely to increase as these payment methods become more common in consumer 

transactions.151

VI. Modernizing the Debt Collection System and Legal

Framework

The Commission believes that the debt collection system should protect consumers from 

harm without unduly burdening the collection process. Based on the workshop record and the 

agency’s experience, the Commission concludes that the debt collection system needs to be 

reformed to continue to strike this balance. Specifically, the FTC believes that reform should 

focus on achieving the goals articulated below. The report also suggests future public and private 

initiatives that should be implemented if these goals are to be met, charting a course for future 

directions in the debt collection industry.

A. Information Flow in the Debt Collection System

Information is the lifeblood of the debt collection system. Based on the workshop record 

and its own experience, the Commission believes that there are two major problems with the 

flow of information from creditors to debt collectors and from debt collectors to consumers. 

The first is that debt collectors often have inadequate information when they contact consumers, 

thereby increasing the likelihood that they will reach the wrong consumer, try to collect the 

wrong amount, or both. The second is that debt collectors do not provide adequate information 

to consumers, thereby making it more difficult for consumers to assess whether they actually 

147. Direct ACH debits are a way to remove money from a consumer’s account pursuant to the debt collectormerchant’s instructions, over an electronic clearing system known as the automated clearinghouse or “ACH.” 

148. Press Release, NACHA - The Electronic Payments Association, NACHA Reports More Than 18 Billion ACH 

Payments in 2007: US Financial Institutions Added 2 Billion ACH Payments to Annual Volume (May 19, 

2008), available at http://www.nacha.org/news/news/pressreleases/2008/2008/Volume_Final.pdf. 

149. Hogarth, Tech-ade, supra note 122, Tr. III at 6; see also 2007 Federal Reserve Payments Study, supra note 

146, at 5 (the number of debit card payments in 2006 exceeded the number of credit card payments).

150. Mark MacCarthy, Tech-ade, supra note 122, Tr. III at 20.

151. See, e.g., ACA Comment (June 6, 2007) at 64 (Electronic payments are beneficial for both businesses and 

consumers; “[i]ndeed, consumers increasingly have come to request to make payments electronically.”); DBA 

Comment (June 2, 2007) at 9 (expanding use of Internet-based payment portals providing for online payment). 
A Workshop Report

22

owe the debt in question and exercise their rights under the FDCPA. Improving the flow of 

information within the debt collection system is critical to reforming the industry.

1. Problems with Information Flow in the Debt Collection System

At the workshop there was a broad discussion of the flow of information to debt collectors. 

A number of commenters identified the inadequacy of credit information as a significant source 

of problems for both consumers and debt collectors. When accounts are transferred to debt 

collectors, the accompanying information often is so deficient that the collectors seek payment 

from the wrong consumer or demand the wrong amount from the correct consumer.152 NCLC 

and NACA commented that debt collectors often lack significant information about the debts 

they are attempting to collect, including the date the debt was incurred and a breakdown of the 

fees and charges added to the original debt.153 An attorney who represents consumers in actions 

against debt collectors reported that debt buyers she has encountered receive only “an electronic 

spreadsheet that contains the consumer’s name, Social Security number, last known address, 

charge-off date, the amount owed, date and amount of last payment” when they purchase account 

portfolios.154

A leading association of debt buyers, DBA International (“DBA”), acknowledged that 

it is common for a debt buyer to receive only a computerized summary of the creditor’s 

business records when it purchases a portfolio, but added that “the due diligence process and 

representations and warranties in the purchase agreement help ensure the accuracy and integrity 

of the debts sold and provide some protections if the information provided is insufficient 

or incorrect.”155 According to one workshop participant, it is industry practice to include in 

contracts between original creditors and initial, or “primary,” debt buyers the right to receive 

from the creditor, upon request, documentation needed to address consumer disputes or to 

support a lawsuit “for a particular amount of accounts in the portfolio and/or for a particular 

period of time.”156 Some contracts between primary debt buyers and secondary debt buyers 

provide that, if the secondary debt buyer requests documentation to address consumer disputes or 

152. See, e.g., NCLC-NACA Comment at 26-27; Margot Saunders, Tr. II at 213-14; Laura Udis, Tr. II at 216; Bev 

Evancic, Tr. I at 287-89; Anthony G. Looney, Tr. I at 291; Cary L. Flitter, Tr. I at 292-93; District Council 37 

Municipal Employees Legal Services (DC 37) Comment at 3; Ron Jones Comment at 1. 

153. NCLC-NACA Comment at 27-28.

154. Neighborhood Economic Development Advocacy Project (NEDAP) Comment at 5. 

155. DBA Comment (June 2, 2007) at 12. DBA noted that “[a] debt buyer may request exclusion of accounts that 

(1) are pending or have been pending in bankruptcy, (2) involve alleged or established fraud, (3) have been 

paid prior to purchase, (4) are the accounts of deceased debtors, and/or (5) are other ‘problem’ accounts.” Id.

at 7.

156. Pruitt, Tr. II at 63.
23

Collecting Consumer Debts: The Challenges of Change

to support a lawsuit, the primary debt buyer will attempt to obtain it from the original creditor.157 

It does not appear, however, that secondary or subsequent debt buyers often use such contractual 

rights to obtain information from creditors through primary debt buyers.

Many participants at the workshop asserted that the owners of a debt should transfer 

adequate amounts of information whenever they assign an account to a contingency collector or 

collection attorney, or sell an account to a debt buyer. Debt collection industry representatives 

voiced strong support for improving the quality of information conveyed to debt collectors when 

accounts are transferred. For example, DBA commented that, “[b]ecause more information 

promotes a fair and appropriate result for consumers and therefore also results in higher 

collection rates, DBA has been and continues to be a very strong advocate for the transfer of all 

relevant information about a debt at the time of purchase.”158 

Workshop participants and commenters offered several possible reasons why creditors 

often transfer inadequate information to collectors. A collection industry consultant noted that, 

although the ability to share information exists, the technology necessary to enable a creditor to 

transfer all documentation at the time of sale of the portfolio may be prohibitively expensive for 

many creditors.159 Some industry commenters reported a concern that the cost to creditors of 

transferring all information may exceed the information’s value to debt collectors.160 A collection 

attorney reported that, although new technology may make it feasible for creditors and debt 

collectors to store large quantities of data about accounts in collection, such documentation 

would be relevant to disputes less than one percent of the time his firm brings a collection 

claim.161

Creditor representatives also voiced privacy and security concerns about the routine transfer 

of large amounts of information along with accounts. For example, ACA, which represents 

creditors as well as third-party debt collectors and debt buyers, argued that a number of privacy 

laws restrict creditors’ sharing of consumers’ personal financial information with others in the 

debt collection system.162 A collection industry consultant further noted that concerns about 

data security help drive decisions on whether to share information with other parties in the debt 

collection chain.163

157. Pruitt, Tr. II at 64-65. 

158. DBA Comment (Nov. 9, 2007) at 1.

159. Evancic, Tr. I at 296.

160. See, e.g., Robert Markoff, Tr. I at 215-16.

161. Markoff, Tr. I at 215-16.

162. ACA Comment (June 6, 2007) at 76-78.

163. Evancic, Tr. I at 308-09. Ms. Evancic noted that the creditor must control the transfer of information to ensure 

that personally-identifying information is kept secure. Id. at 288, 308-09.
A Workshop Report

24

Collection industry members also voiced concern that current legislative proposals would 

prevent them from obtaining consumers’ Social Security numbers when creditors assign or 

sell debts to them.164 The collection industry consultant noted that, although debt collectors 

find SSNs particularly helpful in identifying the correct individual debtor, creditors remain 

cautious about releasing this sensitive information.165 A representative of a consumer database 

company used by debt collectors reported that his company’s technology is much more likely to 

find the correct consumer if the collector has an SSN.166 The SSN, he added, “is a key link that 

differentiates one individual from someone else with a similar name.”167

Based on the workshop record and other sources, the Commission concludes that the 

information received by debt collectors is often inadequate and results in attempts to collect from 

the wrong consumer or to collect the wrong amount.

2. Solutions to Information Flow Problems

a. Substantiation for Debt Collectors’ Claims

Collectors have a legal obligation to possess information to support the claims they make 

to consumers about debt, pursuant to both Section 5(a) of the FTC Act,168 and Section 807 of the 

FDCPA.169 Deceptive claims about the debts consumers owe violate both statutes, whether these 

claims are express or implied. A debt collector’s representation that a consumer owes an amount 

of money also conveys the implied claim that the collector has a reasonable basis to substantiate 

the assertion that the consumer owes the debt.170 If the collector does not have substantiation, 

this implied claim is false. 

164. Stacey J. Schacter, Tr. I at 199; Evancic, Tr. I at 288.

165. Evancic, Tr. I at 289-90.

166. Lamb, Tr. II at 13.

167. Lamb, Tr. II at 13. The Commission recently released a report addressing the role of Social Security numbers 

in the context of identity theft. As the Commission pointed out in the report, “[S]ince the creation of the 

SSN in 1936, the private sector increasingly has utilized it for various purposes – both as an identifier and an 

authenticator – because it is the only permanent, unique piece of information that most Americans have about 

themselves. . . . The SSN has, over time, become an integral part of our financial system.” Federal Trade

Commission, Security in Numbers: SSN and ID Theft 11 (December 2008), available at http://www.ftc.gov/

os/2008/12/P075414ssnreport.pdf.

168. 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). Section 5(a) prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.”

169. 15 U.S.C. § 1692e. Section 807 of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692e, prohibits debt collectors from using “any 

false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt.”

170. See, e.g., FTC v. EMC Mortgage Corp., No. 4:08-cv-338 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 9, 2008) (mortgage servicer settled 

allegations that it violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by lacking a reasonable basis for representations that it 

made to borrowers, including claims about the unpaid principal amount, the due date, the interest rate, the 

delinquency status, and fees and corporate advances that prior mortgage loan servicers had assessed). 
25

Collecting Consumer Debts: The Challenges of Change

The information needed to support a claim of consumer debt likely will depend, in part, on 

when the collector makes the claim. For example, a debt collector may need less information in 

an initial communication with a consumer than it would need to substantiate the claim once the 

consumer has disputed the debt. Whether a debt collector has a reasonable basis for its claim 

that a consumer owes a debt, therefore, is very fact-specific.171 

In many situations, the account information a debt collector receives from the owner of 

the debt may provide a reasonable basis for asserting that a consumer owes the debt, even if the 

debt collector has attempted to collect from the wrong consumer or to collect the wrong amount. 

Indeed, courts have held that Section 813(c) of the FDCPA172 exempts debt collectors from 

liability for collection errors made in reasonable reliance on information received from creditors 

that assign or sell accounts to them.173 A debt collector may not avail itself of this defense, 

however, if its reliance on the creditor’s representations was unreasonable.174

b. Information Debt Collectors Should Include in Validation Notices

Section 809(a) of the FDCPA175 requires debt collectors, within five days after initially 

contacting a consumer, to send the consumer what is often referred to as a “validation notice.” 

The notice must contain:

(1) the amount of the debt; 

(2) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed; 

171. FTC Policy Statement Regarding Advertising Substantiation, appended to In the Matter of Thompson Medical 

Co., 104 F.T.C. 648, 839 (1984), aff’d, 791 F.2d 189 (D.C. Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1086 (1987).

172. Section 813(c) of the FDCPA provides that “[a] debt collector may not be held liable in any action brought 

under [the FDCPA] if the debt collector shows by a preponderance of evidence that the violation was not 

intentional and resulted from a bona fide error notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures reasonably 

adapted to avoid any such error.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(c). 

173. See, e.g., Ross v. RJM Acquisitions Funding LLC, 480 F.3d 493, 497 (7th Cir. 2007) (bona fide error defense 

applied to debt buyer that attempted to collect a debt discharged in bankruptcy; debt buyer’s reasonable steps 

to avoid the error included: (1) an understanding with firms that sell it debts that the firms would notify 

the debt buyer if they later discovered that the debt had been discharged; and (2) hiring a firm to conduct a 

computerized search of bankruptcies (search failed because creditor that sold the account had given the debt 

buyer the name that the consumer used at the time she opened the account, rather than the name she listed in 

her bankruptcy filing)); Smith v. Transworld Sys., Inc., 953 F.2d 1025, 1032 (6th Cir. 1992) (debt collector not 

liable for attempting to collect amount greater than consumer owed; collector reasonably relied on incorrect 

amount creditor printed on collector’s referral form, which instructed creditors to claim only amounts legally 

due and owing).

174. See, e.g., Clark v. Capital Credit & Collection Serv., Inc., 460 F.3d 1162, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006) (debt collector 

who attempted to collect disputed medical debt not entitled to summary judgment on bona fide error defense 

because consumers presented evidence indicating that collector knew of serious bookkeeping difficulties and 

billing problems in doctor’s office, and debt collector presented no evidence that its reliance on the doctor’s 

information was reasonable or that it maintained procedures to avoid errors). 

175. 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a).
A Workshop Report

26

(3) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, 

disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be 

valid by the debt collector; 

(4) a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirtyday period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will 

obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy 

of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector; 

and 

(5) a statement that, upon the consumer’s written request within the thirty-day period, the 

debt collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of the original 

creditor, if different from the current creditor.

The Commission recommends that Section 809(a) be amended to require debt collectors to 

provide more and better information in validation notices to allow consumers to exercise their 

rights under the FDCPA more effectively. Specifically, the FTC recommends that validation 

notices include: (i) statements notifying consumers of two significant rights they have under 

the FDCPA; (ii) the name of the original creditor; and (iii) an itemization of the principal, total 

interest, and total fees that make up the debt. 

i. Rights that consumers have under Sections 809(b) and 805(c) of the 

FDCPA

Section 809(b) of the FDCPA provides that, if a consumer disputes a debt or requests 

verification of the debt in writing within thirty days of receiving the validation notice, the debt 

collector must suspend collection efforts until it obtains verification of the debt and mails it to 

the consumer.176 Section 805(c) of the FDCPA requires a debt collector to cease contacting a 

consumer about a debt if the consumer requests it in writing.177 This latter provision does not 

prevent filing suit to collect the debt, but it does make it illegal for the collector to continue 

calling the consumer or sending him or her collection letters. The FDCPA does not require debt 

collectors to notify consumers of either of these rights, and few, if any, debt collectors appear to 

supply this information voluntarily. 

NCLC and NACA recommended that collectors be required to notify consumers in every 

communication (including the validation notice) that they can demand that the collector cease 

further communication about the debt. Without this information being provided, NCLC and 

176. 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b). 

177. 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(c). Unlike under Section 809(b), there is no requirement that consumers exercise the 

Section 805(c) cease communication right within a certain period.
27

Collecting Consumer Debts: The Challenges of Change

NACA report, “vulnerable consumers have no knowledge of their right to exercise this peaceproviding protection.”178

Based on its experience, the Commission agrees that consumers do not appear to recognize 

that the FDCPA gives them the right to demand that collectors cease contacting them. It also 

appears that many consumers do not know that debt collectors must suspend collection efforts 

between the time they receive a consumer dispute and the time they supply the consumer with 

written verification. Consumers would benefit from knowing about these rights, and including 

information about them in the validation notices collectors already are required to provide would 

seem to impose small marginal costs on debt collectors. 

One industry representative warned that requiring debt collectors to notify consumers that 

they have the right to cease communications might result in more debt collection lawsuits.179

According to this commenter, if consumers who otherwise would reach a settlement with a debt 

collector instead shut off all communications because they are aware of their legal right to do 

so, debt collectors would have no practical alternative to filing a lawsuit. In response to these 

concerns, one regulator replied that the number of debt collection lawsuits filed was already 

quite high, so she was not especially concerned about a predicted increase in the number of suits 

filed.180 

On balance, the Commission concludes that the benefits from requiring that validation 

notices provide consumers with more information about their rights under the FDCPA exceed 

the costs. The FTC therefore recommends that Congress amend Section 809(a) of the FDCPA to 

require that debt collectors inform consumers in validation notices that (1) if they send a timely 

written dispute or request for verification, the debt collector must suspend collection efforts until 

it has provided the verification in writing; and (2) if they request in writing that the debt collector 

cease contacting them, the collector must comply.

ii. Name of the original creditor

Section 809(a) requires that a debt collector include in the validation notice it provides to 

the consumer “the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed.”181 Once a debt has been sold, 

however, the owner of the debt will no longer be the original creditor. The Commission has 

received many complaints from consumers who reported collection attempts on behalf of owners 

178. NCLC-NACA Comment at 32. See also Udis, Tr. II at 215 (state regulator recommended that the FDCPA be 

amended to require notifying consumers of their right to cease communications with debt collectors). 

179. Leibsker, Tr. I at 111-12.

180. Marla Tepper, Tr. I at 167.

181. FDCPA § 809(a)(2), 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(2).
A Workshop Report

28

of debt whose names the consumers did not recognize. Workshop commenters and panelists 

voiced similar concerns.182

In its 2005 Annual FDCPA Report,183 the Commission stated that it would consider in the 

future whether collectors should be required to provide the name of the original creditor in their 

validation notices.184 Identifying the original creditor seems likely to benefit consumers and 

collectors by making it easier to determine whether the collector is seeking the correct amount 

from the right consumer. Information identifying the original creditor is particularly important 

given that debt is often now resold a substantial number of times over the course of years. 

Because debt collectors already must provide validation notices to consumers, the marginal 

cost of adding the name of the original creditor to such notices likely would be small. The FTC 

therefore recommends that Congress require debt collectors to include in their validation notices 

the name of the original creditor185 in addition to the name of the current owner of the debt.

iii. Itemization of principal, interest, and fees

Section 809(a) of the FDCPA requires that validation notices include “the amount of the 

debt.” The provision does not require that this amount be broken out into principal, interest, 

and fees, and debt collectors often do not include such an itemization.186 NCLC and NACA 

commented that

[c]ollectors often bundle extra charges, fees, and interest into the “amount 

of the debt.” This causes considerable confusion for consumers, who do 

not have the essential information to determine exactly where the debt was 

incurred, or whether the amount of debt includes illegal charges. . . . As 

seniors incur more and more debt, and as debt collectors collect on debt that 

may be years old, it is [a] particular problem for one with a fading memory 

to understand whether an alleged debt is valid.187

182. NCLC-NACA Comment at 29; Mary Spector, Tr. I at 156. 

183. Federal Trade Commission Annual Report 2005: Fair Debt Collection Practices Act [hereinafter 2005 FTC

Annual Report] 22, available at http://www.ftc.gov/reports/fdcpa05/050729fdcparpt.pdf.

184. Id. at 23 n.41. This Report also recommended that Congress amend Section 809 to provide that a debt 

collector who states the name and address of the original creditor in its first communication with a consumer 

need not offer or provide that information a second time if the consumer requests it. Id. at 23. 

185. The National Association of Retail Collection Attorneys, the only collection industry commenter that addressed 

a requirement that validation notices include the name of the original creditor, noted that it would not be 

opposed to such a requirement. NARCA Comment (June 5, 2007) at 7.

186. NCLC-NACA Comment at 29.

187. Id. 
29

Collecting Consumer Debts: The Challenges of Change

In its 2005 Annual Report, the Commission recommended that Congress amend Section 

809(a) to permit a consumer to obtain from a debt collector, upon written request, an itemization 

of all charges added after that collector obtained the debt.188 The FTC said that permitting 

consumers to obtain these itemized charges would allow them to determine whether any 

charges being demanded by a debt collector were erroneous or subject to dispute.189 The agency 

also noted that requiring debt collectors to itemize charges would assist the Commission and 

consumers in enforcing two FDCPA provisions: (1) Section 807(2),190 which bars collectors 

from falsely representing the “character, amount, or legal status” of a debt or the compensation 

they may receive for the collection of a debt; and (2) Section 808(1),191 which bars “[t]he 

collection of any amount (including any interest, fee, charge, or expense incidental to the 

principal obligation) unless such amount is expressly authorized by the agreement creating the 

debt or permitted by law.”192 The Commission further said that it would consider in the future 

whether debt collectors should be required to provide consumers in validation notices with an 

itemization of all charges to an account, including the original amount of the debt and charges by 

the original creditor and all prior collectors.193

Based on the workshop record and its experience, the agency recommends that Congress 

amend the FDCPA to require debt collectors to include in all validation notices an itemization 

of: (1) the principal; (2) the total of all interest; and (3) the total of all fees and other charges 

added. Consumer advocates stated that such a requirement would provide significant benefits to 

consumers.194 For example, NCLC and NACA reasoned that requiring debt collectors to include 

both an itemization and the name of the original creditor “would reduce the number of questions 

and verification requests received, as many of the questions inherent in these requests would be 

answered with the information initially required.”195 Debt collectors also would benefit from 

receiving an itemization at the time of transfer of debt, in that consumers would be more likely 

to recognize debts they have incurred and, therefore, may be more willing to discuss payment 

arrangements. Debt buyers, in particular, would benefit from obtaining such an itemization of 

188. 2005 FTC Annual Report, supra note 183, at 22. 

189. Id. 

190. 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2).

191. 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(1).

192. 2005 FTC Annual Report, supra note 183, at 22. 

193. 2005 FTC Annual Report, supra note 183, at 23 n.41.

194. See, e.g., New York City Department of Consumer Affairs (NYC-DCA) Comment at 3; NCLC-NACA 

Comment at 29; Able Debt Settlement, Inc. (Able) Comment at 12, 16.

195. NCLC-NACA Comment at 29.
A Workshop Report

30

debts they purchase, because they must distinguish between principal and interest to prepare 

Form 1099-C’s to comply with Section 6050P of the Internal Revenue Code.196

Creditors typically store itemized data for all of their accounts in large electronic databases 

during the entire time they own the accounts. Although it appears that credit issuers often do 

not transfer this information when they sell account portfolios to debt buyers197 or when they 

assign accounts to contingency collectors, the FTC is not aware of any technological impediment 

to such transfers. Because the information is stored in electronic databases, transfers from 

the creditor to debt buyers or third-party collection agencies would require no scanning and 

apparently minimal additional electronic storage space. It therefore does not appear that such 

transfers would impose substantial burdens on creditors and other owners of debt. In addition, 

adding to the validation notice the few numbers and words that make up this itemized breakdown 

would impose little marginal cost on debt collectors who already must provide this notice to 

consumers.

The Commission therefore recommends that Congress amend Section 809(a) to require 

debt collectors to include in all validation notices an itemization of: (1) the principal; (2) the 

total of all interest; and (3) the total of all fees and other charges added.198 Consumer groups 

have consistently advocated for greater informational disclosure by debt collectors, as discussed 

above. In the future, the Commission may consider the costs and benefits of mandating that 

validation notices break these items out further to reveal the principal, interest, and fees that the 

original creditor and each debt collector added to the debt.

c. Improving the Debt Verification Process

Section 809(b) of the FDCPA provides that, if a consumer disputes a debt in writing within 

thirty days of being notified of this right, a debt collector must suspend collection efforts until it 

“obtains verification of the debt” and mails it to the consumer.199 The FDCPA does not, however, 

specify what constitutes “verification of the debt.” The Senate report issued at the time the 

196. 26 U.S.C. § 6050P. Section 6050P of the Internal Revenue Code requires that debt buyers send a form to the 

Internal Revenue Service (Form 1099-C) whenever the debt buyer is deemed to have discharged a principal 

amount of $600 or more owed on a debt. Because Section 6050P deems debt buyers to have discharged 

their debts under many circumstances (e.g., including accepting less than the full amount owed and failing to 

engage in “significant, bona fide collection activity” during the previous 12-month period), debt buyers often 

must be able to distinguish between principal and interest to prepare Form 1099-C in compliance with the 

Internal Revenue Code. See Treas. Reg. § 1.650P-1; Letter from Donna Welch, Senior Counsel, Administrative 

Provisions & Judicial Practice, Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury, to Rozanne M. 

Anderson, General Counsel, ACA International (Oct. 7, 2005), at 3. 

197. See, e.g., Ira Rheingold, Tr. I at 294.

198. For example, for a $2000 debt, a debt collector might send a validation notice to the consumer stating: (1) 

$1,000 - Principal; (2) $750 - Interest; and (3) $250 - Fees and Other Charges.

199. 5 U.S.C. § 1692g(b).
31

Collecting Consumer Debts: The Challenges of Change

FDCPA was enacted stated that the provision was intended to “eliminate the recurring problem of 

debt collectors dunning the wrong person or attempting to collect debts which the consumer has 

already paid. Since the current practice of most debt collectors is to send similar information to 

consumers, this provision will not result in additional expense or paperwork.”200

Consumer advocates assert that some debt collectors, particularly debt buyers, often do 

little or nothing to verify debts if consumers dispute their validity.201 An attorney who represents 

consumers in actions against debt collectors reported that debt buyers typically do not have 

access to the original credit application with the consumer’s signature, the specific contract that 

applied to the consumer’s account, copies of original credit card statements, or customer service 

records that could confirm or clarify a fraud claim or a legitimate customer dispute.202 According 

to one workshop speaker: “If somebody raises a dispute, the answer comes back [from the debt 

collector], ‘Well, that’s what the creditor says you owe them.’”203 On the other hand, one creditor 

representative reported that the third-party debt collectors hired by her company are required 

to investigate and resolve consumer disputes, including contacting creditor representatives if 

necessary.204 

As several commenters noted, courts have not interpreted Section 809(b) as requiring 

that debt collectors undertake substantial efforts to verify disputed debt.205 In a leading case 

addressing this issue, Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo, consumers alleged that a collection attorney and 

his law firm violated Section 809(b) by failing to verify the inspection fee portion of a delinquent 

home loan debt.206 In his first demand letter to the consumers, the collection attorney listed 

the amount owed for principal, interest, and inspection fees.207 After receiving a letter from 

the consumers’ attorney disputing the amount of the debt, the collection attorney contacted the 

creditor and obtained confirmation that the sums were owed; verified the amounts of the debt 

in a letter to consumers’ counsel that again broke out the principal, interest, and inspection 

fees;208 and forwarded a copy of the bank’s computerized summary of the consumers’ loan 

transactions.209 The summary included a running account of the debt amount, a description of 

200. Senate Report, supra note 1, at 4. 

201. See, e.g., NCLC-NACA Comment at 12-13; Flitter, Tr. I at 304-07. 

202. NEDAP Comment at 5.

203. L. Saunders, Tr. I at 148. 

204. Pierce, Tr. I at 317-18.

205. See, e.g., Flitter, Tr. I at 310-11.

206. Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo, 174 F.3d 394, 405-06 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 891 (1999). The consumers 

also alleged that the defendants failed to verify the legal fees portion of the debt. Id. at 406.

207. Id. at 400.

208. Id.

209. Id. at 406.
A Workshop Report

32

each transaction, and the date on which the transaction occurred.210 The next day, the collection 

attorney sent the consumers’ attorney another letter restating the amount of the inspection fees 

and indicating that the amount was correct.211

The district court found that the collection attorney had adequately verified the amount of 

the inspection fees.212 The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the 

district court’s holding, adding that 

verification of a debt involves nothing more than the debt collector 

confirming in writing that the amount being demanded is what the creditor is 

claiming is owed; the debt collector is not required to keep detailed files of 

the alleged debts. [Internal citations omitted.] Consistent with the legislative 

history, verification is only intended to “eliminate the [recurring] problem 

of debt collectors dunning the wrong person or attempting to collect debts 

which the consumer has already paid.” S. Rep. No. 95-382, at 4 (1977), 

reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1695, 1699. There is no concomitant 

obligation to forward copies of bills or other detailed evidence of the debt.213

A number of courts, including the only other federal circuit court to address the issue, have 

applied the Fourth Circuit’s language in determining whether a collector’s efforts to verify a 

debt were adequate.214 Some debt collectors currently conduct verification consistent with their 

understanding of these court rulings, e.g., by doing nothing more than providing consumers with 

a written statement that the amount being demanded is what the creditor claims is owed.

As explained above, Congress intended Section 809(b) to address the problem of debt 

collectors collecting from the wrong person, the wrong amount, or both. Many debt collectors 

have responded to verification requests by only confirming in writing for consumers that the 

amount demanded is what the creditor claims is owed. Collectors are conducting this minimal 

effort at the same time that consumers increasingly complain about efforts to collect from the 

wrong person or the wrong amount. The Commission believes that requiring a more substantial 

investigation of disputed debts is consistent with and would further the Congressional intent 

behind Section 809(b).

In connection with the workshop, consumer advocates proposed that debt collectors be 

required to conduct reasonable investigations and provide consumers with verification that 

210. Id.

211. Id.

212. Id.

213. Id.

214. See, e.g., Clark v. Capital Credit & Collection Serv., Inc., 460 F.3d 1162, 1173-74 (9th Cir. 2006); McCammon 

v. Bibler, Newman, & Reynolds, 515 F. Supp. 2d 1220, 1225 (D. Kan. 2007); Anderson v. Frederick J. Hanna & 

Assoc., 361 F. Supp. 2d 1379, 1383 (N.D. Ga. 2005). 
33

Collecting Consumer Debts: The Challenges of Change

is specific to the consumer’s dispute.215 One consumer advocate offered examples of such 

consumer-specific verification:

[I]f a consumer raises an identity theft dispute, the debt collector should 

provide verification that relates to the identity of the cardholder. If the 

consumer raises a dispute as to the amount, the debt collector should provide 

verification that relates to the amount. The verification should consist of 

copies of actual documents, not just a confirmation and renewed demand for 

the amount.216

Some debt collection industry representatives commented that, if the FDCPA is amended to 

require debt collectors to provide more substantial verification in response to consumer disputes, 

the new requirements should be flexible. According to NARCA,

The documentation required to verify the debt will vary depending on 

the nature of the original obligation. Any effort by the FTC to provide a 

“checklist” of information that would be required for adequate verification 

should be rejected because detailed proof of the debt is a matter reserved for 

a Court proceeding, rather than a pre-litigation collection process which, at 

any time, can be stopped in its tracks by a debtor’s cease and desist demand 

pursuant to [Section 805(c) of the FDCPA].217

A representative of a large debt buyer likewise contended that “[n]o rigid minimum standard 

can apply to the many different types and ages of consumer debts in the United States. What 

constitutes sufficient documentation . . . will only work if it is subjective enough to take into 

consideration the many different types of delinquent consumer debts.”218

The FTC believes that the FDCPA should be amended to require debt collectors to conduct 

“reasonable” investigations that are responsive to the specific disputes consumers have raised. 

This is the same standard that debt collectors already must meet to comply with the FCRA if a 

credit reporting agency transmits a consumer’s dispute to the debt collector.219 Thus, adding a 

“reasonable” investigation standard to the FDCPA would impose a burden on debt collectors 

215. See, e.g., NEDAP Comment at 8; NCLC-NACA Comment at 30-31.

216. NEDAP Comment at 8.

217. NARCA Comment (June 5, 2007) at 9 (emphasis in original).

218. Portfolio Recovery Associates (PRA) Comment at 2.

219. If a credit reporting agency notifies a furnisher of credit information that a consumer has disputed an account 

the furnisher has reported, the Fair Credit Reporting Act requires the furnisher to “conduct an investigation 

with respect to the disputed information.” Section 623(b)(1)(A) of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)(1)

(A). Although Section 623(b)(1)(A) does not specifically state that furnishers must conduct a “reasonable” 

investigation upon learning of a dispute from a credit reporting agency, courts applying the provision have 

consistently adopted a “reasonable investigation” standard. See, e.g., Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 

No. 06-17226, slip op. at 277-80 (9th Cir. Jan. 12, 2009); Westra v. Credit Control, 398 F.3d 825, 827 (7th Cir. 

2005); Johnson v. MBNA America Bank, NA, 357 F.3d 426, 431 (4th Cir. 2004); King v. Asset Acceptance, 

LLC, 452 F. Supp. 2d 1272, 1278 (N.D. Ga. 2006).
A Workshop Report

34

comparable to that which is already imposed under the FCRA.220 In addition, Regulation Z, 

which implements the Fair Credit Billing Act,221 imposes a “reasonable investigation” standard 

on creditors responding to written disputes.222 Adopting a “reasonable investigation” approach 

would decrease consumer concerns about the prevalence of continued mistaken collection 

attempts, but also respond to collection industry concerns that the standard be flexible. To 

implement or effectuate such a standard, some combination of statutory language, rules, or 

guidance could be used to articulate with greater specificity what constitutes a “reasonable” 

investigation.

3. Future Directions in Information Flow

The FTC above has recommended that debt collectors be required to have more or better 

information to substantiate debt claims, prepare enhanced validation notices, and conduct 

reasonable investigations of disputed debts. If these requirements are imposed and implemented, 

they are likely to improve the quantity and quality of the information debt collectors receive from 

creditors and debt buyers.

In addition, industry and consumer representatives at the workshop indicated that it would 

be productive to have further discussions as to what particular information owners of debt should 

transfer with debt. Since the workshop, representatives of creditors, specifically credit card 

issuers, have discussed these issues with representatives of debt buyers and debt collectors.223 

The Commission believes that these discussions are critical to developing standards that weigh 

carefully the costs and benefits of collecting, maintaining, and transferring information about 

debt. The FTC also believes that industry should solicit the views of consumer representatives to 

assist in its development of standards.

220. Another topic that was discussed at length during the workshop was credit reporting by debt collectors. 

Consumer advocates raised concerns that some debts are reported to credit reporting agencies multiple times, 

each with a different account number. See, e.g., Ian Lyngklip, Tr. II at 114-15. Consumer representatives 

also asserted that some debt collectors “re-age” debts they report to credit reporting agencies, i.e., report the 

account’s “date of delinquency” as being more recent than it really is, so the debt will stay on the consumer’s 

credit report longer than the seven years permitted by the FCRA; and that some debt collectors report accounts 

to credit reporting agencies without noting that the consumer has disputed the debt. See, e.g., Lyngklip, Tr. II 

at 88, 128; Robert W. Murphy, Tr. I at 106. Collection industry panelists at the workshop agreed that re-aging 

accounts and intentionally failing to report disputes to credit reporting agencies violate the FCRA. See, e.g.,

Michael C. Tormey, Tr. II at 92; Donald W. Redmond, Tr. II at 130.

221. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1666-1666j.

222. Regulation Z § 226.13(f), 12 C.F.R. § 226.13(f).

223. See, e.g., DBA Comment (Nov. 9, 2007) at 2 (“DBA members are working hard to encourage originating 

creditors to provide enhanced documentation which includes detailed information about a debt, not only to 

benefit debt buyers and consumers, but also to fulfill certain legal obligations imposed on debt buyers . . . .”).
35

Collecting Consumer Debts: The Challenges of Change

While the Commission believes the adoption and implementation of the recommendations 

in this report and the industry’s ongoing discussions are likely to result in more debt collection 

attempts being for the right amounts and being directed to the correct consumers, it is uncertain 

whether more will need to be done. The FTC therefore will continue to monitor closely the flow 

of information in the debt collection system and make further recommendations as necessary to 

protect consumers without unduly burdening the debt collection process.

B. New Technologies

Many of the most important differences between debt collection when the FDCPA was 

enacted and debt collection today are the result of advances in communication technologies.224 

The tools that enable debt collection communication and information transmission today were in 

large part nonexistent thirty years ago. Much attention at the workshop and in the comments was 

devoted to discussing technological changes and their implications for the debt collection system. 

1. Communication Technologies

A number of the panelists stressed that communication with consumers is essential 

for successful collections and that the inability to collect debts increases the cost of credit 

to everyone.225 Debt collectors made clear their strong desire to use new communication 

technologies to contact consumers because doing so would make their collection efforts 

more efficient. In addition, debt collector representatives at the workshop argued that new 

technological contact methods increasingly will become the norm. They asserted that debt 

collectors will need to use such methods to reach consumers, especially younger consumers, 

who tend to be early adopters of new technology.226 One industry representative posited that 

restrictions on the ability of collectors to contact consumers using new technologies would 

increase the amount of debt that goes uncollected.227

Most collectors, however, appear to be proceeding cautiously in using newer methods 

of contact due to concerns about their legality under the FDCPA and other laws. Collection 

industry representatives requested that laws and rules that govern contacts with consumers 

224. See Andersen, Tr. I at 61- 62, 66; Hunt, Tr. I at 62-63; Jean Ann Fox, Tr. I at 64-67; Wood, Tr. I at 64-68. 

225. See, e.g., DiGennaro, Tr. I at 109-110; Leibsker, Tr. I at 111-112; Murphy, Tr. I at 112; Cynthia R. White, Tr. II 

at 223.

226. See, e.g., ACA Comment (June 6, 2007) at 62-63 (“Other communications technologies, such as Short 

Message Service (SMS) text messages, instant messages and electronic mail (e-mail) are emerging as effective 

channels for debt collection and continue to replace the more traditional means of contacting consumers.”); 

NCHELP Comment at 6-7 (“[T]he use of automated voice and text messaging, and Internet email, are the 

communication methods of choice by millions of young debtors and their use should be specifically authorized 

for loan servicing and debt collection.”); Davitt, Tr. I at 107.

227. DiGennaro, Tr. I at 100.
A Workshop Report

36

using newer technologies be clarified or amended to facilitate debt collectors’ use of these 

tools.228 According to industry representatives, it is not clear whether or how they can use certain 

communication technologies (such as predictive dialers or answering machines) in compliance 

with the FDCPA. 

When Congress enacted the FDCPA, it did not limit the methods debt collectors could use 

to contact consumers other than to prohibit contacting consumers by postcard.229 The statute 

contemplated that debt collectors generally could make use of all available technologies (the 

mail, telephones, telegraphs, etc.) to communicate with consumers. However, the FDCPA 

also sought to prevent debt collectors from engaging in deceptive, unfair, and abusive conduct 

in using these methods to collect debts. The Act specifies when a debt collector may contact 

a consumer, where and under what circumstances those contacts may occur, and how a debt 

collector must protect a consumer’s privacy in making the contacts.230 Nevertheless, the use of 

new communication technologies raises issues not necessarily contemplated when the statute 

was enacted.

To provide more certainty to the industry and to protect consumers from harm, the 

Commission concludes that debt collection law needs to be modernized to take account 

of today’s new communication technologies. The FTC believes that, as was the case with 

the original FDCPA, debt collectors generally should be allowed to use all communication 

technologies, including new and emerging technologies, to contact consumers. However, the law 

also must be carefully crafted to avoid consumers’ being subject to unfair, deceptive, or abusive 

acts and practices or being charged for a collector’s communications. 

a. Calls from Predictive Dialers

Predictive dialers are automated dialing tools that eliminate the need for debt collectors 

to spend time dialing phone numbers and maximize the efficiency of collectors by using an 

228. See ACA Comment (June 6, 2007) at 59 (“The complexity involved in the use of these new technologies 

in compliance with Federal and state laws and regulations frequently can be a deterrent to their usage.”); 

CLLA Comment at 1-2 (discussing case law holdings regarding the permissibility of leaving messages for 

consumers on answering machines or voicemail); Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) Comment at 4-5 

(same); NARCA Comment (June 5, 2007) at 10 (criticizing a decision on debt collectors leaving answering 

machine messages as “unnecessarily restrictive of a collector’s right to communicate with a debtor concerning 

a debt”); NCHELP Comment at 2-3 (arguing that debt collection calls should not be subject to the prohibition 

in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act against using automatic dialers to call cell phones); see also Richard 

Riese, Tr. II at 211; White; Tr. II at 223; Wood, Tr. II at 224. 

229. FDCPA § 808(7), 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(7). Congress prohibited collectors from using postcards to contact 

consumers because the risks were too high of improper disclosure to third parties that a debt was being 

collected. 

230. See, e.g., FDCPA §§ 805, 808; 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692c, 1692f.
37

Collecting Consumer Debts: The Challenges of Change

algorithm to predict when collectors will be free to talk to consumers.231 One researcher pointed 

out that technologies that automatically dial consumers’ telephone numbers, such as predictive 

dialers, are critical tools for today’s successful collection agency.232 These tools enhance the 

number of contacts that can be made, thus increasing the likelihood of receiving payment on 

accounts in an industry where efficiency has become essential.233 Workshop participants and 

industry experts asserted that predictive dialers have been widely deployed and have had a 

transformative effect on the industry, dramatically increasing contact rates.234 

An inevitable side effect of using predictive dialers to contact consumers is that a dialer 

will sometimes reach more consumers than can be connected to available collectors. In these 

situations, a predictive dialer either disconnects the call (resulting in a “hang-up” call) or keeps 

the consumer connected with no one on the other end of the line in case a collector becomes 

available (resulting in “dead air”).235 A consumer attorney at the workshop noted that he had 

represented numerous clients troubled by such calls, including one senior citizen who received 

more than fifteen in a single day.236

The “hang-ups” or “dead air” that can result from calls made using predictive dialer 

technology may violate the FDCPA. Section 806(5) of the FDCPA prohibits debt collectors 

from “causing a telephone to ring . . . repeatedly or continuously with intent to annoy, abuse, or 

harass any person at the called number.”237 Currently, the FTC proceeds on a case-by-case basis 

in determining whether “hang-up” and “dead air” calls from a collector violate Section 806(5) of 

the FDCPA. 

In addition, although it does not apply to calls to collect debt,238 the Telemarketing Sales 

Rule (“TSR”) contains a similar provision prohibiting as abusive a telemarketer “causing 

231. Sytel Limited (Sytel) Comment at 9-10.

232. Hunt, Tr. I at 41-42. 

233. See Hunt, Tr. I at 41-42. Another participant noted that “[b]y many accounts, predictive dialer technology has 

increased borrower contact efficiency by over three hundred percent.” NCHELP Comment at 3 n.3.

234. According to a 2005 study of its members, the ACA states that approximately 50% of those surveyed reported 

using autodialer or predictive dialer technology. ACA Comment (June 6, 2007) at 56.

235. Telemarketing Sales Rule, Final Rule, Statement of Basis and Purpose, 73 Fed. Reg. 51,154, 51,165 (Aug. 29, 

2008) (codified at 16 C.F.R. § 310). See also Sytel Comment at 1. 

236. Murphy, Tr. I at 101.

237. 15 U.S.C. § 1692d(5). 

238. “Telemarketing” is defined under the Telemarketing Act and the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) to mean a 

“plan, program, or campaign which is conducted to induce the purchase of goods or services or a charitable 

contribution, donation, or gift of money or any other thing of value, by use of one or more telephones and 

which involves more than one interstate telephone call.” 15 U.S.C. § 6306(4); 16 C.F.R. § 310.2(cc). Because 

debt collectors do not engage in telemarketing, the TSR does not apply to their activities. See, e.g., Statement 

of Basis and Purpose, Telemarketing Sales Rule, Final Rule, 68 Fed. Reg. 4580, 4664 n.1020 (Jan. 29, 2003) 

(codified at 16 C.F.R. § 310). 
A Workshop Report

38

any telephone to ring, or engaging any person in telephone conversation, repeatedly or 

continuously with intent to annoy, abuse, or harass any person at the called number.”239 The 

TSR further provides that call abandonment is abusive.240 The TSR creates a “safe harbor”241

for call abandonment if, among other things, a telemarketer “employs technology that ensures 

abandonment of no more than three (3) percent of all calls answered by a person,”242 and allows 

the telephone to ring for at least fifteen seconds or four rings before disconnecting an unanswered 

call.243 This TSR safe harbor allows the use of predictive dialers provided they are set to limit 

the percentage of abandoned calls that are placed.

One commenter from the predictive dialer industry proposed establishing predictive dialing 

standards for debt collection calls to limit the number of abandoned debt collection calls.244 This 

approach would resemble the standard applicable to telemarketers under the TSR.245 According 

to the commenter, a similar standard for all calls (not just telemarketing calls) currently is in 

place in the United Kingdom.246

The FTC lacks empirical data on how frequently debt collection calls result in “hang-ups” 

or “dead air” calls. The Commission therefore welcomes such data to help assess whether debt 

collectors using predictive dialers are subjecting consumers to a large number of these calls. If 

they are, the Commission may consider whether the law should set a limit on the permissible rate 

of call abandonment for debt collectors and, if so, what that limit should be.

239. 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(b)(1)(i).

240. 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(b)(1)(iv). “An outbound telephone call is ‘abandoned’ under this section if a person answers 

it and the telemarketer does not connect the call to a sales representative within two (2) seconds of the person’s 

completed greeting.” Id. 

241. This discussion refers to calls made by a live telemarketer, as opposed to those made using a prerecorded voice 

message. 

242. 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(b)(4)(i). Recent amendments to the TSR provide that this percentage is “measured over the 

duration of a single calling campaign, if less than thirty days, or separately over each successive 30-day period 

or portion thereof that the campaign continues.” Id. See generally Telemarketing Sales Rule, Final Rule, 

Statement of Basis and Purpose, 73 Fed. Reg. 51,164 (Aug. 29, 2008) (codified at 16 C.F.R. § 310). 

243. 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(b)(4)(ii).

244. Sytel Comment at 1 (suggesting that the Commission consider a regulatory scheme for predictive dialers in 

debt collection similar to the one adopted in telemarketing under the Telemarketing Sales Rule, 16 C.F.R. 

§ 310.4(b)(1)(iv)). 

245. Discussion of the rationale for adopting the 3% call abandonment standard in the Telemarketing Sales Rule can 

be found at Statement of Basis and Purpose, Telemarketing Sales Rule, Final Rule, 68 Fed. Reg. 4580, 4641-45 

(Jan. 29, 2003) (codified at 16 C.F.R. § 310), available at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2003/01/tsrfrn.pdf.

246. Sytel Comment at 1.
39

Collecting Consumer Debts: The Challenges of Change

b. Calls to Mobile Telephones

The proliferation of mobile telephones also raises several issues not contemplated when 

the FDCPA was enacted. Increasingly, consumers are using mobile phones to the exclusion 

of landline phones. New technologies, such as mobile phones, text messages, email, call 

forwarding, and telephone number portability, raise novel consumer protection challenges that 

need to be addressed. The ability to contact consumers obviously is critical to debt collectors’ 

successful recovery of monies consumers owe.247 Debt collectors expressed a desire to be able 

to use as many methods of contact as possible, including contacts made to mobile phones, to 

maximize their chances of successfully reaching consumers.248 Some debt collectors said that 

consumer adoption of new primary contact methods (e.g., replacing their landline telephones 

with mobile phones) makes it necessary for debt collectors to have the right to contact consumers 

using the new technologies that are the primary means that others use to reach them.249

Consumer advocates, however, expressed serious misgivings about the possible consumer 

harm that might arise if debt collectors were free to contact consumers via mobile phones 

and other newer technology methods.250 These commenters noted three primary concerns: 

(1) that some of these methods, such as mobile telephones, email, text messages, and instant 

messaging, may lack the requisite level of data security or confidentiality to be used for 

sensitive debt collection matters;251 (2) that consumers may incur costs for some contacts using 

new technologies if, for example, the mobile calling plan of a consumer who receives a debt 

collection call does not permit unlimited minutes, or imposes charges for text messages;252 and 

(3) that debt collectors using newer technologies may inconvenience or embarrass consumers by 

contacting them when they are driving, in appointments, or at work.253 

247. See, e.g., DiGennaro, Tr. I at 109-10; Leibsker, Tr. I at 111-12; White, Tr. II at 223.

248. See, e.g., ACA Comment (June 6, 2007) at 62-63; NCHELP Comment at 2, 4-6; Davitt, Tr. I at 107. See also 

Laskey, Tr. I at 206, 218; Schacter, Tr. I. at 213-14; Christopher G. Wunder, Tr. I. at 212.

249. See, e.g., ACA Comment (June 6, 2007) at 62-63; NCHELP Comment at 2, 4-6; Davitt, Tr. I at 107.

250. Sometimes if a subscriber discontinues his or her mobile phone service, a short time later his or her telephone 

number is reassigned to another subscriber. A collector seeking to recover a debt from the original subscriber 

may reach the new subscriber at the original subscriber’s former mobile telephone number. See, e.g., Carl 

Paulson Comment at 1. One commenter suggested that it might be difficult or impossible for a debt collector 

to even know it is calling a mobile phone, particularly because local number portability enables consumers to 

readily transfer landline telephone numbers to their mobile phones. DBA Comment (June 2, 2007) at 10-11 

(“With the transportability of numbers and the ability to forward calls, it is quite possible for a debt collector to 

unknowingly make a call to a cell phone which results in an additional charge to the debtor . . . .”).

251. See, e.g., L. Saunders, Tr. I at 163, 165. The workshop record contains no information bearing on the nature or 

extent of such data security and privacy concerns.

252. See, e.g., L. Saunders, Tr. I at 165-66.

253. Crystal Feier Comment at 1; Rudy Cavazos, Jr., Tr. I at 166 (commenting that consumers are besieged by calls 

from creditors already, and that contact by mail would be preferable); L. Saunders, Tr. I at 165.
A Workshop Report

40

At the time of the October 2007 workshop, ACA commented that the legal and regulatory 

system imposed a significant restraint on debt collectors’ ability to use predictive dialers to 

make collection calls.254 The association pointed to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act 

(“TCPA”)255 and the rules that the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) issued to 

implement the TCPA, which generally prohibit the use of autodialed and prerecorded calls 

to mobile phones.256 To ensure that debt collectors could avail themselves freely of these 

technologies, ACA in 2005 filed a petition with the FCC seeking clarification that the prohibition 

against autodialed and prerecorded calls to mobile phones does not apply to “creditors and 

collectors when calling wireless telephone numbers to recover payments for goods and services 

received by consumers.”257

In January 2008, several months after the workshop, the FCC issued a declaratory ruling on 

the petition.258 In its analysis, the FCC noted that the TCPA’s prohibition on calls made to mobile 

phones using automated dialers is subject to an exception for calls made with the “prior express 

consent” of the called party.259 The FCC stated:

Because we find that autodialed and prerecorded message calls to wireless 

numbers provided by the called party in connection with an existing debt 

are made with the “prior express consent” of the called party, we clarify 

that such calls are permissible. We conclude that the provision of a cell 

phone number to a creditor, e.g., as part of a credit application, reasonably 

evidences prior express consent by the cell phone subscriber to be contacted 

at that number regarding the debt . . . .

We emphasize that prior express consent is deemed to be granted only 

if the wireless number was provided by the consumer to the creditor, and that 

such number was provided during the transaction that resulted in the debt 

owed.260

In permitting debt collectors to call a consumer’s mobile phone number using autodialed 

and prerecorded messages as long as the consumer has provided the number to a creditor, 

254. See, e.g., ACA Comment (June 6, 2007) at 58-59. 

255. 47 U.S.C. § 227.

256. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii); 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(1)(iii).

257. In the Matter of Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, CG 

Docket No. 02-278 (FCC Jan. 4, 2008), at 5 (request of ACA International for clarification and declaratory 

ruling) [hereinafter FCC Ruling].

258. FCC Ruling, supra note 257. See also 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii); 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(1)(iii).

259. Id. at 6.

260. Id.
41

Collecting Consumer Debts: The Challenges of Change

it appears that the FCC has removed much of the restraint on debt collectors’ ability to use 

predictive dialers.261

Subsequently, in a short-lived decision, a federal district court rejected the FCC’s 

interpretation of the TCPA.262 The court concluded that a consumer who provides a mobile 

phone number to a creditor when entering into a credit arrangement has given only implied

consent to be contacted at that number, and not the “prior express consent” that the TCPA 

requires before a debt collector may contact the consumer using autodialed or prerecorded calls. 

Importantly, this decision has since been vacated for lack of jurisdiction.263 

Another issue involving mobile phones is the cost to consumers of debt collection contacts. 

The FTC is concerned that collection contacts to consumers’ mobile phones will impose 

charges on consumers. The workshop record reflects that calls placed to mobile phones and text 

messages sent to such phones frequently cause consumers to incur charges.264 The Commission 

does not believe that a consumer should have to pay to be contacted by a debt collector. Given 

the widespread prevalence of mobile calling plans that charge consumers based on the calls 

they receive, the FTC concludes that the law should presume that consumers will incur charges 

for calls and text messages made to their mobile phones, and, therefore, generally prohibit debt 

collectors from contacting consumers via mobile phones.

However, the Commission believes that the law should allow collectors to call consumers 

on their mobile phones if they have given “prior express consent” to such calls. Consistent with 

express consent requirements it has imposed in many contexts,265 the Commission thinks that 

261. But see Barbara A. Sinsley & Manuel Newburger, Lucy, Her Football and the TCPA, Debt at 24 (Sept./Oct. 

2008) (arguing that FCC ruling would not permit debt collectors to use autodialed and prerecorded calls to 

contact consumers who have specifically authorized the collectors to contact them by mobile phone, because 

such consent would not have been provided to a creditor and thus would not meet the FCC’s “prior express 

consent” threshold).

262. Leckler v. Cashcall, Inc., 554 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1029-32 (N.D. Cal. May 20, 2008), vacated No. C07-04002 SI 

(Nov. 21, 2008). 

263. Id.

264. See, e.g., Feier Comment at 1; Murphy, Tr. I at 102; L. Saunders, Tr. I at 165-66; Cavazos, Tr. I at 166. 

265. See 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(b)(1)(v) (requiring express written consent to receive pre-recorded telemarketing 

calls). See also In the Matter of DirectRevenue LLC, FTC Docket No. C-4194 (June 26, 2007) (distributor 

of adware prohibited from installing software on consumers’ computers unless the company has “clearly and 

prominently” disclosed the material terms of the software and the consumer has given “express consent” by 

clicking on a clearly marked button or taking a substantially similar action); In the Matter of Gateway Learning 

Corp., FTC Docket No. C-4120 (Sept. 10, 2004) (seller of education products prohibited from sharing a 

consumer’s personal information unless it first obtains “express affirmative (‘opt-in’) consent” from the 

consumer); In the Matter of America Online, Inc., FTC Docket No. C-4105 (Jan. 28, 2004) (Internet service 

provider prohibited from continuing to charge customers who have requested cancellation of service unless the 

company has first obtained “express informed consent” in a manner that clearly evidences that the customer is 

consenting to continued billing).
A Workshop Report

42

creditors and debt collectors should be permitted to place collection calls to the mobile phones 

of consumers only if: (1) the consumers have been adequately informed that they may receive 

collection calls on their mobile phones; and (2) the consumers have taken some affirmative step 

to indicate their agreement to receive such calls.266 The Commission concludes that requiring 

that prior express consent be obtained provides consumers with enhanced protection against 

being charged without their consent for collection calls made to mobile phones. 

If a debt collector has a consumer’s prior express consent to contact the consumer’s mobile 

phone, then it should be free to communicate with the consumer via that method so long as the 

debt collector has reason to believe that the consumer who provided that prior express consent 

can be contacted at that phone number, and so long as the collector complied with all other 

FDCPA provisions. The Commission will continue to monitor the prevalence and features of 

pricing plans for mobile telephones, and the law may need to be changed in the future if most 

consumers would not be charged based on the number of calls or text messages received or the 

time spent on calls to their mobile phones. Further, the Commission invites interested parties to 

provide information to assist the agency in developing additional future policy concerning the 

role of mobile phones in debt collection.

Even if a collector is permitted to call a consumer’s mobile phone, the collector must 

comply with Section 805(a)(1) of the FDCPA. This section permits calls between 8:00 a.m. and 

9:00 p.m., local time at the consumer’s location, unless the debt collector knows this time period 

is inconvenient for the consumer. Because a mobile phone number’s area code is not necessarily 

where the consumer is located, however, it may be difficult for collectors to determine whether 

they are calling consumers during permissible hours.267

The Commission believes that the law should be changed to permit debt collectors, 

provided that they have obtained a consumer’s prior express consent to contact him or her via his 

or her mobile phone, to call the mobile phone between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. in the time zone 

of the consumer’s home address, unless the collector knows or should know that calls during 

those hours are inconvenient for the consumer. 

c. Caller ID Disclosures

Some workshop comments raised issues about the application of the FDCPA’s disclosure 

requirements to collector calls to consumers with Caller ID service. If the recipient of a call 

266. As discussed above in the text, the FCC has interpreted the TCPA’s “prior express consent” requirement in 

the context of autodialer calls to mobile phones to require only that consumers have provided their mobile 

phone numbers to a creditor. The FTC’s articulation of “prior express consent” provides greater protection for 

consumers.

267. CLLA Comment at 2. 
43

Collecting Consumer Debts: The Challenges of Change

has purchased Caller ID service from his or her local telephone company, the caller’s telephone 

number and (sometimes) name will appear on the recipient’s telephone or on a separate display 

device attached to the telephone. This identifying information will be displayed after the first 

time the telephone rings, before the recipient answers the call.

Caller ID service did not exist at the time the FDCPA was enacted, as the service was 

first offered on a wide-scale commercial basis in the United States in the late 1980s. Despite 

its relatively recent origin, Caller ID services are now widely available in the United States. 

Virtually all cell phones plans include Caller ID services, and many consumers obtain Caller 

ID services for their landline telephones. In 2002, an industry trade association estimated that 

approximately 40% of American consumers used Caller ID services.268

Commenters raised two issues concerning the obligations of debt collectors who call the 

consumers on phones with Caller ID service. The first issue is whether debt collectors who 

convey false or misleading information (either telephone numbers or names) to consumers 

through Caller ID violate the FDCPA and Section 5 of the FTC Act. Prior private269 actions 

indicate that a debt collector who makes a false or misleading representation in this context 

violates the FDCPA.270 The Commission has alleged that this practice violates both the FDCPA 

and Section 5.271

The second issue raised was whether debt collectors who call consumers have an affirmative 

duty under the FDCPA to disclose information to them through Caller ID,272 and, if so, what 

information must be disclosed. Section 806(6) prohibits a debt collector from “plac[ing] 

telephone calls without meaningful disclosure of the caller’s identity.” Although courts 

addressing what information must be disclosed have not been uniform, one court has held that 

meaningful disclosure “has been made if an individual debt collector who is employed by a debt 

collection company accurately discloses the name of her employer and the nature of her business 

268. American Teleservices Association, Consumer Study (2002), available at http://www.ataconnect.org/public/

resourcecenter/consumerstudy2002.php.

269. See, e.g., Knoll v. Allied Interstate, Inc., 502 F. Supp. 2d 943, 947-48 (D. Minn. 2007) (debt collector 

transmitting a false name to a consumer’s Caller ID violated Sections 806(6), 807(10), 807(14), and 808 of the 

FDCPA). 

270. See also CLLA Comment at 2 (the commenter, the Commercial Law League of America, agrees that it is 

impermissible for a collector to present false information to a consumer’s Caller ID).

271. See, e.g., FTC v. EMC Mortgage Corp., No. 4:08-cv-338 (E.D. Tex. 2008) (debt collector settled complaint 

allegations that it violated the FDCPA and Section 5 by making collection calls from outside the consumer’s 

area code using cell phones that misleadingly displayed to the consumer’s Caller ID service a number in the 

consumer’s area code).

272. CLLA Comment at 2; NARCA Comment (June 5, 2007) at 10.
A Workshop Report

44

and conceals no more than her real name.”273 The two litigated cases in which federal courts 

have addressed whether collectors have an affirmative duty under Section 806(6) to meaningfully 

disclose such information through Caller ID have reached different conclusions.274

In evaluating this issue, the Commission believes that it is useful to consider its experience 

with Caller ID under the Telemarketing Sales Rule. In 2003, the FTC amended the TSR to 

require that telemarketers transmit their telephone numbers and, if possible, their names, to 

Caller ID services.275 The agency required that telemarketers transmit this information to 

consumers so that they would have a choice as to whether to accept calls from telemarketers.276 

The agency also mandated that telemarketers transmit the information to consumers because it 

would assist consumers in filing complaints with law enforcement officials.277 

Requiring that debt collectors transmit their telephone numbers and names, if possible, 

to consumers’ Caller ID services would seem to convey similar benefits to the consumers. 

Although debt collectors must meaningfully disclose their identities when a consumer answers 

the phone, disclosure of identifying information via Caller ID beforehand provides two possible 

benefits to consumers. First, through Section 805(c) of the FDCPA’s requirement that debt 

collectors cease communication with a consumer upon written request,278 Congress recognized 

that consumers have the right to decide not to communicate with a debt collector. Mandating 

that debt collectors transmit identifying information to consumers’ Caller ID services assists 

consumers who decide that they do not want to answer the phone to communicate with the debt 

collector and enables them to identify to whom they should address a written request to cease 

communication. Second, Section 806(5) of the FDCPA279 prohibits debt collectors from “causing 

a telephone to ring . . . repeatedly or continuously with the intent to annoy, abuse, or harass any 

273. Wright v. Credit Bureau of Ga., Inc., 548 F. Supp. 591, 597 (N.D. Ga. 1982) (in telephone conversation with 

consumer, debt collector’s use of an alias, rather than her real name, did not violate Section 806(6)). Another 

court concluded that, to comply with the “meaningful disclosure” requirement, a Caller ID device “need only 

display the true name, alias, or entity placing the call.” Knoll, 502 F. Supp. 2d at 946.

274. Compare Knoll, 502 F. Supp. 2d at 946-47 (debt collector violated Section 806(6) of the FDCPA by failing to 

“display the true name, alias, or entity placing the call,” thereby failing to provide a meaningful disclosure of 

identity), with Glover v. Client Servs., Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73604, at *18-19 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 2, 2007) 

(debt collector did not violate Sections 806(6), 807(10), or 808 of the FDCPA by blocking the transmission of 

identifying information to consumers’ Caller ID). 

275. 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(a)(7).

276. Statement of Basis and Purpose, Telemarketing Sales Rule, Final Rule, 68 Fed. Reg. 4580, 4626-27 (Jan. 29, 

2003) (codified at 16 C.F.R. § 310). Another important reason for requiring telemarketers to transmit this 

information was to enable consumers to lodge an entity-specific “Do Not Call” request with the telemarketer 

pursuant to 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(b)(1)(iii)(A). Id. at 4626. 

277. Id. at 4627. 

278. 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(c).

279. 15 U.S.C. § 1692d(5).
45

Collecting Consumer Debts: The Challenges of Change

person at the called number.” Mandating that debt collectors transmit identifying information 

to consumers’ Caller ID services assists consumers in identifying and complaining to law 

enforcement officials about collectors who engage in such conduct without having to pick up the 

phone.

On the other hand, displaying the identifying information of debt collectors on the 

telephones or devices of consumers may raise concerns that do not exist with telemarketing sales 

calls. In Section 805(b) of the FDCPA,280 Congress put substantial limitations on the ability of 

debt collectors to reveal information to third parties, such as friends, family members other than 

spouses, and co-workers, regarding a consumer’s debts. These limitations recognize that such 

disclosure could cause harm to the consumer’s reputation. In contrast, if a third party learns 

through Caller ID that a consumer has received a telemarketing sales call, that disclosure would 

not appear to pose a risk of harm to the consumer’s reputation. 

In addition, at least one court has questioned whether it is even technologically practicable 

for debt collectors to convey information sufficient to meaningfully disclose their identities on 

the small screen on telephones and devices used to display Caller ID information.281 Industry 

commenters at the workshop raised the same concern.282

The challenges in applying the FDCPA in the context of Caller ID services are an apt 

illustration of how the debt collection legal framework has not kept pace with changes in 

technology and the marketplace. The workshop record, however, contains little factual 

information bearing on the costs and benefits of applying the FDCPA’s current disclosure 

requirements in the context of this specific new technology. The Commission thus invites 

interested parties to provide such information to assist the agency in developing future policy 

concerning the use of Caller ID in the debt collection context.

d. Call Recording

Both debt collectors and consumer groups stated that the taping of collection calls is 

beneficial to consumers and to the debt collection system. According to the ACA, a survey of 

its membership shows that in 2007, more than 40% of its debt collector members recorded calls 

280. 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(b).

281. Glover v. Client Servs., Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73604, at *18 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 2, 2007) (“It is not 

clear how [a debt collector’s name, capacity, and purpose for calling] could be communicated via a Caller ID 

device.”). 

282. See CLLA Comment at 2 (“Given the fifteen-character limit on Caller ID, this is simply unrealistic.”); NARCA 

Comment (June 5, 2007) at 10 (“Caller identification software limits the amount of information on the caller 

identification so it cannot include a ‘meaningful disclosure of the caller’s identity.’”).
A Workshop Report

46

with consumer consent, as a way to “monitor and critique collection calls.”283 At the workshop, 

several debt collection representatives noted that call recording is routinely used for monitoring 

the performance of collectors. Calls are recorded both to provide positive feedback to agents 

who perform well and to ensure that law violations or inappropriate conduct can be addressed in 

a timely manner.284 NCLC and NACA recommended that debt collectors be permitted to record 

conversations with consumers without the consumers’ knowledge or consent.285 According to the 

two consumer groups, “This will eliminate disputes about what the collector and the consumer 

did or did not say, and will also enable debt collection agencies to supervise the behavior of their 

employees to ensure that they stay within the law.”286

NCLC and NACA also touted the benefits of call recording for consumers. They reported 

that consumers often complain of telephone calls in which debt collectors threaten, yell, curse, 

and lie. Noting that it is difficult for consumers to prove these abusive practices without the 

ability to record calls, the two consumer groups asserted that “[c]larifying the law to clearly 

allow recording of abusive telephone calls from debt collectors would enable consumers to 

protect themselves, and further the protective purposes of the [FDCPA].”287

Industry groups and consumer groups noted that some state laws require two-party consent 

for taping all telephone calls, including debt collection calls. In these states, therefore, both the 

debt collector and the consumer must consent before a call is recorded. Debt collectors as well 

as consumer advocates asserted that standardization of the law to allow taping of debt collection 

calls in all instances would be desirable.288 

The Commission concludes that permitting consumers across the nation to tape debt 

collection calls without the debt collectors’ consent would likely benefit consumers by enabling 

them to document abusive, deceptive, and unfair collection tactics. However, to accomplish this, 

federal law would need to preempt state law in those states that require both parties to consent. 

We take no position as to whether these state laws should be preempted in this instance. This 

283. ACA 2008 Survey, supra note 127. This figure is up from 28% in the 2005 survey. ACA Comment (June 6, 

2007) at 56.

284. See, e.g., DiGennaro, Tr. I at 120; Davitt, Tr. I at 120.

285. NCLC-NACA Comment at 44.

286. Id.

287. Id. See also L. Saunders, Tr. I at 179.

288. See, e.g., NCLC-NACA Comment at 44 (“The [FDCPA] should be amended to provide that a consumer or a 

debt collector is authorized to record a telephone conversation without the knowledge or consent of the other 

party, and that recording shall be admissible in court or other proceedings pursuant to this Act or state law 

respecting debt collection practices.”); L. Saunders, Tr. I at 179; Davitt, Tr. I at 131-32; DiGennaro, Tr. I at 

131-32; Murphy, Tr. I at 131-32. 
47

Collecting Consumer Debts: The Challenges of Change

matter should be carefully considered by Congress after obtaining input from the states on the 

merits of this approach.

e. Calls to Answering Machines and Voicemail Systems

Industry members reported that the ability to leave messages for consumers on answering 

machines and voicemail systems (collectively, “voicemail”) is essential in seeking payment on 

delinquent debts.289 These commenters contend, however, that recent court decisions have forced 

debt collectors who wish to leave voicemail messages to choose among conflicting FDCPA 

provisions,290 or rely on other methods to communicate with consumers.

Until the past few years, most debt collectors, when leaving voicemail messages, requested 

that consumers call them about an important matter, without disclosing that the matter concerned 

a debt or that the call was from a debt collector.291 Collectors apparently took this approach 

to avoid violating Section 805(b) of the FDCPA, which prohibits revealing to third parties the 

existence of a debt.292 In recent years, however, a number of federal district courts have held 

that, to satisfy Sections 806(6) and 807(11) of the FDCPA,293 debt collectors who leave voicemail 

messages must include in their messages: (1) the names of their employers; (2) the fact that they 

are debt collectors; and (3) if the message is a collector’s first communication with the consumer, 

the FDCPA “mini-Miranda” notice,294 i.e., a statement that the call is an attempt to collect a debt 

and that any information obtained will be used for that purpose.295

Since the courts began issuing these decisions, collection industry representatives have 

argued that providing this information to consumers risks revealing debts to third parties in 

violation of Section 805(b) of the FDCPA. In responding to an ACA request for an advisory 

opinion, the Commission in July 2006 wrote that it would not issue such an opinion because 

there already was clear court precedent that the FDCPA requires debt collectors who leave 

289. See CLLA Comment at 1-2; NARCA Comment (June 5, 2007) at 10.

290. CLLA Comment at 1-2; NARCA Comment (June 5, 2007) at 10.

291. NCLC Treatise, supra note 11, at 260.

292. ACA International, Voice Mail Messages in the Wake of Foti at 1 (updated Nov. 19, 2008) (available to ACA 

members as part of the association’s Fastfax Service) (on file with Division of Financial Practices, Federal 

Trade Commission).

293. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692d(6), 1692e(11).

294. FDCPA § 807(11), 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(11).

295. See, e.g., Masciarelli v. Richard J. Boudreau & Assoc., 529 F. Supp. 2d 183, 185 (D. Mass. 2007); Foti v. NCO 

Fin. Sys., Inc., 424 F. Supp. 2d 643, 669 (S.D.N.Y. 2006); Hosseinzadeh v. M.R.S. Assocs., 387 F. Supp. 2d 

1104, 1112, 1116 (C.D. Cal. 2005).
A Workshop Report

48

voicemail messages to reveal the names of the collectors’ employers and deliver the miniMiranda disclosure.296

Collection industry members and consumer advocates offered contrasting views on the court 

decisions applying Sections 806(6) and 807(11) of the FDCPA to voicemail, which are often 

referred to collectively as “Foti” after one of the leading cases.297 ACA proposed several possible 

changes to the FDCPA, including an amendment to Section 805(b) to relieve debt collectors from 

liability for unintended or inadvertent disclosures to third parties through voicemail messages.298 

NARCA recommended that debt collectors be permitted to leave voicemail messages that request 

a return call but do not reveal the collector’s identity or the nature of the call, i.e., the kinds of 

messages that most debt collectors left before the Foti decisions.299 In the recently-released 

edition of its treatise on debt collection, consumer advocacy group NCLC took a contrasting 

approach, suggesting that

[b]ecause many financially distressed consumers are forced by their 

circumstances to share telephone lines and answering devices with children, 

parents, roommates, and neighbors, a debt collector may not assume that 

a message left for the consumer will not be heard by a third party. In the 

absence of an individual voice mailbox for the consumer, a debt collector 

reaching an answering device must hang up and call back later or write the 

consumer to avoid the risk of an unlawful third party communication.300

A state regulator at the workshop suggested that Colorado law might present a useful model 

for amending the FDCPA.301 The Colorado law requires a debt collector who calls a consumer to 

meaningfully disclose his or her identity only “after the consumer is identified as the debtor.”302 

If the call is picked up by an answering machine, the other party has not been identified as the 

debtor. The collector then may leave a message, but is not required to disclose his or her identity.

296. Letter from Donald S. Clark, Secretary to the Federal Trade Commission, to Rozanne M. Andersen & Andrew 

M. Beato, available at http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/letters/060728staffresponsesofadvisopinion_public.

pdf. 

297. Foti, 424 F. Supp. 2d at 643 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).

298. ACA Comment (Nov. 9, 2007) at 25.

299. NARCA Comment (June 5, 2007) at 10.

300. NCLC Treatise, supra note 11, at 174. See also Jeff Sovern Comment at 4 (recommending that the FTC 

“encourage Congress to amend the FDCPA to clarify whether debt collectors can leave messages on telephone 

answering systems and if so, what can be said without incurring liability.”). 

301. Udis, Tr. II at 220.

302. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 12-14-106 (2008).
49

Collecting Consumer Debts: The Challenges of Change

In attempting to leave messages and comply with Sections 805(b), 806(6), and 807(11) of 

the FDCPA, many debt collectors have for some time been leaving answering machine messages 

that are variations on the following model ACA suggested:303

This is a message for Mary Smith. If you are not Mary Smith please hang 

up or disconnect. If you are Mary Smith please continue to listen to this 

message. There will now be a three second pause in this message. (pause) 

By continuing to listen to this message you acknowledge you are Mary 

Smith. This is Bob Jones from ABC Collection Agency. This is an attempt 

to collect a debt and any information obtained will be used for that purpose. 

Please contact me about an important business matter at (phone #).

ACA reports that consumers have filed over 100 actions against its members claiming 

that messages like the one above violated Section 805(b)’s prohibition on revealing debts to 

third parties. In the only decision that appears to have addressed the merits of such a message, 

the court denied the debt collector’s motion to dismiss the consumer’s claim that the collector 

violated Section 805(b).304 According to the court, although the message’s warning might 

persuade third parties to stop listening to the message, it would not alert the consumer himself 

to disconnect the call if he were listening to the message with others nearby.305 Thus, the hybrid 

message that debt collectors have been using in an effort to comply with Sections 805(b), 806(6), 

and 807(11) of the FDCPA has not to date protected them from private actions.306

The Commission believes that it would be useful to clarify the law concerning the 

application of Sections 805(b), 806(6), and 807(11) of the FDCPA in connection with debt 

collectors’ obligations if they wish to leave voicemail messages. What is not clear from the 

workshop record or other sources, however, is whether the benefits to consumers of preventing 

third parties from learning from a voicemail message that they may owe a debt in collection 

outweigh the benefits to consumers of knowing when they listen to a voicemail message that the 

call is from a debt collector. The Commission welcomes interested parties to provide further 

303. ACA International, Voice Mail Messages in the Wake of Foti at 4 (updated August 5, 2008) (available to ACA 

members as part of the association’s Fastfax Service) (on file with Division of Financial Practices, Federal 

Trade Commission). ACA has recently updated this publication on November 19, 2008, in response to a court 

decision. See infra note 306.

304. Berg v. Merch. Assoc. Collection Div., Case No. 08-cv-60660 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 31, 2008) (order denying 

defendant’s motion to dismiss complaint with prejudice).

305. Id. at 10.

306. To address the Berg order (supra note 304), ACA recently amended its recommended message to include 

two additional sentences before the collector introduces him or herself: “Ms. Smith, you should not listen 

to this message so that other people can hear it as it contains personal and private information. There will 

now be a three second pause in this message to allow you to listen to this message in private. (pause).” 

ACA International, Voice Mail Messages in the Wake of Foti at 6 (updated Nov. 19, 2008) (available to ACA 

members as part of the association’s Fastfax Service) (on file with Division of Financial Practices, Federal 

Trade Commission).
A Workshop Report

50

information bearing on the consumer benefits of leaving or not leaving voicemail messages to 

inform future agency recommendations concerning how to clarify the law in this context. 

f. Other New Types of Contacts

Debt collectors expressed a desire to use new technologies, such as email, instant 

messaging, and specific technological devices such as emailed collection notices, webbased collection portals, and collection techniques involving interactive voice messaging, 

to communicate with consumers.307 Industry commenters noted that these new methods of 

communication are increasingly popular, and that consumers may actually prefer to have debt 

collectors use these methods to contact them.308 As with other new contact methods, however, 

industry commenters expressed uncertainty about the legality of using technologies like email 

to communicate with consumers.309 ACA, for example, noted that “there is a tension between 

email and the FDCPA’s requirements that communications about a debt not be disclosed to third 

parties,”310 because someone other than the consumer may view the contents of the email.311

The Commission is not aware of any data bearing on the extent to which third parties have 

access to debt collection emails and instant messages. In particular, the FTC is not aware of 

information demonstrating that third parties have greater access to debt collection messages 

conveyed through these methods than through letters, telephone calls, and other traditional means 

307. See, e.g., NCHELP Comment at 6 (“Email is a low cost, highly effective and, particularly among student 

borrowers, preferred means of communication.”); Wunder, Tr. I at 212 (“The FDCPA should allow creditors, 

consumers, and collection agencies to make full use of these technologies to the benefit of all involved.”).

308. See, e.g., CLLA Comment at 3 (industry association suggested that “realistically, many consumers would 

prefer to communicate by email, rather than have to talk to collectors”); Debt Resolve Comment at 1 (reporting 

on survey in which 84% of consumers surveyed rated the concept of an online service facilitating payment of 

overdue bills as very appealing, in part because it avoids confrontation with a collections representative); ACA 

Comment (June 6, 2007) at 62-63; NCHELP Comment at 2; Laskey, Tr. I at 218 (“That would be my number 

one concern, that the law reflect the reality of that’s how consumers want to communicate . . . .”); Schacter, 

Tr. I at 214 (“[I]f a consumer wants us to communicate with them [by email], then we should be permitted to 

communicate with them in that fashion . . . .”).

309. MBA Comment at 5 (“It is unclear how these new methods of communicating [specifically noting email] 

interface with the FDCPA requirements.”). But see Debt Resolve Comment at 2-3 (FDCPA defines 

communication as “‘the convey[ing] of information regarding a debt directly or indirectly to any person 

through any medium,’ including the use of email.” (citing FDCPA § 803(2), 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(2))).

310. ACA Comment (June 6, 2007) at 63 (referring to Section 805(b) of the FDCPA).

311. See DBA Comment (June 2, 2007) at 9-10 (“However, notwithstanding the widespread use of e-mail for 

both business and personal communication these days, privacy considerations stemming from a concern that 

third parties may have access to a consumer’s e-mail are limiting debt buyers’ use of e-mail . . . .”); NCHELP 

Comment at 6 (“[B]ecause there is currently no reliable directory of email addresses, and due to the prevalence 

of ‘shared’ emails and the use of work emails (where privacy expectations are minimized), a greater risk 

of inadvertent disclosure to a third party exists, subjecting the sender to potential FDCPA strict liability 

exposure.”); see also Debt Resolve Comment, 4-7 (“[I]f the law, the courts, the ABA and state bar associations 

. . . all recognize that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy afforded to email communications, the use of 

this method is not precluded from debt collection practices.”). 
51

Collecting Consumer Debts: The Challenges of Change

for debt collectors to contact consumers. The agency encourages the provision of information 

addressing the prevalence of such message information being revealed to third parties to further 

consider and develop policy on this topic. In the absence of data demonstrating that there is a 

higher risk of revealing to third parties that a consumer’s debt is in collection, the FTC does not 

believe that the imposition of any special limitations on debt collectors’ use of email and instant 

messages is now justified. Nevertheless, the Commission emphasizes that if a debt collector 

reveals the existence of a debt to a third party through any method, including email and instant 

messaging, the collector is and should be liable for violating Section 805(b) of the FDCPA.

2. Payment Technologies

Consumers can pay their debts today through a wide variety of traditional and new payment 

methods. At the time the FDCPA was enacted, most people paid debts through paper checks sent 

by mail. Now, however, it is common to pay through a number of different electronic payment 

methods. These include credit and debit card payments, remotely created paper checks (or 

“demand drafts”), and electronic transmission through the ACH system. 

Workshop participants and commenters discussed the impact of new electronic payment 

technologies. Collection industry representatives argued that access to newer electronic 

payment methods is “a critical component” of newer automated collection methods, such as 

email dunning notices, web-based collection portals, and techniques involving interactive voice 

messaging.312 ACA emphasized that electronic payment methods enable debt collectors “to 

lower operating costs and increase efficiency . . . because [the debt collectors] do not have to 

process paper checks or money orders.”313 Consumers also appear to benefit from e-payments 

because they “eliminate the need for opening bills that arrive in the mail, writing and mailing 

checks, making checkbook ledger notations, and then mailing payments.”314 Debt buyer trade 

association DBA International also lauded the availability of “[v]arious internet-based payment 

portals providing for online payment” because they “expand the number of options a debtor has 

for satisfying his or her debt.”315 

The comments indicate that not only are e-payments often more convenient for debt 

collectors and consumers, but they frequently are much faster methods of paying bills, including 

312. ACA Comment (June 6, 2007) at 64; DBA Comment (June 2, 2007) at 9.

313. ACA Comment (June 6, 2007) at 64-65.

314. Richard Buse, e-Payment Options Enhanced By Interactive Voice Response, Collection Advisor, Jul.-Aug. 

2005, at 32 (adding that “credit card-based e-Payments also build up frequent flyer miles and reward points for 

affinity programs.”).

315. DBA Comment (June 2, 2007) at 9. 
A Workshop Report

52

delinquent debts. This means that debt collectors receive payment sooner.316 According to ACA, 

paying more expeditiously benefits consumers, who can “cure [a] delinquency or pay off [a] debt 

at the same time they receive [a debt collection] message. By doing so, they avoid additional 

collection attempts, while credit grantors benefit from lower payment processing costs.”317

The Commission believes that newer payment technologies generally benefit debt collectors 

and consumers by making debt payment more convenient, less expensive, and faster. The use 

of electronic payment systems to pay debts, however, poses some risks to consumers as well. 

In connection with the workshop, consumer representatives expressed concern about collectors 

obtaining unauthorized access to the accounts of consumers through the use of these new 

payment methods. According to NCLC and NACA, “debt collectors . . . often gain and abuse 

electronic access to a consumer’s financial accounts. Consumers have unauthorized debits made 

from their accounts, have difficulty canceling authorizations or unauthorized access, and are 

charged repeated fees from multiple presentments of the same debit.”318

NCLC and NACA described a variety of ways in which a consumer’s funds may be taken 

without authorization. They noted that “[a] common complaint by consumers results from the 

situation when they have provided a debt collector their bank account and routing numbers 

to allow a specific, single, withdrawal. Instead of the authorized amount, the debt collector 

makes a withdrawal of all the funds in the account, or makes multiple withdrawals when only 

one was authorized.”319 Such withdrawals can be effectuated through any of several payment 

technologies. If processed as direct electronic ACH debits, the funds are “pulled” from the 

consumer’s account pursuant to the debt collector-merchant’s instructions, over an electronic 

316. Buse, supra note 314, at 32 (quoting an e-payments provider who notes that e-payments create administrative 

efficiencies and improve cash flow: with e-payments, “[t]he speed of money is there and the quality of money 

is there; you don’t have to deal with NSF issues and you’re no longer waiting for the checks to arrive in the 

mail.”).

317. ACA Comment (June 6, 2007) at 64.

318. NCLC-NACA Comment at 32-33; and see NCLC-NACA Comment at 4 (“Debt collectors and some fringe 

lenders like payday lenders steal funds directly from consumer accounts – through remotely created checks and 

illegal electronic transfers – by perverting the ACH and electronic transfer system, and consumers are often 

unable to stop or control these debits from their bank accounts.”); see also Fox, Tr. I at 67 (describing instances 

in which collectors have obtained unauthorized access to consumers’ accounts using electronic funds transfer 

and other e-payments technologies).

319. NCLC-NACA Comment at 19-20 (“One NACA attorney recently recounted this case: My client, a soldier in 

Iraq, gave [a large debt buyer] permission to debit his account for $300 on May 1. [The debt buyer] instead 

cleaned out his account. He called [his bank] and asked that the debt buyer be blocked from any further access 

to the account. [The bank] told him that this is not sufficient to stop these debits from [debt buyer], that [debt 

buyer] is well known to the bank, and [debt buyer] will simply take further monies under a different name. 

Apparently this debt buyer routinely does this to soldiers.”).
53

Collecting Consumer Debts: The Challenges of Change

clearing system known as the automated clearinghouse or “ACH.”320 If processed instead as 

remotely created checks or “demand drafts,” the debt collector uses the consumer’s banking 

information to create a check that is unsigned, but reflects that the consumer authorized it.321 

It is well established that posting unauthorized charges to consumers’ accounts is 

illegal. The Commission has used its authority under Section 5 of the FTC Act to take law 

enforcement action against those engaged in unauthorized billing or making unauthorized 

charges to consumers’ accounts.322 Also in this regard, the Commission has adopted provisions 

in the TSR that prohibit posting a charge to a customer’s account without first obtaining “the 

express informed consent of the customer . . . to be charged for the goods or services . . . 

and to be charged using the identified account.”323 Moreover, in any transaction involving 

an unconventional payment method—i.e., any method other than “a credit card subject 

to protections of the Truth in Lending Act and Regulation Z, or a debit card subject to the 

protections of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act and Regulation E”—the TSR prohibits posting 

any charge without obtaining the customer’s “express verifiable authorization,” and sets forth 

specific procedures for doing so.324 The FTC articulated two principal reasons for the latter 

prohibition: (1) the “belief that the use of novel payment methods may lead to unauthorized 

billing” if consumers fail to understand that a caller has the ability to place a charge using these 

methods; and (2) the concern that many emerging payment methods lack both dispute resolution 

rights and consumer protection against unlimited liability for unauthorized charges.325

Workshop participants and commenters agreed that unauthorized withdrawals from 

consumers’ accounts are illegal.326 NCLC and NACA, however, stated that “claims are rarely 

pursued,”327 and that often “[t]he issue in a case challenging an improper withdrawal from a 

bank account boils down to a ‘he said, she said.’ There is seldom any more evidence than the 

consumer’s recollection that the withdrawal was not authorized and the debt collector’s computer 

320. The Electronic Funds Transfer Act (EFTA), 15 U.S.C. § 1693, and Regulation E apply to direct electronic 

debits. ACH is the automated clearinghouse, governed by NACHA rules. 

321. Remotely created checks are governed by Articles 3 and 4 of the Uniform Commercial Code and by Regulation 

CC.

322. See, e.g., FTC v. Frankly Speaking, Inc., No. 1:05-CV-60 (WRS) (M.D. Ga. 2005); FTC v. Websource Media, 

LLC, No. H-06-1980 (S.D. Tex. 2006). 

323. 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(a)(6).

324. 16 C.F.R. § 310.3(a)(3). 

325. See Statement of Basis and Purpose, Telemarketing Sales Rule, Final Rule, 68 Fed. Reg. 4580, 4605 (Jan. 29, 

2003) (codified at 16 C.F.R. § 310). 

326. NCLC-NACA Comment at 19-21; Andersen, Tr. I at 67.

327. NCLC-NACA Comment at 19-21.
A Workshop Report

54

record saying it was.”328 NCLC, NACA, and CFA therefore recommended changes in federal 

law to ensure that debt collectors do not misappropriate consumers’ funds.329 

It is important that collectors withdraw only the amount consumers have agreed to have 

withdrawn. Although the TSR does not apply to debt collectors, it does suggest an approach 

that could be adapted to deter debt collectors from making unauthorized withdrawals. Under 

the TSR, all transactions are required to have the consumer’s express informed consent, and if 

a telemarketer uses a billing method other than a credit card or a debit card,330 the telemarketer 

must obtain the consumer’s “express verifiable authorization” for the payment by following 

specified procedures.331 If the consumer provides such authorization orally, proof of it must be 

audio-recorded and retained for two years. The information that the TSR requires a telemarketer 

to audio-record and retain for express verifiable authorizations made orally includes: (1) the 

number of payments that will be submitted; (2) the dates that such payments will be submitted; 

(3) the amounts of the payments; (4) the consumer’s name; (5) adequate billing information so 

that the consumer understands which account will be used to collect payment; (6) a telephone 

number for consumer inquiries that is answered during normal business hours; and (7) the date of 

the consumer’s oral authorization.332 Failure to retain the required documentation is a violation 

of the Rule.333

The Commission believes that, if similarly detailed records were obtained and retained in 

the debt collection context, disputes about authorization of payment would be more likely to be 

resolved based on an analysis of documentary evidence, rather than based on a determination of 

whether the debt collector’s or the consumer’s testimony about authorization is more credible. 

Based on the FTC’s experience enforcing the TSR, it does not appear that imposing such 

recording and retention requirements has been unduly burdensome on telemarketers.334 The 

FTC therefore recommends that the law be changed to require that debt collectors obtain express 

328. Id.

329. NCLC-NACA Comment at 32-33; Consumer Federation of America (CFA) Comment at 12.

330. Consumers who use credit cards and debit cards to pay telemarketers are protected against unauthorized 

charges through the Truth in Lending Act and the EFTA, respectively.

331. See 16 C.F.R. § 310.3(a)(3). See also Statement of Basis and Purpose, Telemarketing Sales Rule, Final 

Rule, 68 Fed. Reg. 4580, 4604-05 (Jan. 29, 2003) (codified at 16 C.F.R. § 310). In addition, regardless of the 

payment method used, the TSR requires telemarketers to obtain a consumer’s “express informed consent” to 

cause the consumer’s billing information to be submitted for payment. 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(a)(6). 

332. See 16 C.F.R. § 310.3(a)(3)(ii). 

333. See 16 C.F.R. §§ 310.(a)(5) and 310.5(b).

334. See, e.g., Statement of Basis and Purpose, Telemarketing Sales Rule, Final Rule, 60 Fed. Reg. 43,842, 43,857 

(Aug. 23. 1995) (codified at 16 C.F.R. § 310) (minimizing the recordkeeping burden by requiring businesses to 

retain records that most businesses already maintain during the ordinary course of business). 
55

Collecting Consumer Debts: The Challenges of Change

verifiable consumer authorization before accessing the accounts of consumers and that they 

retain the records of the authorization for a reasonable period.

C. Debt Collection Litigation and Arbitration

Litigation and arbitration are important parts of the debt collection process.335 Creditors 

and debt collectors frequently use litigation and arbitration to collect outstanding debts. At 

the workshop, participants raised a wide variety of concerns about the fairness to consumers 

of the use of litigation and arbitration for resolving disputes concerning debt. Despite useful 

discussion of these concerns, the workshop record does not contain adequate information to 

enable the agency at this time to make recommendations relating to debt collection litigation and 

arbitration. To engage in a more comprehensive and detailed assessment of these issues, as well 

as to discuss alternative solutions, the FTC will convene regional roundtables in the near future 

to elicit, evaluate, and share information about debt collection litigation and arbitration. 

1. Litigation

Lawsuits to collect on consumer debts are usually filed in state court,336 either civil court 

of general jurisdiction or small claims court, depending on the amount at issue. Courts usually 

apply state contract law to decide these cases. Courts typically use state rules of civil procedure 

and local court rules to determine the procedures followed in these cases. 

The vast number of debt collection suits filed in recent years has posed considerable 

challenges to the smooth and efficient operation of courts. The majority of cases on many 

state court dockets on a given day often are debt collection matters. According to the Boston 

Globe, for example, 60% of the more than 120,000 small claims cases filed in Massachusetts 

in 2005 were filed by debt collectors.337 In Chicago’s Cook County Circuit Court, according to 

press reports, more than 119,000 civil lawsuits against alleged debtors were pending as of June 

2008.338 At that time, some 12,000 such suits were assigned to a single judge in that circuit—

335. Arbitration is a form of dispute resolution in which parties have their dispute reviewed and resolved with a 

decision on the merits by one or more neutral parties. Katherine V.W. Stone, Arbitration – National, UCLA 

School of Law Research Paper No. 05-18, 2005, available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=781204. When an 

arbitral award is issued, the decision generally is final and not subject to appeal. Id. Proponents of arbitration 

often promote it as a fast and low-cost means of resolving disputes. See National Arbitration Forum, LLC 

(NAF) Comment (Aug. 13, 2007), passim. 

336. Although a debt collection suit could be filed in federal court, this happens very rarely. This is partly because 

of the diversity jurisdictional limit on the amount in controversy of $75,000, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and partly 

because of requirements that a consumer be sued in a convenient forum, FDCPA § 811, 15 U.S.C. § 1692i. 

337. Beth Healy, A Debtor’s Hell: Part 2, A Court System Compromised, Boston Globe, July 31, 2006, available at 

http://www.boston.com/news/special/spotlight_debt/part2/page1.html. 

338. Ameet Sachdev, Debt Collectors Pushing To Get Their Day In Court, Chicago Tribune, June 8, 2008, available 

at http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-sun-debtchasers-jun08,0,2426495,print.story. 
A Workshop Report

56

roughly twice the number of debt collection cases on that judge’s docket one year previously.339 

Consumer advocates likewise report that courts across the country are flooded by debt collection 

lawsuits.340 Judges have expressed concern that the burden of handling the number of debt 

collection lawsuits on their dockets is making it difficult for them to handle other cases in an 

expeditious manner.

In addition, consumer groups maintain that debt collectors frequently use the court system 

in ways that harm consumers.341 Some reported that debt collectors have insufficient evidence 

at the time they file a complaint to show that they are seeking to recover the correct amount 

from the right consumer. Consumer representatives also assert that consumers face substantial 

impediments to defending themselves in these proceedings. Consumers reportedly often are not 

properly served with notice of the debt collection suit,342 thereby making it impossible for them 

to defend themselves. 

Even if consumers are served, they face further obstacles in defending themselves in 

court. Sometimes collectors have waited long periods of time before filing suit, making it less 

likely that consumers will remember critical events or possess exculpatory documents and other 

information. Consumer groups also assert that consumers who are not represented by counsel 

may not know what evidence to present or how to present it. In short, the view of consumer 

groups concerning debt collection litigation was aptly described in a Boston Globe article: 

“Collectors are almost never asked to prove the debts they claim; defendants are rarely informed 

339. Id.

340. See, e.g., NCLC-NACA Comment at 18 (asserting that courts in New York are overwhelmed by debt collection 

lawsuits and that many cases result in default judgment); see also, Murphy, Tr. I at 96 (stating that debt 

collection lawsuits account for the majority of cases filed in Broward County, Florida).

341. See, e.g., NCLC-NACA Comment at 16-19; DC 37 Comment at 3 (“We estimate that in the past year, upwards 

of 80% of lawsuits against our clients based on credit cards were filed by a debt buyer. . . . When our lawyers 

challenge the bare and conclusory assertions made in lawsuits, the plaintiffs are unable to come forward with 

basic proof of the debt. . . . The frustration for our clients is endless, and they sometimes suffer monetary loss. 

The time and expense for our staff in unraveling these situations is significant.”); NEDAP Comment at 4 (“73% 

of our clients with a debt collection issue have been sued by a debt collection law firm, most often representing 

a debt buyer. We find that collection law firms routinely take actions that appear to violate the FDCPA as 

well as raise troubling ethical questions.”); NYC-DCA Comment at 2 (complaints received by the New York 

City Department of Consumer Affairs and testimony at that Department’s hearing “reflect that debt collection 

efforts are initiated and proceed through the court process despite insufficient proof demonstrating that a debt is 

actually due and owing”).

342. NCLC-NACA Comment at 16-17; NEDAP Comment at 4-5. See also Healy, supra note 337, reporting 

examples of facially proper Massachusetts small claims court service, by regular mail only, to consumers at 

out-of-date addresses, resulting in no notice at all. “Often these addresses are out of date, yet the courts assume 

the defendant was notified unless the letter is returned. This is a flawed system, the Globe found in a test: Of 

100 letters sent to the same person at incorrect addresses across the state, just 52 came back . . . the other 48 

simply went missing.” Id.
57

Collecting Consumer Debts: The Challenges of Change

of their rights. And debtors, usually too strapped to afford a lawyer, have to contend with this 

legal mismatch alone.”343 

Perhaps the most significant issue related to debt collection litigation is the prevalence of 

default judgments.344 Debt collectors, for example, obtained 60,699 default judgments out of an 

estimated 130,000 debt collection lawsuits filed in Cook County, Illinois, in 2007.345 Consumer 

groups report that consumers frequently do not appear to contest debt collection lawsuits 

because they have not been properly served, and, if they do not appear, the court enters a default 

judgment. According to consumer representatives, sometimes if consumers are properly notified 

of the suit and do appear to contest the debt, collectors then acknowledge that they lack evidence 

establishing the consumers’ debts,346 and the court either postpones or dismisses the case.347 Debt 

collectors, on the other hand, maintain that consumers frequently default to avoid incurring the 

costs of appearing and offering a defense that they know will be unavailing. 

Debt collection litigation issues traditionally have been addressed as a matter of state 

law. State rules of civil procedure provide standards for the nature and extent of information a 

plaintiff, including a debt collector, must have to file a lawsuit. State bar rules provide standards 

that attorneys must meet before filing a lawsuit on behalf of a client. State statutes of limitations 

establish the amount of time a debt collector has in which to file a particular claim. State rules of 

civil procedure determine how debt collectors are to serve consumers notice upon the filing of a 

debt collection lawsuit. 

Although state law is the primary source for addressing concerns about debt collection 

litigation, the Commission believes that it has an important role to play, too. First, FTC efforts 

to improve the flow of information from creditors and debt buyers to debt collectors should 

result in debt collection law firms having more and better information about the debts they 

collect at the time they file suit. Second, as discussed below, the Commission intends to convene 

roundtables at which state officials and other interested parties can share information about 

how their jurisdictions are addressing collection litigation problems, thereby learning from 

343. Healy, supra note 337. 

344. The owner of a debt receives a number of benefits from obtaining a default judgment against a consumer. A 

judgment allows the owner of a debt to extend the life of the debt and use garnishment procedures to collect 

on the judgment. A judgment also makes it more difficult for the consumer to challenge the underlying debt. 

Specifically, the consumer usually has to show that the court improperly granted the default judgment before 

challenging the merits of the debt itself. 

345. Sachdev, supra note 338. 

346. See, e.g., Sachdev, supra note 338 (citing an Urban Justice Center study finding that 99% of the sampled cases 

leading to default debt collection judgments in New York were based on legally insufficient evidence under 

state law); NEDAP Comment at 5-6; NCLC-NACA Comment at 16-19. 

347. NCLC-NACA Comment at 16-17; DC 37 Comment at 3.
A Workshop Report

58

each other’s experience. This should provide assistance to the states in addressing problems on 

procedural, substantive, and evidentiary issues that may arise in the debt collection litigation 

context. Finally, the Commission may take law enforcement action to address debt collection 

litigation activities to the extent that they violate the FDCPA, the FTC Act, or other laws that the 

Commission enforces.

2. Arbitration

Many consumer credit contracts provide that debts arising out of them cannot be 

litigated in court, but must be subject to arbitration. According to a September 2007 report 

by Public Citizen, such arbitration clauses often are buried in larger consumer credit contracts 

and consumers may not be aware that they are agreeing to arbitration when they sign credit 

applications.348 Several commenters at the workshop noted the trend toward the increased use 

of arbitration as a means to collect debts. Arbitration clauses appear today with much greater 

frequency than they did thirty years ago in consumer credit contracts, such as agreements for 

credit cards, automobile loans, and personal loans.349

At the workshop, critics of the arbitration system asserted that arbitration proceedings 

are biased in favor of creditors.350 Arbitration results generally are not reported, although they 

are required to be reported under California law.351 Critics of arbitration cite recent data from 

California purporting to show that between 94 and 99 percent of debt collection arbitration 

proceedings were decided in favor of the creditor or debt collector.352

Arbitration proponents offered information to rebut the assertion that the arbitration process 

was biased in favor of creditors. They cited research indicating that debt collection court cases 

348. Public Citizen, The Arbitration Trap: How Credit Card Companies Ensnare Consumers, Sept. 2007, at 6 

[hereinafter The Arbitration Trap], available at http://www.citizen.org/documents/ArbitrationTrap.pdf. In 

some instances, a consumer may have the right to “opt out” of an otherwise binding arbitration clause within 

thirty days. Id. 

349. Stone, supra note 335, at 1.

350. See discussion, Tr. II at 197-201. Robert J. Hobbs of NCLC argued that arbitration proceedings are like a 

secret court. He added that arbitrators are not bound by debt collection statutes, so if a consumer’s attorney 

raises an FDCPA claim, the arbitrator can elect not to apply the statute. Id. at 198. But see NAF Comment 

(Aug. 13, 2007) at 3 (arbitration firm states that its arbitrators are required to follow the applicable substantive 

law in deciding a claim). 

351. California, unlike other states, requires that arbitration firms publicize quarterly reports on arbitration cases that 

involve consumers. See Cal. Civ. Proc. § 1281.96.

352. The Arbitration Trap, supra note 348, at 13. But see also NAF Comment (Aug. 13, 2007) (California data 

show that arbitration and court proceedings yield substantially similar outcomes for comparable case types; 

win rates for consumers and businesses bringing claims in arbitration are within a few percentage points of win 

rates of individuals and businesses bringing contract claims in court); NAF Comment (Nov. 9, 2007) at 1-3 

(93.8% win rate in California lender arbitration is slightly less than win rates obtained in two studies of lender 

court litigation).
59

Collecting Consumer Debts: The Challenges of Change

in major United States cities were likely to be decided in favor of creditors or debt collectors 

96 to 99 percent of the time.353 According to arbitration proponents, because the “outcomes in 

arbitration mirror outcomes in court,” this suggests that there is no greater “creditor bias” in 

arbitration awards than in adjudicated cases.354 

Critics of arbitration also suggested that the arbitrators themselves may have an incentive 

to rule in favor of creditors and debt collectors.355 This is because such companies are “repeat 

players” in the arbitration system, and they hold the power to strike any potential arbitrator from 

a panel peremptorily. Thus, according to these advocates, if arbitrators wish to receive future 

contracts to arbitrate cases, they must avoid offending creditors or debt collectors.356 Supporters 

of arbitration defend the integrity of the arbitrators who hear and resolve debt collection disputes. 

These proponents assert that many arbitrators are former judges and distinguished lawyers and 

would not decide matters to curry favor with creditors and debt collectors. 

Consumer advocates further call into question the procedural fairness of arbitration 

proceedings. They assert that because the customary rules of evidence (such as the hearsay rule) 

and procedure (such as personal service of process) do not apply in arbitration forums, such 

proceedings lack the inherent fairness and procedural protections of the civil court system.357 

They further maintain that arbitration often is more expensive than litigation for consumers who 

must pay fees for each step in the process, including fees for hearings.358

Proponents of arbitration counter that the process used in arbitration proceedings is 

better for consumers than the process used in court proceedings.359 For example, arbitration is 

claimed to allow consumers to: (1) engage in “document hearings” or “telephone hearings” 

353. NAF Comment (Nov. 9, 2007) at 1-3. 

354. NAF Comment (Aug. 13, 2007) at 3. 

355. See, e.g., Hobbs, Tr. II at 198 (arbitrators being paid by creditors could result in bias); NCLC-NACA Comment 

at 22-24 (“NAF appears to be an extremely unfair and untrustworthy substitute for the civil justice system for 

debt collection cases. . . . The NAF system is geared towards quickly awarding lenders the full amount the 

lenders claim a consumer owes or more, without performing much scrutiny of the magnitude or correctness 

of these awards.”); Robert Berner & Brian Grow, Banks vs. Consumers (Guess Who Wins), BusinessWeek

(June 16, 2008) available at http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_24/b4088072611398.htm

[hereinafter Banks vs. Consumers] (anonymous NAF arbitrator reports on the firm’s efforts to attract creditor/

collector claimants by pointing out the possible use of delays and dismissals to manipulate arbitration cases).

356. See, e.g., Banks vs. Consumers, supra note 355 (citing Harvard Professor Elizabeth Bartholet’s statement that 

her arbitration decision awarding $48,000 in damages to a consumer in a collections case was the reason she 

stopped receiving additional arbitration contracts from NAF). 

357. See, e.g., NCLC-NACA Comment at 22-24 (citing The Arbitration Trap, supra note 348); but see NAF 

Comment (Aug. 13, 2007) passim (NAF arbitration involves numerous guarantees of procedural fairness). 

358. The Arbitration Trap, supra note 348, at 10 (“Individual consumers must ‘shell out costs up-front at every twist 

and turn in the case; loser pays rule may further financially burden consumers when imposed.’”). 

359. NAF Comment (Aug. 13, 2007) at 3-5; NAF Comment (Nov. 9, 2007) at 5-8. 
A Workshop Report

60

(thus avoiding the need and expense of traveling or taking time away from work); (2) pay an 

inexpensive fee;360 (3) have their cases resolved more quickly; and (4) use simpler rules and 

procedures.361 Specifically, arbitration proponents claim that its procedures are superior to court 

proceedings in that arbitrators are required to review the merits of each matter before reaching a 

decision even if the consumer does not appear, while courts often simply enter default judgments 

if the consumer does not appear.362 Overall, arbitration proponents praise this alternative dispute 

resolution mechanism as faster and less expensive for businesses than litigation363 and beneficial 

to consumers who participate.364 

The workshop record reveals substantial disagreement among interested parties as to the 

advantages and disadvantages of arbitration for creditors, debt collectors, consumers, and the 

debt collection system. In addition, the discussion at the workshop revealed that there are some 

common issues for debt collection litigation and arbitration, such as the amount of information 

a debt collector must possess when commencing a proceeding and how to notify consumers 

when a matter has commenced in a particular forum.365 Because the Commission concludes that 

more information and analysis is needed to develop policy recommendations concerning debt 

collection arbitration and because there are issues in common between debt collection litigation 

and arbitration, the FTC will explore the issue of debt collection arbitration in more detail at its 

future roundtables,366 as discussed below. 

3. Collecting on Judgments and Awards

If a litigation or arbitration proceeding results in a judgment or award favoring the owner 

of the debt, the owner will then seek to collect on that judgment or award. In the case of 

an arbitration proceeding, the debt owner must then petition the court to enforce the award. 

360. Id. at 5-6 (stating that consumer fee schedule, which is reduced relative to business fee schedule, is very 

reasonable). 

361. NAF Comment (Nov. 9, 2007) at 5 (“The relative simplicity of arbitration is a great benefit for consumers 

because it spares them the labyrinth of rules and procedures that must be followed in a court proceeding, even 

by parties who have no attorney. The complexity and rigidity of court rules can be a minefield for unwary 

consumers.”).

362. Id.

363. United States Chamber of Commerce, Elect Mediation and Arbitration, available at http://uschamber.com/sb/

business/p12/p12_8925.asp. 

364. NAF Comment (Nov. 9, 2007) at 4.

365. NCLC-NACA Comment at 23.

366. The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., actively promotes arbitration as a fair, quick, and 

useful alternative to the court system, and specifies that valid contracts providing that any disputes that ensue 

in the future must be resolved by arbitration generally are enforceable. The FAA limits the grounds on which 

courts can refuse to enforce an arbitration award. 9 U.S.C. §§ 9-11. In developing recommendations related to 

debt collection arbitration, the Commission will consider the implications of the FAA. 
61

Collecting Consumer Debts: The Challenges of Change

Frequently, debt collectors seek to collect by garnishing consumers’ wages or bank accounts. 

The Commission has stated that garnishment of wages generally is an appropriate means of 

collecting on a judgment or award.367

Consumer groups and others, however, assert that some collectors improperly garnish 

bank accounts containing federally-exempt funds such as Social Security benefits or disability 

funds.368 They further assert that garnishing these funds presents extraordinary difficulties for 

consumers who subsist on them.369 Because the law requires consumers to receive many such 

payments by direct deposit, consumers usually keep them in accounts in depository institutions. 

If a collector presents a financial institution (e.g., a bank) with a state court garnishment order, 

the institution sometimes freezes the funds in the account, including the exempt funds, to comply 

with the order. While these accounts are frozen, institutions often charge “NSF” (insufficient 

funds) fees to consumers whenever anyone attempts to draw on the account. According to 

NCLC and NACA, “The number of people who are being harmed by these practices has 

escalated significantly in recent years, largely due to the increase in the number of recipients 

whose benefits are electronically deposited into bank accounts.”370

At the workshop, participants agreed that garnishment of federally-exempt funds can cause 

hardship to consumers. Debt collector representatives asserted that it is unethical to garnish an 

account if it is known to contain only protected funds.371 Collector representatives reported, 

however, that they only infrequently have knowledge that an account consists entirely of 

protected funds, and that consumers rarely respond to requests for information about the contents 

of their bank accounts prior to a freeze.372 An FDIC representative, who generally urged debt 

collectors to avoid freezing exempt funds, commented that there is uncertainty as to whether 

financial institutions are legally prohibited from garnishing an account containing only protected 

funds, or whether the protected status of the funds is merely an issue that a consumer may raise 

after garnishment to unfreeze the bank account and recover the funds.373 

The federal banking regulators have initiated steps to address the problem of financial 

institutions garnishing federally-exempt funds. In September 2007, the Board of Governors 

367. See, e.g., Statement of Basis and Purpose, FTC Credit Practices Rule, Final Rule, 49 Fed. Reg. 7740, 7744, 

7755 (Mar. 1, 1984) (codified at 16 C.F.R. Part 444).

368. See, e.g, NCLC-NACA Comment at 18; Gina Calabrese Comment at 5; NEDAP Comment at 7-8. 

369. See, e.g., NCLC-NACA Comment at 18; Calabrese Comment at 5. 

370. NCLC-NACA Comment at 34. 

371. See, e.g., Adam J. Olshan, Tr. II at 151, 154-55, 161-62; Lynn Drysdale, Tr. II at 152; Hobbs, Tr. II at 152-53; 

Steven D. Fritts, Tr. II at 158-59. 

372. Olshan, Tr. II at 154-55; Fritts, Tr. II at 158-60. 

373. Fritts, Tr. II at 160. 
A Workshop Report

62

of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of the 

Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the National Credit Union 

Administration issued a joint request for public comment on proposed guidance seeking best 

practices for financial institutions to follow in protecting federally exempt funds.374 The 

proposed guidance included nine “best practices,” including such features as: notifying the 

consumer; determining, as feasible, whether an account contains exempt funds; waiving NSF 

and other fees to the consumer while the account is frozen; and offering consumers segregated 

accounts that contain only federal benefit funds without commingling of other funds. The 

banking regulators received at least 22 comments on the proposed guidance from a variety of 

stakeholders.375 To date, the proposed guidance has not been finalized.

The Commission believes the federal banking agencies should address this issue in the 

first instance, as it involves compliance by regulated financial institutions with federal laws 

concerning exempt funds and state court orders. The FTC, however, has prepared consumer 

education materials advising federal benefit recipients how to keep their funds protected and 

avoid commingling protected funds with any other funds.376 In addition, the Commission will 

continue to monitor federal and state developments377 related to garnishment of federally-exempt 

funds to determine whether additional FTC action would benefit consumers. 

4. Time-Barred Debt and Discharged Debt

Another issue discussed at the workshop was the collection of “time-barred debt” through 

litigation or arbitration. A debt is time-barred if it has been delinquent longer than the applicable 

state statute of limitations; for example, a creditor or debt collector may be required to file 

suit to collect on a debt within five years after the debt has become delinquent. By requiring 

that owners of debt file suit relatively close in time to the delinquency, statutes of limitations 

help ensure that courts have necessary evidence available to resolve disputes, and thus assist 

374. Proposed Guidance on Garnishment of Exempt Federal Benefit Funds, 72 Fed. Reg. 55,273 (Sept. 28, 2007), 

available at http://www.fdic.gov/news/news/press/2007/pr07078a.pdf; Press Release, FDIC, Federal Financial 

Regulatory Agencies Request Comment On Proposed Statement of Best Practices On Garnishment Orders 

of Exempt Federal Benefit Funds (Sept. 19, 2007), available at http://www.fdic.gov/news/news/press/2007/

pr07078.html. 

375. See comments posted to the Federal Reserve Board at http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/foia/index.

cfm?doc_id=OP%2D1294&doc_ver=1. 

376. The FTC’s new consumer publication, Garnishment of Government Benefits: Understanding Your Rights, is 

available at http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/alerts/alt135.pdf.

377. New York, for example, recently passed a statute providing that the first $2,500 of exempt funds in a depository 

account must be protected from garnishment freezing and seizure by debt collectors or creditors. N.Y.C.P.L.R. 

Chapter 575 (2008). See also, New York Passes Bill to Close Debt Collection ‘Loophole,’ InsideARM (Oct. 2, 

2008); Press Release, New Yorkers For Responsible Lending, Governor Patterson Signs Landmark Legislation 

that Protects Elderly, Disabled, Veteran, and Lower Income New Yorkers From Abusive Debt Collection (Sept. 

29, 2008). 
63

Collecting Consumer Debts: The Challenges of Change

consumers in defending themselves.378 By mandating that collectors file suit by a certain date, a 

statute of limitations also provides a bright line for owners of debts and consumers as to when no 

further legal action to collect on a debt is permitted.

The FDCPA reinforces the protections that statutes of limitations provide to consumers. In 

private actions, courts have held that a collector threatening to sue on a time-barred debt violates 

one or more sections of the FDCPA: Section 807,379 using false, deceptive, or misleading 

representations to collect a debt; Section 807(2)(A),380 falsely representing the character, amount, 

or legal status of a debt; Section 807(5),381 threatening to take an action that cannot legally be 

taken or that is not intended to be taken; and Section 807(10),382 using a false representation or 

deceptive means to collect a debt.383 The Commission likewise has brought enforcement actions 

alleging that debt collectors who falsely threatened to sue on time-barred debt violated Sections 

807(2)(A), 807(5), and 807(10) of the FDCPA.384 

Courts also have concluded that actually suing on time-barred debt violates the FDCPA.385 

One of these courts reasoned,

[T]he unfairness of [filing suit on a time-barred debt] is particularly clear in 

the consumer context where courts have imposed a heightened standard of 

care — that sufficient to protect the least sophisticated consumer. Because 

few unsophisticated consumers would be aware that a statute of limitations 

could be used to defend against lawsuits based on stale debts, such 

consumers would unwittingly acquiesce to such lawsuits.386

It thus is a violation of the FDCPA to sue or threaten to sue consumers to recover on timebarred debt.

378. See United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111, 117 (1979) (statutes of limitations “protect defendants and the 

courts from having to deal with cases in which the search for truth may be seriously impaired by the loss of 

evidence, whether by death or disappearance of witnesses, fading memories, disappearance of documents, or 

otherwise.”). 

379. 15 U.S.C. § 1692e.

380. 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A).

381. 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(5).

382. 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(10).

383. See, e.g., Freyermuth v. Credit Bureau Servs.,Inc., 248 F.3d 767, 771 (8th Cir. 2001); Walker v. Cash Flow 

Consultants, Inc., 200 F.R.D. 613, 616 (N.D. Ill. 2001); Beattie v. D.M. Collections, Inc., 754 F. Supp. 383, 393 

(D. Del. 1991); Kimber v. Fed. Fin. Corp., 668 F. Supp. 1480, 1489 (M.D. Ala. 1987).

384. See United States v. Whitewing Fin. Group, No. H-06-2102 (S.D. Tex. June 22, 2006); FTC v. Capital 

Acquisitions & Mgmt. Corp., No. 04C7781 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 2, 2004).

385. See, e.g., Ramirez v. Palisades Collection LLC, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48722, *13 (N.D. Ill. June 23, 2008); 

McCorriston v. L.W.T., Inc., 536 F. Supp. 2d 1268, 1271 n.2 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 22, 2008); Kimber, 668 F. Supp. at 

1487.

386. Kimber, 668 F. Supp. at 1487. 
A Workshop Report

64

The debt collection industry similarly recognizes that it is a violation of the FDCPA to sue 

or threaten to sue to recover on time-barred debt.387 Consistent with the views expressed at the 

workshop, industry best practices and codes of ethical conduct also prohibit collectors from 

suing or threatening to sue on time-barred debt.388 Collection industry representatives also noted, 

however, that statutes of limitation vary by state and by type of debt being collected, and that it 

often is difficult to determine which period is applicable to a particular debt collection claim.389 

Although there is a consensus that suing or threatening to sue to collect time-barred debt 

is unlawful and unethical for debt collectors, a number of consumer advocates at the workshop 

reported that some collectors still make false threats of suit or actually sue on time-barred 

debts.390 To address this conduct, the Commission will consider how to use its law enforcement 

and other consumer protection tools391 to more effectively deter collectors from suing or 

threatening to sue on time-barred debt. The FTC also encourages the debt collection industry to 

increase its efforts to persuade collectors not to engage in these activities. The agency anticipates 

that more extended and detailed discussion of possible public392 and private measures to deter 

collectors from suing or threatening to sue on time-barred debt will be an important component 

of the upcoming debt collection litigation and arbitration roundtables.

Another issue related to debt collection litigation is the collection of debts discharged in 

bankruptcy. A November 2007 article reported that some debt buyers now purchase and attempt 

to collect such discharged debt.393 The federal Bankruptcy Code prohibits the collection of this 

type of debt.394 Some courts have determined that consumers may assert a cause of action under 

387. Manuel H. Newburger, Tr. II at 170; Olshan, Tr. II at 171.

388. Newburger, Tr. II at 170 (“[N]o one in the collection bar is going to tell you that they should get to sue 

on time-barred debts if they’ve read the law.”). See also ACA Comment (Sept. 7, 2007) at 7 (citing ACA 

International’s Code of Ethics, Rule II.A.6, which provides that ACA members have a duty to “not threaten or 

initiate collection litigation on time barred debts.”). 

389. See, e.g., Newburger, Tr. II at 173; DBA Comment (Sept. 10, 2007) at 3-4. See also NCLC Treatise, supra

note 11, at 222 (“Within a single state, different statutes of limitation may arguably apply to a claim on a debt 

against a consumer.”). 

390. See, e.g., NCLC-NACA Comment at 23 (arbitration), 31-32 (lawsuits), 56 (lawsuits); Drysdale, Tr. II at 164-

66.

391. The Commission has published a consumer brochure on time-barred debts, which is available at 

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/alerts/alt144.shtm. 

392. For example, a possible response suggested in workshop comments was that the FDCPA should be amended 

to require that collectors attempting to collect on time-barred debts notify consumers that: (1) the debts are 

beyond the statute of limitations; (2) the law prohibits the collector from suing the consumer or taking the 

consumer to arbitration; and (3) if the consumer makes a partial payment on the debt, it may revive the debt 

and permit the collector to sue on it. NYC-DCA Comment at 3; NCLC-NACA Comment at 32. 

393. Robert Berner & Brian Grow, Prisoners of Debt, BusinessWeek, Nov. 12, 2007, available at 

http://www.businessweek.com/print/magazine/content/07_46/b4058001.htm?chan=g1.

394. See 11 U.S.C. § 524.
65

Collecting Consumer Debts: The Challenges of Change

the FDCPA based on a debt collector collecting or seeking to collect on discharged debt,395 while 

other courts have concluded that such a consumer must look solely to the bankruptcy courts for 

protection under the Bankruptcy Code.396 The Commission believes that a debt collector who 

states or implies that a consumer has an obligation to pay a debt that has been discharged in 

bankruptcy is making a deceptive claim in violation of Section 807 of the FDCPA,397 and the law 

should be amended to clarify that such conduct may be challenged as a violation of the FDCPA.

5. Future Directions in Litigation and Arbitration

The FTC has found that the lack of adequate documentation of alleged debts is a problem 

during the debt collection process, and believes the problem is exacerbated when a lawsuit is 

filed or an arbitration proceeding is commenced. At this stage in the collection process, the 

potential adverse consequences to the consumer of a collector’s failure to obtain adequate debtrelated information are greater, especially when a consumer has been misidentified or does not 

owe the amount claimed. This harm may be especially great for consumers who are not properly 

served notice of the suit, because such consumers do not know that they need to show up in court 

and defend the suit if they are to retain their rights. 

This problem of inadequate debt-related information appears to stem in large part 

from the problems discussed above involving information flow: insufficient and inadequate 

documentation of debt information is transferred from creditors and debt buyers to debt 

collectors throughout a debt’s life cycle. The FTC’s previous recommendations made in 

connection with debt validation and verification should help address this problem. 

Nevertheless, as discussed above, issues related to debt collection litigation and arbitration 

encompass a broad range of issues other than information flow. Virtually all collection 

proceedings are decided in state court through the application of state substantive and procedural 

law. Accordingly, the Commission believes that states should take the main role in addressing 

these issues. At least one state court system is working to resolve potential communication 

problems between debt collection attorneys and consumer debtors. In Massachusetts, a Small 

Claims Working Group — comprised of state officials, judges, consumer advocates, debt 

collection attorneys, and trial attorneys — has studied how the state court system handles its 

substantial influx of debt collection litigation.398 The Working Group has suggested a number 

395. See, e.g., Randolph v. IMBS, Inc., 368 F.3d 726, 732-33 (7th Cir. 2004) (consumer may pursue an FDCPA 

claim against a debt collector who has attempted to collect on debt discharged in bankruptcy).

396. See, e.g., Walls v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 276 F.3d 502, 504 (9th Cir. 2002).

397. Such a claim would violate Section 5 of the FTC Act as well.

398. Mass. Dist. Ct., Rep. of the Small Claims Working Group (2007), available at http://www.lawlib.state.ma.us/

docs/smallclaimreport.pdf. 
A Workshop Report

66

of changes to the state court small claims system that are designed to ensure fair treatment 

of consumers and other defendants. Describing notice to defendants as a chief concern, the 

Working Group has recommended, among other things, that plaintiffs be required to verify a 

defendant’s address before a default judgment may be entered.399 

The Commission believes problems in debt collection litigation and arbitration are serious 

and need to be considered in a more comprehensive fashion. The FTC believes that it can play 

an important role through facilitating discussions among interested parties about how to address 

these problems. The agency therefore will host regional roundtables to discuss those issues 

and possible solutions with state court judges, governmental officials, contingency collection 

agencies, debt buyers, collection attorneys, consumer advocates, arbitrators, and other interested 

stakeholders.400 In addition, the Commission may take law enforcement action to address 

conduct related to debt collection litigation and arbitration to the extent that such conduct 

violates the FDCPA, the FTC Act, or other laws the Commission enforces.

D. Debt Collection Legal and Regulatory Systems

1. Private Enforcement of the FDCPA

In enacting the FDCPA, Congress made clear that the FDCPA was intended to be a 

“primarily self-enforcing” statute, with private individual and class actions providing collectors 

with a powerful incentive to comply with the statute.401 To deter illegal collection practices, 

Congress authorized courts to award individual consumers who sued successfully under the 

FDCPA any actual damages they suffered, plus additional, “statutory,” damages up to $1,000.402 

Congress capped statutory damages for a class action of consumers at the lesser of $500,000 or 

1% of the debt collector’s net worth.403 

Congress has not changed the statutory damages amounts for individual and class actions 

in thirty years. Many consumer advocates expressed the opinion that such damage awards 

should be increased enough to keep pace with inflation to deter debt collectors from violating 

399. Id. 

400. We note that NARCA recommended that the Commission take this step. See NARCA Comment (Nov. 8, 

2007) at 3 (“The FTC should engage state judiciary officials to encourage dialogues similar to the one recently 

concluded in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts where attorneys, judicial officials and consumer advocates 

at the state level met to exchange ideas about debt collection litigation processes in small claims courts.”). 

401. See Senate Report, supra note 1, at 5.

402. FDCPA § 813(a)(2)(A), 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(A).

403. FDCPA § 813(a)(2)(B), 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(B).
67

Collecting Consumer Debts: The Challenges of Change

the statute.404 NCLC and NACA report that, with inflation, $1,000 in 1977 dollars equals 

approximately $3,600 in 2008 dollars405 and $500,000 equals approximately $1,800,000 in 2008 

dollars.406 Commenters also recommended that in the future these damage amounts should be 

adjusted periodically to keep pace with price increases.407 

The Commission believes it is important for the FDCPA to be primarily a self-enforcing 

statute as Congress intended. Because the Commission receives more than 70,000 third-party 

debt collection complaints per year, it is not feasible for federal government law enforcement 

to be the exclusive or primary means of deterring all possible law violations.408 Private actions 

therefore are critical in deterring those who would violate the FDCPA. For private actions to 

be the effective deterrent that Congress intended, however, the statutory damage amounts in the 

FDCPA must remain adequate. The FTC thus recommends that the statutory damage amounts 

in the FDCPA be updated to reflect inflation since 1977 and that in the future these amounts be 

increased periodically.

2. Government Enforcement of the FDCPA

Debt collection enforcement is a priority in the FTC’s financial practices program. As noted 

above, since the FDCPA was enacted, the Commission has brought more than 60 enforcement 

actions alleging law violations related to debt collection. The Commission will continue its law 

enforcement efforts to ensure that the debt collection system works effectively. 

As part of these efforts, the Commission has modified its law enforcement approach to 

increase deterrence. The FTC not only has sought higher civil penalties for FDCPA violations, 

but also has sought consumer redress and disgorgement as forms of equitable monetary 

relief under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act.409 In addition, in appropriate cases involving debt 

404. See, e.g., NCLC-NACA Comment at 46-48; Calabrese Comment at 7; Southern Methodist University Dedman 

School of Law (SMU) Comment at 7; NEDAP Comment at 9; DC 37 Comment at 3-4; Law Offices of Dean 

Malone (Malone) Comment at 1; Michael Worsham Comment at 1; Scott Kreppein Comment at 1-2; Aaron 

Wright Comment at 1. 

405. NCLC-NACA Comment at 46-47. See United States Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 

http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm (site’s inflation calculator uses Consumer Price Index for a given calendar 

year or, for the current year, the latest monthly index value) (last visited Dec. 1, 2008).

406. NCLC-NACA Comment at 46-47. See United States Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 

http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm (click on the inflation calculator) (last visited Dec. 1, 2008). 

407. See, e.g., NCLC-NACA Comment at 47.

408. As the Commission notes in its 2009 Annual Report, released concurrently with this report and available at 

http://www.ftc.gov/os/2009/02/P094804fdcpareport.pdf, the agency received 71,004 complaints about thirdparty debt collectors in 2007, and 78,838 in 2008.

409. 15 U.S.C. § 53(b). 
A Workshop Report

68

collectors, the Commission has obtained immediate injunctive relief in federal court, including 

asset freezes and the appointment of receivers.410

The FTC also has sought to increase deterrence through holding liable both debt collection 

companies and the individuals responsible for the companies’ practices.411 For example, the 

Commission announced such an action in November 2008 against a collection agency and 

its owner.412 Under the terms of the consent decree, which settled FTC allegations that the 

collection agency violated the FTC Act and a number of FDCPA provisions, the collection 

agency and the owner are both responsible for paying the $2.25 million civil penalty, the largest 

civil penalty the Commission has ever obtained in a debt collection case.

3. Rulemaking to Implement the FDCPA

To implement the laws that it passes, Congress typically confers rulemaking authority 

on administrative agencies to clarify or fill gaps in those laws.413 It may delegate to an 

administrative agency the authority to promulgate rules to address specific issues Congress 

has identified. It also may delegate to administrative agencies more general authority to 

promulgate rules as needed to address other issues that may arise, such as adaptations that are 

needed to respond to changes in markets or technology.414 Congress often delegates authority 

410. See, e.g., FTC v. Rawlins & Rivera, Inc., No. 6:07-cv-146 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 31, 2007) (preliminary injunction 

halting illegal practices and, later, permanent injunction and payment of debt collector’s ill-gotten gains to 

United States Treasury); FTC v. Capital Acquisitions & Mgmt. Corp., No. 04C7781 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 2, 2004) 

(temporary restraining order prohibiting illegal collection practices, asset freeze, and company placed under 

control of receiver); FTC v. Check Investors, Inc., No. 03-2115 (JWB) (D.N.J. May 12, 2003) (temporary 

restraining order and preliminary injunction).

411. See, e.g., United States v. Acad. Collection Serv., Inc., No. 2:08-cv-1576 (D. Nev. Nov. 14, 2008) (corporate 

and individual defendant jointly liable for $2.25 million civil penalty); United States v. LTD Fin. Servs., No. 

H-07-3741 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 5, 2007) (corporate and individual defendants enjoined from violating FTC Act 

and FDCPA); FTC v. Whitewing Fin. Group, Inc., No. H-06-2102 (S.D. Tex. June 22, 2006) (corporate and 

individual defendants jointly liable for $150,000 civil penalty); FTC v. Check Investors, Inc., No. 03-2115 

(JWB) (D.N.J. July 18, 2005) (corporate and individual defendants jointly liable for $10.2 million in redress to 

consumers).

412. United States v. Acad. Collection Serv., Inc., No. 2:08-cv-1576 (D. Nev. Nov. 14, 2008). The complaint also 

named two individual officers who oversaw one of the company’s collection centers but were not part of the 

settlement with the company and its owner. The Department of Justice represents the Commission in this 

matter.

413. “The power of an administrative agency to administer a congressionally created . . . program necessarily 

requires the formulation of policy and the making of rules to fill any gap left, implicitly or explicitly, by 

Congress.” Morton v. Ruiz, 415 U.S. 199, 231 (1974).

414. “[I]t is entirely appropriate for [agencies] to make such policy choices [through issuing rules] – resolving 

the competing interests which Congress itself either inadvertently did not resolve, or intentionally left to be 

resolved by the agency charged with the administration of the statute in light of everyday realities.” Chevron, 

U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837, 865-66 (1984). 
69

Collecting Consumer Debts: The Challenges of Change

to administrative agencies so that they can apply their expertise to develop rules based on a 

comprehensive record exploring difficult or technical issues.415 

Congress has delegated rulemaking authority to the FTC under various types of statutes. 

It has conferred authority on the FTC to promulgate rules to implement statutes concerning 

consumer financial services,416 such as the Fair Credit Reporting Act417 and the Gramm-LeachBliley Act.418 In addition, Congress has delegated to the FTC the authority to promulgate 

implementing rules to address emerging technologies in the marketplace. For example, the 

Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act directed the Commission to 

issue rules to address the use of telephone technologies in telemarketing.419 The FTC issued the 

Telemarketing Sales Rule in 1995, revised it in 2003 to respond to changes in technology and 

the marketplace, and then revised it again in 2008 to address new technologies such as predictive 

dialers, Caller ID, and prerecorded and interactive telephone messages.420 Similarly, the 

Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act (“CAN-SPAM Act”) of 

2003 directed the Commission to promulgate rules concerning the use of email to market goods 

and services, and the FTC has issued a number of rules to implement that Act.421

The FDCPA, however, does not authorize the FTC or any other agency to issue rules 

to implement the Act. Indeed, Section 814 of the FDCPA specifically prohibits the FTC 

and other agencies from promulgating rules concerning the collection of debts by debt 

collectors.422 Instead, the FDCPA mandates that the Commission file a report with Congress 

each year describing its enforcement of the statute and providing any proposed legislative 

415. Congress, for example, has given the Federal Reserve Board the authority to issue rules implementing financial 

services statutes such as the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq., the Equal Credit Opportunity 

Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1691 et seq., the Consumer Leasing Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1667 et seq., and the Electronic Fund 

Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1693 et seq.

416. Note that the FTC also enforces regulations that other agencies promulgate to implement consumer financial 

services statutes, such as the Federal Reserve Board regulations referred to in note 415 supra.

417. FCRA § 621(e), 15 U.S.C. § 1681s(e).

418. 15 U.S.C. § 6804.

419. 15 U.S.C. §§ 6101-6108, as amended.

420. See Final Rule Amendments and Statement of Basis and Purpose, Telemarketing Sales Rule, 73 Fed. Reg. 

51,164 (Aug. 29, 2008); Statement of Basis and Purpose, Telemarketing Sales Rule, Final Rule, 68 Fed. Reg. 

4580, 4623-28 (Jan. 29, 2003); Statement of Basis and Purpose and Final Rule, Telemarketing Sales Rule, 60 

Fed. Reg. 43,842 (Aug. 23, 1995) (all codified at 16 C.F.R. § 310).

421. See, e.g., 69 Fed. Reg. 21,024 (Apr. 19, 2004) (adult labeling rule); 70 Fed. Reg. 3110 (Jan. 19, 2005) (primary 

purpose rule and others); 73 Fed. Reg. 29,654 (May 21, 2008) (various rules) (all codified at 16 C.F.R. § 316). 

422. See FDCPA § 814(d), 15 U.S.C. § 1692l(d).
A Workshop Report

70

recommendations.423 Although Congress has made substantive amendments to the FDCPA three 

times since it was enacted,424 this framework has not ensured that legal requirements have kept 

pace with the changes in the debt collection industry.

The Commission agrees with commenters that the debt collection legal framework should 

be changed to enable the government to use rulemaking to respond more quickly and effectively 

to changes in technologies and the marketplace.425 Many of the complex issues arising in 

contemporary debt collection could be addressed with enhanced consideration and expertise if 

they were resolved through a process of seeking comment, researching particular issues, and 

proposing and revising necessary and appropriate regulations. Making changes periodically 

through such a process would help ensure that the law continues to further Congress’s intent 

to protect consumers from abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices, while 

also ensuring that debt collectors who refrain from such practices are not competitively 

disadvantaged.426

The Commission therefore believes that consumers and debt collectors would benefit if 

the agency were given the authority to issue rules to implement the FDCPA. Such rulemaking 

authority should direct the agency to promulgate rules on particular issues (including those 

identified elsewhere in this report) for which Congress believes that it would be beneficial to 

develop a factual record to which the FTC could apply its experience in debt collection matters. 

The Commission recommends that Congress also consider conferring on the Commission the 

general authority to issue necessary and proper rules to implement the FDCPA, thus enabling 

the agency to issue rules in the future to respond expeditiously and effectively to changes in 

technology and the marketplace.

423. See FDCPA § 815, 15 U.S.C. § 1692m. See also, e.g., 2008 FTC Annual Report, supra note 64, available at 

http://www.ftc.gov/os/2008/03/P084802fdcpareport.pdf; 2009 FTC Annual Report, supra note 64, available at

http://www.ftc.gov/os/2009/02/P094804fdcpareport.pdf; 2005 FTC Annual Report, supra note 183, available 

at http://www.ftc.gov/reports/fdcpa05/050729fdcparpt.pdf. 

424. The substantive amendments to the FDCPA came in 1986, 1996, and 2006.

425. A number of workshop participants suggested that the FTC be given authority to promulgate rules under 

the FDCPA. See, e.g., NARCA Comment (June 5, 2007) at 15 (“This expansion of regulatory oversight 

would help resolve potentially conflicting interpretations and would help ensure compliance, given the 

rapid technology changes in debt collection, without requiring the extensive and time consuming legislative 

process.”); ACA Comment (June 6, 2007) at 112 (proposing that “at five-year intervals . . . the Commission 

shall make regulatory changes as it deems necessary, work with Congress, and propose legislation in order to 

ensure” the Act’s effectiveness); M. Saunders, Tr. II at 233; Udis, Tr. II at 233; Wood, Tr. II at 224-25.

426. See FDCPA § 802, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 (purpose of FDCPA).
71

Collecting Consumer Debts: The Challenges of Change

VII. Conclusion

In the thirty years since enactment of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, American 

consumers have experienced many important changes. They have faced a revolution in 

technology, leading to many new ways to communicate, store and transmit information, and 

make payments. Consumer household debt has likewise been transformed dramatically in 

amount and in kind. The conduct of debt collection has also been transformed in many ways, 

such as the dramatic advent of debt buying, and the vastly increased number of debt collection 

suits and arbitration proceedings. 

Through its 2007 workshop and related proceedings, the Commission has taken stock of the 

most important changes for consumers and industry that relate to debt collection. The FTC has 

carefully reviewed the workshop transcript and the many comments received, and in this report 

has endeavored to enumerate general policy principles, recommend important changes to the law, 

and identify issues that require further study or attention. The Commission hopes that this report 

and its future activities will lead to helpful changes in debt collection law, policy, and practice.
A Workshop Report

72
A-1

Collecting Consumer Debts: The Challenges of Change

Appendix A: Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

F air 

D ebt 

C ollection

P ractices

A ct
A Workshop Report

A-2
A-3

Collecting Consumer Debts: The Challenges of Change

THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT

As amended by Pub. L. 109-351, §§ 801-02, 120 Stat. 1966 (2006)

As a public service, the staff of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has 

prepared the following complete text of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 

(FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692p.

Please note that the format of the text differs in minor ways from the U.S. 

Code and West’s U.S. Code Annotated. For example, this version uses FDCPA 

section numbers in the headings. In addition, the relevant U.S. Code citation is 

included with each section heading. Although the staff has made every effort 

to transcribe the statutory material accurately, this compendium is intended as 

a convenience for the public and not a substitute for the text in the U.S. Code.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

§ 801 Short title 

§ 802 Congressional findings and declaration of purpose

§ 803 Definitions

§ 804 Acquisition of location information

§ 805 Communication in connection with debt collection

§ 806 Harassment or abuse

§ 807 False or misleading representations

§ 808 Unfair practices 

§ 809 Validation of debts

§ 810 Multiple debts

§ 811 Legal actions by debt collectors

§ 812 Furnishing certain deceptive forms

§ 813 Civil liability 

§ 814 Administrative enforcement 

§ 815 Reports to Congress by the Commission

§ 816 Relation to State laws

§ 817 Exemption for State regulation

§ 818 Exception for certain bad check enforcement programs operated by 

private entities

§ 819 Effective date
A Workshop Report

A-4

§ 801 15 USC 1601 note

§ 801. Short Title 

This title may be cited as the “Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.”

§ 802. Congressional findings and declaration of purpose

(a) There is abundant evidence of the use of abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices by many debt 

collectors. Abusive debt collection practices contribute to 

the number of personal bankruptcies, to marital instability, 

to the loss of jobs, and to invasions of individual privacy. 

(b) Existing laws and procedures for redressing these injuries 

are inadequate to protect consumers. 

(c) Means other than misrepresentation or other abusive debt 

collection practices are available for the effective collection of debts. 

(d) Abusive debt collection practices are carried on to a substantial extent in interstate commerce and through means 

and instrumentalities of such commerce. Even where 

abusive debt collection practices are purely intrastate in 

character, they nevertheless directly affect interstate commerce. 

(e) It is the purpose of this title to eliminate abusive debt collection practices by debt collectors, to insure that those 

debt collectors who refrain from using abusive debt collection practices are not competitively disadvantaged, and 

to promote consistent State action to protect consumers 

against debt collection abuses.

§ 803. Definitions 

As used in this title—

(1) The term “Commission” means the Federal Trade 

Commission. 

(2) The term “communication” means the conveying of 

information regarding a debt directly or indirectly to 

any person through any medium. 

(3) The term “consumer” means any natural person obligated or allegedly obligated to pay any debt. 

15 USC 1601 note

15 USC 1692

15 USC 1692a
A-5

Collecting Consumer Debts: The Challenges of Change

§ 803 15 USC 1692a

(4) The term “creditor” means any person who offers or 

extends credit creating a debt or to whom a debt is 

owed, but such term does not include any person to the 

extent that he receives an assignment or transfer of a 

debt in default solely for the purpose of facilitating collection of such debt for another. 

(5) The term “debt” means any obligation or alleged 

obligation of a consumer to pay money arising out of 

a transaction in which the money, property, insurance 

or services which are the subject of the transaction are 

primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, 

whether or not such obligation has been reduced to 

judgment. 

(6) The term “debt collector” means any person who uses 

any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails 

in any business the principal purpose of which is the 

collection of any debts, or who regularly collects or 

attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed 

or due or asserted to be owed or due another. Notwithstanding the exclusion provided by clause (F) of 

the last sentence of this paragraph, the term includes 

any creditor who, in the process of collecting his own 

debts, uses any name other than his own which would 

indicate that a third person is collecting or attempting to collect such debts. For the purpose of section 

808(6), such term also includes any person who uses 

any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails 

in any business the principal purpose of which is the 

enforcement of security interests. The term does not 

include—

(A) any officer or employee of a creditor while, in 

the name of the creditor, collecting debts for such 

creditor; 

(B) any person while acting as a debt collector for 

another person, both of whom are related by common ownership or affiliated by corporate control, 

if the person acting as a debt collector does so only 
A Workshop Report

A-6

§ 803 15 USC 1692a

for persons to whom it is so related or affiliated and 

if the principal business of such person is not the 

collection of debts; 

(C) any officer or employee of the United States or any 

State to the extent that collecting or attempting to 

collect any debt is in the performance of his official 

duties; 

(D) any person while serving or attempting to serve legal process on any other person in connection with 

the judicial enforcement of any debt; 

(E) any nonprofit organization which, at the request 

of consumers, performs bona fide consumer credit 

counseling and assists consumers in the liquidation of their debts by receiving payments from such 

consumers and distributing such amounts to creditors; and

(F) any person collecting or attempting to collect any 

debt owed or due or asserted to be owed or due 

another to the extent such activity 

(i) is incidental to a bona fide fiduciary obligation 

or a bona fide escrow arrangement;

(ii) concerns a debt which was originated by such 

person;

(iii) concerns a debt which was not in default at the 

time it was obtained by such person; or

(iv) concerns a debt obtained by such person as a 

secured party in a commercial credit transaction involving the creditor. 

(7) The term “location information” means a consumer’s 

place of abode and his telephone number at such place, 

or his place of employment.

(8) The term “State” means any State, territory, or possession of the United States, the District of Columbia, the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any political subdivision of any of the foregoing.
A-7

Collecting Consumer Debts: The Challenges of Change

§ 804 15 USC 1692b

§ 804. Acquisition of location information 

Any debt collector communicating with any person other 

than the consumer for the purpose of acquiring location information about the consumer shall—

(1) identify himself, state that he is confirming or correcting location information concerning the consumer, and, 

only if expressly requested, identify his employer; 

(2) not state that such consumer owes any debt; 

(3) not communicate with any such person more than once 

unless requested to do so by such person or unless 

the debt collector reasonably believes that the earlier 

response of such person is erroneous or incomplete and 

that such person now has correct or complete location 

information; 

(4) not communicate by post card; 

(5) not use any language or symbol on any envelope or 

in the contents of any communication effected by the 

mails or telegram that indicates that the debt collector 

is in the debt collection business or that the communication relates to the collection of a debt; and 

(6) after the debt collector knows the consumer is represented by an attorney with regard to the subject debt 

and has knowledge of, or can readily ascertain, such 

attorney’s name and address, not communicate with 

any person other than that attorney, unless the attorney 

fails to respond within a reasonable period of time to 

the communication from the debt collector.

§ 805. Communication in connection with debt collection

(a) COMMUNICATION WITH THE CONSUMER GENERALLY. Without the prior consent of the consumer given 

directly to the debt collector or the express permission of 

a court of competent jurisdiction, a debt collector may not 

communicate with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt— 

(1) at any unusual time or place or a time or place known 

or which should be known to be inconvenient to the 

15 USC 1692b

15 USC 1692c
A Workshop Report

A-8

§ 805 15 USC 1692c

consumer. In the absence of knowledge of circumstances to the contrary, a debt collector shall assume that the 

convenient time for communicating with a consumer 

is after 8 o’clock antimeridian and before 9 o’clock 

postmeridian, local time at the consumer’s location; 

(2) if the debt collector knows the consumer is represented 

by an attorney with respect to such debt and has knowledge of, or can readily ascertain, such attorney’s name 

and address, unless the attorney fails to respond within 

a reasonable period of time to a communication from 

the debt collector or unless the attorney consents to 

direct communication with the consumer; or 

(3) at the consumer’s place of employment if the debt collector knows or has reason to know that the consumer’s 

employer prohibits the consumer from receiving such 

communication. 

(b) COMMUNICATION WITH THIRD PARTIES. Except as 

provided in section 804, without the prior consent of the 

consumer given directly to the debt collector, or the express permission of a court of competent jurisdiction, or as 

reasonably necessary to effectuate a postjudgment judicial 

remedy, a debt collector may not communicate, in connection with the collection of any debt, with any person other 

than a consumer, his attorney, a consumer reporting agency 

if otherwise permitted by law, the creditor, the attorney of 

the creditor, or the attorney of the debt collector. 

(c) CEASING COMMUNICATION. If a consumer notifies a 

debt collector in writing that the consumer refuses to pay a 

debt or that the consumer wishes the debt collector to cease 

further communication with the consumer, the debt collector shall not communicate further with the consumer with 

respect to such debt, except—

(1) to advise the consumer that the debt collector’s further 

efforts are being terminated; 

(2) to notify the consumer that the debt collector or creditor may invoke specified remedies which are ordinarily 

invoked by such debt collector or creditor; or 
A-9

Collecting Consumer Debts: The Challenges of Change

§ 805 15 USC 1692c

(3) where applicable, to notify the consumer that the debt 

collector or creditor intends to invoke a specified remedy. 

If such notice from the consumer is made by mail, notification shall be complete upon receipt. 

(d) For the purpose of this section, the term “consumer” includes the consumer’s spouse, parent (if the consumer is a 

minor), guardian, executor, or administrator.

§ 806. Harassment or abuse 

A debt collector may not engage in any conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any 

person in connection with the collection of a debt. Without 

limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following 

conduct is a violation of this section: 

(1) The use or threat of use of violence or other criminal 

means to harm the physical person, reputation, or property of any person. 

(2) The use of obscene or profane language or language 

the natural consequence of which is to abuse the hearer 

or reader. 

(3) The publication of a list of consumers who allegedly 

refuse to pay debts, except to a consumer reporting 

agency or to persons meeting the requirements of section 603(f) or 604(3)1

 of this Act. 

(4) The advertisement for sale of any debt to coerce payment of the debt.

(5) Causing a telephone to ring or engaging any person 

in telephone conversation repeatedly or continuously 

with intent to annoy, abuse, or harass any person at the 

called number.

 (6) Except as provided in section 804, the placement of 

telephone calls without meaningful disclosure of the 

caller’s identity.

1. Section 604(3) has been renumbered as Section 604(a)(3).

15 USC 1692d
A Workshop Report

A-10

§ 807 15 USC 1692e

§ 807. False or misleading representations 

A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. Without limiting the general application 

of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this 

section: 

(1) The false representation or implication that the debt 

collector is vouched for, bonded by, or affiliated with 

the United States or any State, including the use of any 

badge, uniform, or facsimile thereof. 

(2) The false representation of— 

(A)the character, amount, or legal status of any debt; or 

(B) any services rendered or compensation which may 

be lawfully received by any debt collector for the 

collection of a debt. 

(3) The false representation or implication that any individual is an attorney or that any communication is from 

an attorney. 

(4) The representation or implication that nonpayment of 

any debt will result in the arrest or imprisonment of 

any person or the seizure, garnishment, attachment, 

or sale of any property or wages of any person unless 

such action is lawful and the debt collector or creditor 

intends to take such action. 

(5) The threat to take any action that cannot legally be 

taken or that is not intended to be taken. 

(6) The false representation or implication that a sale, 

referral, or other transfer of any interest in a debt shall 

cause the consumer to— 

(A) lose any claim or defense to payment of the debt; 

or 

(B) become subject to any practice prohibited by this 

title. 

(7) The false representation or implication that the consumer committed any crime or other conduct in order 

to disgrace the consumer. 

15 USC 1692e
A-11

Collecting Consumer Debts: The Challenges of Change

§ 807 15 USC 1692e

(8) Communicating or threatening to communicate to any 

person credit information which is known or which 

should be known to be false, including the failure to 

communicate that a disputed debt is disputed. 

(9) The use or distribution of any written communication 

which simulates or is falsely represented to be a document authorized, issued, or approved by any court, 

official, or agency of the United States or any State, or 

which creates a false impression as to its source, authorization, or approval. 

(10) The use of any false representation or deceptive means 

to collect or attempt to collect any debt or to obtain 

information concerning a consumer. 

(11) The failure to disclose in the initial written communication with the consumer and, in addition, if the initial 

communication with the consumer is oral, in that initial 

oral communication, that the debt collector is attempting to collect a debt and that any information obtained 

will be used for that purpose, and the failure to disclose 

in subsequent communications that the communication 

is from a debt collector, except that this paragraph shall 

not apply to a formal pleading made in connection with 

a legal action.

(12) The false representation or implication that accounts 

have been turned over to innocent purchasers for value. 

(13) The false representation or implication that documents 

are legal process.

(14) The use of any business, company, or organization 

name other than the true name of the debt collector’s 

business, company, or organization. 

(15) The false representation or implication that documents 

are not legal process forms or do not require action by 

the consumer. 

(16) The false representation or implication that a debt collector operates or is employed by a consumer reporting 

agency as defined by section 603(f) of this Act.
A Workshop Report

A-12

§ 808 15 USC 1692f

§ 808. Unfair practices 

A debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable 

means to collect or attempt to collect any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following 

conduct is a violation of this section: 

(1) The collection of any amount (including any interest, 

fee, charge, or expense incidental to the principal obligation) unless such amount is expressly authorized by 

the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law. 

(2) The acceptance by a debt collector from any person of 

a check or other payment instrument postdated by more 

than five days unless such person is notified in writing 

of the debt collector’s intent to deposit such check or 

instrument not more than ten nor less than three business days prior to such deposit. 

(3) The solicitation by a debt collector of any postdated 

check or other postdated payment instrument for the 

purpose of threatening or instituting criminal prosecution. 

(4) Depositing or threatening to deposit any postdated 

check or other postdated payment instrument prior to 

the date on such check or instrument. 

(5) Causing charges to be made to any person for communications by concealment of the true propose of 

the communication. Such charges include, but are not 

limited to, collect telephone calls and telegram fees. 

(6) Taking or threatening to take any nonjudicial action to 

effect dispossession or disablement of property if— 

(A)there is no present right to possession of the property claimed as collateral through an enforceable 

security interest; 

(B) there is no present intention to take possession of 

the property; or

(C) the property is exempt by law from such dispossession or disablement. 

15 USC 1692f
A-13

Collecting Consumer Debts: The Challenges of Change

§ 808 15 USC 1692f

(7) Communicating with a consumer regarding a debt by 

post card. 

(8) Using any language or symbol, other than the debt collector’s address, on any envelope when communicating 

with a consumer by use of the mails or by telegram, 

except that a debt collector may use his business name 

if such name does not indicate that he is in the debt collection business.

§ 809. Validation of debts 

(a) Within five days after the initial communication with a 

consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, 

a debt collector shall, unless the following information is 

contained in the initial communication or the consumer has 

paid the debt, send the consumer a written notice containing—

(1) the amount of the debt; 

(2) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed; 

(3) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days 

after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the 

debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed 

to be valid by the debt collector; 

(4) a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the 

debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of 

a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such 

verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer 

by the debt collector; and 

(5) a statement that, upon the consumer’s written request 

within the thirty-day period, the debt collector will 

provide the consumer with the name and address of the 

original creditor, if different from the current creditor. 

(b) If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within 

the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) that the 

debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original credi15 USC 1692g
A Workshop Report

A-14

§ 809 15 USC 1692g

tor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, 

or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector 

obtains verification of the debt or any copy of a judgment, 

or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy 

of such verification or judgment, or name and address of 

the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt 

collector. Collection activities and communications that 

do not otherwise violate this title may continue during 

the 30-day period referred to in subsection (a) unless the 

consumer has notified the debt collector in writing that the 

debt, or any portion of the debt, is disputed or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor. Any collection activities and communication during the 

30-day period may not overshadow or be inconsistent with 

the disclosure of the consumer’s right to dispute the debt or 

request the name and address of the original creditor.

(c) The failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt 

under this section may not be construed by any court as an 

admission of liability by the consumer.

(d) A communication in the form of a formal pleading in a 

civil action shall not be treated as an initial communication 

for purposes of subsection (a).

(e) The sending or delivery of any form or notice which 

does not relate to the collection of a debt and is expressly 

required by the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, title V of 

Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, or any provision of Federal or 

State law relating to notice of data security breach or privacy, or any regulation prescribed under any such provision 

of law, shall not be treated as an initial communication in 

connection with debt collection for purposes of this section.

§ 810. Multiple debts 

If any consumer owes multiple debts and makes any single 

payment to any debt collector with respect to such debts, such 

debt collector may not apply such payment to any debt which 

is disputed by the consumer and, where applicable, shall apply 

such payment in accordance with the consumer’s directions.

15 USC 1692h
A-15

Collecting Consumer Debts: The Challenges of Change

§ 811 15 USC 1692i

§ 811. Legal actions by debt collectors 

(a) Any debt collector who brings any legal action on a debt 

against any consumer shall—

(1) in the case of an action to enforce an interest in real 

property securing the consumer’s obligation, bring 

such action only in a judicial district or similar legal 

entity in which such real property is located; or 

(2) in the case of an action not described in paragraph (1), 

bring such action only in the judicial district or similar 

legal entity—

(A)in which such consumer signed the contract sued 

upon; or 

(B) in which such consumer resides at the commencement of the action. 

(b) Nothing in this title shall be construed to authorize the 

bringing of legal actions by debt collectors.

§ 812. Furnishing certain deceptive forms

(a) It is unlawful to design, compile, and furnish any form 

knowing that such form would be used to create the false 

belief in a consumer that a person other than the creditor 

of such consumer is participating in the collection of or in 

an attempt to collect a debt such consumer allegedly owes 

such creditor, when in fact such person is not so participating. 

(b) Any person who violates this section shall be liable to the 

same extent and in the same manner as a debt collector is 

liable under section 813 for failure to comply with a provision of this title.

§ 813. Civil liability 

(a) Except as otherwise provided by this section, any debt collector who fails to comply with any provision of this title 

with respect to any person is liable to such person in an 

amount equal to the sum of— 

15 USC 1692i

15 USC 1692k

15 USC 1692j
A Workshop Report

A-16

§ 813 15 USC 1692k

(1) any actual damage sustained by such person as a result 

of such failure; 

(2) (A) in the case of any action by an individual, such 

additional damages as the court may allow, but not 

exceeding $1,000; or 

(B) in the case of a class action, 

(i) such amount for each named plaintiff as could 

be recovered under subparagraph (A), and

(ii) such amount as the court may allow for all 

other class members, without regard to a minimum individual recovery, not to exceed the 

lesser of $500,000 or 1 per centum of the net 

worth of the debt collector; and 

(3) in the case of any successful action to enforce the 

foregoing liability, the costs of the action, together with 

a reasonable attorney’s fee as determined by the court. 

On a finding by the court that an action under this 

section was brought in bad faith and for the purpose 

of harassment, the court may award to the defendant 

attorney’s fees reasonable in relation to the work expended and costs. 

(b) In determining the amount of liability in any action under subsection (a), the court shall consider, among other 

relevant factors—

(1) in any individual action under subsection (a)(2)(A), 

the frequency and persistence of noncompliance by the 

debt collector, the nature of such noncompliance, and 

the extent to which such noncompliance was intentional; or 

(2) in any class action under subsection (a)(2)(B), the 

frequency and persistence of noncompliance by the 

debt collector, the nature of such noncompliance, the 

resources of the debt collector, the number of persons 

adversely affected, and the extent to which the debt 

collector’s noncompliance was intentional. 
A-17

Collecting Consumer Debts: The Challenges of Change

§ 813 15 USC 1692k

(c) A debt collector may not be held liable in any action 

brought under this title if the debt collector shows by a 

preponderance of evidence that the violation was not intentional and resulted from a bona fide error notwithstanding 

the maintenance of procedures reasonably adapted to avoid 

any such error. 

(d) An action to enforce any liability created by this title may 

be brought in any appropriate United States district court 

without regard to the amount in controversy, or in any 

other court of competent jurisdiction, within one year from 

the date on which the violation occurs. 

(e) No provision of this section imposing any liability shall 

apply to any act done or omitted in good faith in conformity with any advisory opinion of the Commission, notwithstanding that after such act or omission has occurred, such 

opinion is amended, rescinded, or determined by judicial 

or other authority to be invalid for any reason.

§ 814. Administrative enforcement 

(a) Compliance with this title shall be enforced by the Commission, except to the extent that enforcement of the 

requirements imposed under this title is specifically committed to another agency under subsection (b). For purpose 

of the exercise by the Commission of its functions and 

powers under the Federal Trade Commission Act, a violation of this title shall be deemed an unfair or deceptive act 

or practice in violation of that Act. All of the functions and 

powers of the Commission under the Federal Trade Commission Act are available to the Commission to enforce 

compliance by any person with this title, irrespective of 

whether that person is engaged in commerce or meets any 

other jurisdictional tests in the Federal Trade Commission 

Act, including the power to enforce the provisions of this 

title in the same manner as if the violation had been a violation of a Federal Trade Commission trade regulation rule. 

(b) Compliance with any requirements imposed under this title 

shall be enforced under—

15 USC 1692l
A Workshop Report

A-18

 (1)section 8 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, in the 

case of—

 (A)national banks, and Federal branches and Federal agencies of foreign banks, by the Office of the 

Comptroller of the Currency;

 (B) member banks of the Federal Reserve System 

(other than national banks), branches and agencies of foreign banks (other than Federal branches, 

Federal agencies, and insured State branches of 

foreign banks), commercial lending companies 

owned or controlled by foreign banks, and organizations operating under section 25 or 25(a) of the 

Federal Reserve Act, by the Board of Governors of 

the Federal Reserve System; and

 (C) banks insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance 

Corporation (other than members of the Federal 

Reserve System) and insured State branches of 

foreign banks, by the Board of Directors of the 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation;

 (2)section 8 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, by the 

Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision, in the 

case of a savings association the deposits of which are 

insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation;

 (3) the Federal Credit Union Act, by the Administrator of 

the National Credit Union Administration with respect 

to any Federal credit union;

 (4) the Acts to regulate commerce, by the Secretary of 

Transportation, with respect to all carriers subject to 

the jurisdiction of the Surface Transportation Board;

 (5) the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, by the Secretary of 

Transportation with respect to any air carrier or any 

foreign air carrier subject to that Act; and

 (6) the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921 (except as provided in section 406 of that Act), by the Secretary of 

Agriculture with respect to any activities subject to that 

Act.

§ 814 15 USC 1692l
A-19

Collecting Consumer Debts: The Challenges of Change

The terms used in paragraph (1) that are not defined in 

this title or otherwise defined in section 3(s) of the Federal 

Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813(s)) shall have the 

meaning given to them in section 1(b) of the International 

Banking Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 3101).

 (c) For the purpose of the exercise by any agency referred 

to in subsection (b) of its powers under any Act referred 

to in that subsection, a violation of any requirement imposed under this title shall be deemed to be a violation of 

a requirement imposed under that Act. In addition to its 

powers under any provision of law specifically referred to 

in subsection (b), each of the agencies referred to in that 

subsection may exercise, for the purpose of enforcing compliance with any requirement imposed under this title any 

other authority conferred on it by law, except as provided 

in subsection (d).

 (d)Neither the Commission nor any other agency referred to 

in subsection (b) may promulgate trade regulation rules or 

other regulations with respect to the collection of debts by 

debt collectors as defined in this title.

§ 815. Reports to Congress by the Commission 

(a) Not later than one year after the effective date of this title 

and at one-year intervals thereafter, the Commission shall 

make reports to the Congress concerning the administration of its functions under this title, including such recommendations as the Commission deems necessary or appropriate. In addition, each report of the Commission shall 

include its assessment of the extent to which compliance 

with this title is being achieved and a summary of the enforcement actions taken by the Commission under section 

814 of this title. 

(b) In the exercise of its functions under this title, the Commission may obtain upon request the views of any other 

Federal agency which exercises enforcement functions 

under section 814 of this title.

15 USC 1692m

§ 814 15 USC 1692l
A Workshop Report

A-20

§ 816 15 USC 1692n

§ 816. Relation to State laws 

This title does not annul, alter, or affect, or exempt any 

person subject to the provisions of this title from complying with the laws of any State with respect to debt collection 

practices, except to the extent that those laws are inconsistent 

with any provision of this title, and then only to the extent of 

the inconsistency. For purposes of this section, a State law is 

not inconsistent with this title if the protection such law affords any consumer is greater than the protection provided by 

this title.

§ 817. Exemption for State regulation 

The Commission shall by regulation exempt from the 

requirements of this title any class of debt collection practices 

within any State if the Commission determines that under the 

law of that State that class of debt collection practices is subject to requirements substantially similar to those imposed by 

this title, and that there is adequate provision for enforcement.

§ 818. Exception for certain bad check enforcement programs 

operated by private entities

(a) In General.—

(1) TREATMENT OF CERTAIN PRIVATE ENTITIES.—

Subject to paragraph (2), a private entity shall be 

excluded from the definition of a debt collector, pursuant to the exception provided in section 803(6), with 

respect to the operation by the entity of a program described in paragraph (2)(A) under a contract described 

in paragraph (2)(B).

(2) CONDITIONS OF APPLICABILITY.—Paragraph (1) 

shall apply if—

(A) a State or district attorney establishes, within the 

jurisdiction of such State or district attorney and 

with respect to alleged bad check violations that do 

not involve a check described in subsection (b), a 

pretrial diversion program for alleged bad check 

offenders who agree to participate voluntarily in 

such program to avoid criminal prosecution;

15 USC 1692p

15 USC 1692o

15 USC 1692n
A-21

Collecting Consumer Debts: The Challenges of Change

§ 818 15 USC 1692p

(B) a private entity, that is subject to an administrative 

support services contract with a State or district 

attorney and operates under the direction, supervision, and control of such State or district attorney, 

operates the pretrial diversion program described in 

subparagraph (A); and

(C) in the course of performing duties delegated to it by 

a State or district attorney under the contract, the 

private entity referred to in subparagraph (B)—

(i) complies with the penal laws of the State;

(ii) conforms with the terms of the contract and 

directives of the State or district attorney;

(iii) does not exercise independent prosecutorial 

discretion;

(iv) contacts any alleged offender referred to in 

subparagraph (A) for purposes of participating 

in a program referred to in such paragraph—

(I) only as a result of any determination by 

the State or district attorney that probable 

cause of a bad check violation under State 

penal law exists, and that contact with the 

alleged offender for purposes of participation in the program is appropriate; and

(II) the alleged offender has failed to pay the 

bad check after demand for payment, pursuant to State law, is made for payment of 

the check amount;

(v) includes as part of an initial written communication with an alleged offender a clear and 

conspicuous statement that—

(I) the alleged offender may dispute the validity of any alleged bad check violation;

(II) where the alleged offender knows, or has 

reasonable cause to believe, that the alleged bad check violation is the result of 

theft or forgery of the check, identity theft, 
A Workshop Report

A-22

§ 818 15 USC 1692p

or other fraud that is not the result of the 

conduct of the alleged offender, the alleged 

offender may file a crime report with the 

appropriate law enforcement agency; and

(III)if the alleged offender notifies the private 

entity or the district attorney in writing, not 

later than 30 days after being contacted for 

the first time pursuant to clause (iv), that 

there is a dispute pursuant to this subsection, before further restitution efforts are 

pursued, the district attorney or an employee of the district attorney authorized 

to make such a determination makes a 

determination that there is probable cause 

to believe that a crime has been committed; 

and

(vi) charges only fees in connection with services 

under the contract that have been authorized by 

the contract with the State or district attorney.

(b) Certain Checks Excluded.—A check is described in this 

subsection if the check involves, or is subsequently found 

to involve—

(1) a postdated check presented in connection with a payday loan, or other similar transaction, where the payee 

of the check knew that the issuer had insufficient funds 

at the time the check was made, drawn, or delivered;

(2) a stop payment order where the issuer acted in good 

faith and with reasonable cause in stopping payment on 

the check;

(3) a check dishonored because of an adjustment to the issuer’s account by the financial institution holding such 

account without providing notice to the person at the 

time the check was made, drawn, or delivered;

(4) a check for partial payment of a debt where the payee 

had previously accepted partial payment for such debt;
A-23

Collecting Consumer Debts: The Challenges of Change

§ 818 15 USC 1692p

(5) a check issued by a person who was not competent, or 

was not of legal age, to enter into a legal contractual 

obligation at the time the check was made, drawn, or 

delivered; or

(6) a check issued to pay an obligation arising from a 

transaction that was illegal in the jurisdiction of the 

State or district attorney at the time the check was 

made, drawn, or delivered.

(c) Definitions.—For purposes of this section, the following 

definitions shall apply:

(1) STATE OR DISTRICT ATTORNEY.—The term “State 

or district attorney” means the chief elected or appointed prosecuting attorney in a district, county (as 

defined in section 2 of title 1, United States Code), municipality, or comparable jurisdiction, including State 

attorneys general who act as chief elected or appointed 

prosecuting attorneys in a district, county (as so defined), municipality or comparable jurisdiction, who 

may be referred to by a variety of titles such as district 

attorneys, prosecuting attorneys, commonwealth’s 

attorneys, solicitors, county attorneys, and state’s attorneys, and who are responsible for the prosecution of 

State crimes and violations of jurisdiction-specific local 

ordinances.

(2) CHECK.—The term “check” has the same meaning 

as in section 3(6) of the Check Clearing for the 21st 

Century Act.

(3) BAD CHECK VIOLATION.—The term “bad check 

violation” means a violation of the applicable State 

criminal law relating to the writing of dishonored 

checks.

§ 819. Effective date 

This title takes effect upon the expiration of six months 

after the date of its enactment, but section 809 shall apply only 

with respect to debts for which the initial attempt to collect occurs after such effective date.

15 USC 1692 note
A Workshop Report

A-24

 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

House Report: No. 95-131 (Comm. on Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs)

Senate Report: No. 95-382 (Comm. on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs)

Congressional Record, Vol. 123 (1977)

April 4, House considered and passed H.R. 5294.

Aug. 5, Senate considered and passed amended version of 

H.R. 5294.

Sept. 8, House considered and passed Senate version.

Enactment: Public Law 95-109 (Sept. 20, 1977)

Amendments: Public Law Nos.

99-361 (July 9, 1986)

101-73 (Aug. 9, 1989)

102-242 (Dec. 19, 1991)

102-550 (Oct. 28, 1992)

104-88 (Dec. 29, 1995)

104-208 (Sept. 30, 1996)

109-351 (Oct. 13, 2006)

Revised January 2009
B-1

Collecting Consumer Debts: The Challenges of Change

Appendix B: FTC Actions Related to Debt Collection

Since 1977

United States v. Acad. Collection Serv., Inc., No. 2:08-CV-1576 (D. Nev. Nov. 14, 2008)

FTC v. Cash Today, Ltd., No. 3:08-cv-00590 (D. Nev. Nov. 6, 2008)

FTC v. EMC Mortgage Corp., No. 4:08-cv-338 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 9, 2008)

FTC v. CompuCredit Corp., No. 1:08-cv-01976 (N.D. Ga. June 10, 2008)

United States v. LTD Fin. Servs., No. H-07-3741 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 5, 2007)

FTC v. Tono Records, Inc., No. CV-07-3786 (C.D. Cal. June 12, 2007)

FTC v. Rawlins & Rivera, Inc., No. 6:07-cv-146 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 31, 2007)

United States v. Whitewing Fin. Group, No. H-06-2102 (S.D. Tex. June 22, 2006)

FTC v. Capital Acquisitions & Mgmt. Corp., No. 04C7781 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 2, 2004)

In the Matter of Applied Card Sys., Inc., FTC Docket No. C-4125 (Oct. 6, 2004)

United States v. Capital Acquisitions & Mgmt. Corp., No. 04-C-50147 (N.D. Ill. March 24, 2004)

United States v. Fairbanks Capital Corp., No. 03-12219 (D. Mass. Nov. 12, 2003)

FTC v. Check Investors, Inc., No. 03-2115 (D.N.J. May 12, 2003)

United States v. DC Credit Servs., Inc., No. 02-5115 (C.D. Cal. June 27, 2002)

United States v. United Recovery Sys., Inc., No. H-02-1410 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 17, 2002)

FTC v. Citigroup Inc., No. 1:01-CV-00606 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 6, 2001) 

United States v. Performance Capital Mgmt., Inc., No. 01-01047 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2001)

United States v. N. Am. Capital Corp., No. 00-CV-0600E (W.D.N.Y. July 10, 2000)

United States v. Nat’l Fin. Sys., Inc., No. CV-99-7874 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 1, 1999)

In the Matter of Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc., FTC Docket No. C-3893 (Aug. 27, 1999)

United States v. Perimeter Credit, L.L.C., No. 1:99-CV-0454 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 18, 1999)

In the Matter of Gen. Elec. Capital Corp., FTC Docket No. C-3839 (Dec. 11, 1998)

In the Matter of May Dep’t Stores Co., FTC Docket No. C-3848 (Nov. 2, 1998)

United States v. Nationwide Credit, Inc., No. 1:98-CV-2920 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 6, 1998)

United States v. Lundgren & Assocs., No. CIV-S-98-1274 (E.D. Cal. July 2, 1998)

FTC v. Capital City Mortgage Co., No. 1:98-CV-00237 (D.D.C. Jan. 29, 1998)

United States v. Int’l Masters Publishers, Inc., No. 3:97 CV 1136 (D. Conn. June 10, 1997)

United States v. Trans Cont’l Affiliates, Inc., No. 95-1627 (N.D. Cal. May 15, 1997)

United States v. United Compucred Collections, Inc., No. C-1-97-0369 

(S.D. Ohio. Apr. 15, 1997)

United States v. United Creditors Alliance Corp., No. SA-CV-96-861 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 1996)

United States v. Chynoweth Corp., No. C96 1137 (W.D. Wash. July 23, 1996)
A Workshop Report

B-2

United States v. G & L Fin. Servs., Inc., No. D-96-2178 (D.N.J. May 15, 1996)

United States v. Allied Bond & Collection Agency, Inc., No. 96-CV-1086 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 13, 1996)

United States v. Great Lakes Collection Bureau, Inc., No. 95-CV-0745A 

(W.D.N.Y. Aug. 30, 1995)

United States v. Bally’s Health & Tennis Corp., No. 94-0821 (D.D.C. Apr. 14, 1994)

United States v. Payco Am. Corp., No. 93-c-0801 (E.D. Wis. Aug. 2, 1993) 

United States v. HLD, Inc., No. C93-566 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 22, 1993)

United States v. D.C. Credit Servs. Inc., No. 92-3777 (C.D. Cal. June 24, 1992)

United States v. Nationwide Credit, Inc., No. 1-92-CV-1219 (N.D. Ga. May 22, 1992)

United States v. Nat’l Fin. Servs., Inc., No. R-91-226 (D. Md. Jan. 25, 1991)

United States v. Jerome E. Stadd, No. R-90-2293 (D. Md. Sept. 4, 1990)

United States v. Ralco Prods. Co., No. 8M-90-2292 (D. Md. Sept. 4, 1990)

United States v. DMM Mgmt. Consultants, No. R-90-2291 (D. Md. Aug. 31, 1990)

In the Matter of Am. Family Publishers, Inc., FTC Docket No. D-9240 (Apr. 16, 1990)

United States v. David Renner, No. 89-1503-Civ-T-10 (A) (M.D. Fla. Nov. 7, 1989)

United States v. NCB Bus. Servs., Inc., No. 89-6834 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 16, 1989)

United States v. Debt Collectors, Inc., No. H-88-4218 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 5, 1988)

United States v. Cont’l Transactions, Inc., No. 88-1816 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 19, 1988)

United States v. Jeffrey K. Williams, No. C-87-102 (E.D. Wash. Feb. 9, 1987)

United States v. Cent. Adjustment Bureau, Inc., No. 3-80-1671-R (N.D. Tex. Dec. 22, 1985)

In the Matter of Avco Fin. Servs., Inc., FTC Docket No. C-3141 (Aug. 9, 1984)

United States v. Cash Flow, Inc., No. B-80-485 (D. Conn. Oct. 31, 1983)

United States v. Milton Shaffner, No. 83-C-3130 (N.D. Ill. May 5, 1983)

United States v. Consumer Fin. Corp., No. 82-4409 (D.N.J. Dec. 29, 1982)

United States v. Iowa Credit Syndicate of Ft. Dodge, Inc., No. 1C-82-3029 

(N.D. Iowa Apr. 22, 1982)

In the Matter of Aldens, Inc., FTC Docket No. C-3076 (Oct. 8, 1981)

FTC v. Don H. Sly, No. CV-81-H-427-E (N.D. Ala. Mar. 19,1981)

United States v. Collegiate Recovery & Credit Assistance Programs, Inc., No. 81-C-89-E 

(N.D. Okla. Mar. 11, 1981)

United States v. Universal Collection Bureau, Inc., No. 81-575 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 1981)

United States v. Credit Rating Bureau, Inc., No. 81 C 0303 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 23, 1981)

United States v. Utah Bureau of Collections, Inc., No. C-80-0574 A (D. Utah Oct. 3, 1980)

United States v. Radiology Consultants, Inc., No. 80-559 W (W.D. Okla. May 12, 1980)

United States v. ACB Sales & Serv., Inc., No. 80-251 (D. Ariz. Apr. 3, 1980)

United States v. Collectron, Inc., No. JH-80-711 (D. Md. Mar. 27, 1980)

United States v. Telecheck Washington, Inc., No. JH-90-710 (D. Md. Mar. 27, 1980)
B-3

Collecting Consumer Debts: The Challenges of Change

United States v. Capital Credit Corp., No. 80-0652 (D.D.C. Mar. 13, 1980)

United States v. United Compucred Collections, Inc., No. C-1-80-103 

(S.D. Ohio Feb. 21, 1980)

United States v. First Fed. Credit Control, Inc., No. 79-2274 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 10, 1979)
A Workshop Report

B-4
C-1

Collecting Consumer Debts: The Challenges of Change

Appendix C: Individual and Organizational Comments

Submitted in Connection with the Workshop

1. Able Debt Settlement, Inc. (Lewis, Ralph) (7/26/2007) #529233-00029 

2. ACA International (Beato, Andrew) (6/6/2007) #529233-00016 

3. ACA International (Beato, Andrew) (9/7/2007) #529233-00031 

4. ACA International (Beato, Andrew) (11/9/2007) #529233-00059 

5. American Financial Services Association (Himpler, Bill) (11/13/2007) #529233-00060 

6. Anonymous (9/10/2007) #529233-00032 

7. ASSET Inc. (Meany, William) (6/6/2007) #529233-00019 

8. Beckwith, Judy (10/5/2007) #529233-00044 

9. Bell, Raymond (10/12/2007) #529233-00046 

10. Bond, Randy (10/30/2007) #529233-00051 

11. Brown, Harry (10/24/2007) #529233-00050 

12. Calabrese, Gina (6/6/2007) #529233-00014 

13. Carey, Mark (9/26/2007) #529233-00039 

14. Commercial Law League of America (Goch, David) (5/31/2007) #529233-00008 

15. Conley, Hans (4/27/2007) #529233-00002 

16. Consumer Federation of America (Fox, Jean Ann) (6/22/2007) #529233-00026 

17. DBA International (Sinsley, Barbara) (6/2/2007) #529233-00010 

18. DBA International (Sinsley, Barbara) (9/10/2007) #529233-00033 

19. DBA International (Sinsley, Barbara) (11/9/2007) #529233-00057 

20. Debt Marketplace, Inc. (Hammond, Dennis) (6/7/2007) #529233-00021 

21. Debt Resolve, Inc. (Burchetta, James) (10/11/2007) #529233-00045 

22. District Council 37 Municipal Employees Legal Services (Martin, Robert) (11/7/2007) 

#529233-00052 

23. Eads, Kathleen (9/11/2007) #529233-00034 

24. Feier, Crystal (5/24/2007) #529233-00007 

25. Ford Motor Credit Company LLC (Korman, David) (11/15/2007) #529233-00061 

26. Fugate Law Office (Fugate, John) (10/16/2007) #529233-00047 

27. Golden, Richard A (6/5/2007) #529233-00011 

28. Griffin, Brian (5/17/2007) #529233-00005 

29. Hankins, Mark (6/1/2007) #529233-00009 

30. Hunt, Robert (7/6/2007) #529233-00028 

31. International Association of Commercial Collectors (Eisenberg, Paul) (6/14/2007) 

#529233-00027 

32. Jones, Ron (9/27/2007) #529233-00040 
A Workshop Report

C-2

33. Kesler, Kecia (9/12/2007) #529233-00035 

34. Kreppein, Scott (6/7/2007) #529233-00020 

35. Kumar, Punit (11/18/2007) #529233-00062 

36. Law Offices of Dean Malone, P.C. (Malone, Dean) (10/17/2007) #529233-00048 

37. Lesser & Jordan (Jordan, Craig) (1/8/2008) #529233-00069 

38. Malone, Carmen (12/17/2007) #529233-00067 

39. Milan, Keir (9/24/2007) #529233-00038 

40. Mortgage Bankers Association (Vidal, Vicki) (6/13/2007) #529233-00023 

41. NARCA - National Assoc. of Retail Collection Attorneys (White, Cynthia) (6/5/2007) 

#529233-00013 

42. NARCA - National Assoc. of Retail Collection Attorneys (White, Cynthia) (11/8/2007) 

#529233-00053 

43. National Arbitration Forum, LLC (Haydock, Roger) (8/13/2007) #529233-00030 

44. National Arbitration Forum, LLC (Haydock, Roger) (11/9/2007) #529233-00058 

45. National Consumer Law Center & the National Association of Consumer Advocates 

(Saunders, Lauren) (6/6/2007) #529233-00018 

46. National Council of Higher Education Loan Programs (Fitzgibbon, Timothy) (6/6/2007) 

#529233-00017 

47. Neighborhood Economic Development Advocacy Project (Wilner, Claudia) (11/9/2007) 

#529233-00054 

48. New York City Department of Consumer (Tepper, Marla) (11/9/2007) #529233-00055 

49. North American Collection Agency Regulatory Association (Johnson, Kurt) (11/23/2007) 

#529233-00066 

50. Paulson, Carl (5/23/2007) #529233-00006 

51. Portfolio Recovery Associates, Inc. (Redmond, Donald) (6/5/2007) #529233-00022 

52. Sabhi, Raminder (10/3/2007) #529233-00042 

53. Sasek, Cynthia (4/24/2007) #529233-00001 

54. SMU Dedman School of Law (Spector, Mary) (11/9/2007) #529233-00056 

55. Sovern, Jeff (6/6/2007) #529233-00015 

56. Sytel Limited (Blyth, Sue) (9/17/2007) #529233-00036 

57. Tuggle, Joe Nathan (4/28/2007) #529233-00003 

58. Vaithianathan, Muthukumar (11/20/2007) #529233-00064 

59. Worsham, Michael (1/7/2008) #529233-00068 

60. Wright, Aaron (5/14/2007) #529233-00004

Federal Trade Commission

ftc.gov