5766 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

1 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq. 

2 15 U.S.C. 1692(e). 

3 15 U.S.C. 1692(a). 

4 Id. 5 15 U.S.C. 1692g(a). 

BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL 

PROTECTION 

12 CFR Part 1006 

[Docket No. CFPB–2019–0022] 

RIN 3170–AA41 

Debt Collection Practices (Regulation 

F) 

AGENCY: Bureau of Consumer Financial 

Protection. 

ACTION: Final rule; official 

interpretation. 

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Consumer 

Financial Protection (Bureau) is issuing 

this final rule to revise Regulation F, 

which implements the Fair Debt 

Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The 

final rule governs certain activities by 

debt collectors, as that term is defined 

in the FDCPA. Among other things, the 

final rule clarifies the information that 

a debt collector must provide to a 

consumer at the outset of debt collection 

communications, prohibits debt 

collectors from bringing or threatening 

to bring a legal action against a 

consumer to collect a time-barred debt, 

and requires debt collectors to take 

certain actions before furnishing 

information about a consumer’s debt to 

a consumer reporting agency. 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

November 30, 2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joel 

Singerman, Counsel, or Dania Ayoubi, 

Joseph Baressi, Seth Caffrey, Brandy 

Hood, David Jacobs, Courtney Jean, 

Adam Mayle, Kristin McPartland, 

Michael Silver, Senior Counsels, Office 

of Regulations, at 202–435–7700. If you 

require this document in an alternative 

electronic format, please contact CFPB_

Accessibility@cfpb.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Summary of the Final Rule 

The Bureau is finalizing amendments 

to Regulation F, 12 CFR part 1006, 

which implements the FDCPA.1 The 

amendments prescribe Federal rules 

governing the activities of debt 

collectors, as that term is defined in the 

FDCPA (debt collectors or FDCPA debt 

collectors). The final rule clarifies the 

information that a debt collector must 

provide to a consumer at the outset of 

debt collection communications and 

provides a model validation notice 

containing such information. The final 

rule also addresses consumer protection 

concerns related to passive collections 

(i.e., the practice of furnishing 

information about a debt to a consumer 

reporting agency before communicating 

with the consumer about the debt) and 

the collection of debt that is beyond the 

statute of limitations (i.e., time-barred 

debt). On November 30, 2020, the 

Bureau published a final rule in the 

Federal Register that focused on debt 

collection communications and related 

practices by debt collectors (November 

2020 Final Rule). The November 2020 

Final Rule reserved certain sections of 

Regulation F in anticipation of this final 

rule. 

As discussed in the November 2020 

Final Rule, in 1977, Congress passed the 

FDCPA to eliminate abusive debt 

collection practices by debt collectors, 

to ensure 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.2 The statute was a 

response to ‘‘abundant evidence of the 

use of abusive, deceptive, and unfair 

debt collection practices by many debt 

collectors.’’ 3 According to Congress, 

these practices ‘‘contribute to the 

number of personal bankruptcies, to 

marital instability, to the loss of jobs, 

and to invasions of individual 

privacy.’’ 4

The FDCPA established specific 

consumer protections, enabling 

consumers to establish controls on 

when and how debt collectors contact 

them, establishing privacy protections 

surrounding the collection of debts, and 

protecting consumers from certain 

collection practices. The FDCPA also 

established broad consumer protections, 

prohibiting harassment or abuse, false or 

misleading representations, and unfair 

practices. In the Dodd-Frank Wall Street 

Reform and Consumer Protection Act 

(Dodd-Frank Act), Congress provided 

the Bureau with authority under the 

FDCPA to prescribe substantive rules 

with respect to the collection of debts by 

debt collectors. The Bureau issues this 

final rule, like the November 2020 Final 

Rule, to implement and interpret the 

FDCPA. 

A. Coverage and Organization of the 

Final Rule 

The final rule is based primarily on 

the Bureau’s authority to issue rules to 

implement the FDCPA and, 

consequently, covers debt collectors, as 

that term is defined in the FDCPA. 

As revised in the November 2020 

Final Rule, Regulation F contains four 

subparts. Subpart A contains generally 

applicable provisions, such as 

definitions that apply throughout the 

regulation. Subpart B contains rules for 

FDCPA debt collectors. Subpart C is 

reserved for any future debt collection 

rulemakings. Subpart D contains certain 

miscellaneous provisions. This final 

rule adds additional provisions in 

subparts A, B, and D. 

B. Scope of the Final Rule 

FDCPA section 809(a) requires that a 

debt collector send a written notice 

containing certain information about the 

debt and actions the consumer may take 

in response (the validation notice) to a 

consumer within five days of the initial 

communication, unless such validation 

information was provided in the initial 

communication or the consumer has 

paid the debt.5 The final rule clarifies 

the information about the debt and the 

consumer’s rights with respect to the 

debt that a debt collector must provide 

to a consumer at the outset of debt 

collection communications, including 

(if applicable) on a validation notice. 

The final rule also requires a debt 

collector to provide prompts that a 

consumer can use to dispute the debt, 

request information about the original 

creditor, or take certain other actions. 

The final rule provides a safe harbor for 

compliance with these disclosure 

requirements for debt collectors who 

use the model validation notice or 

certain variations of the notice. 

The final rule also prohibits a debt 

collector from suing or threatening to 

sue a consumer to collect time-barred 

debt. In addition, the final rule prohibits 

a debt collector from furnishing 

information about a debt to a consumer 

reporting agency before engaging in 

specific outreach to the consumer about 

the debt. The final rule also addresses 

certain other disclosure-focused 

provisions, such as clarifying how a 

debt collector may respond to a 

consumer’s request for original-creditor 

information if the original creditor is the 

same as the current creditor. 

Additionally, the final rule interprets 

the definition of consumer under the 

FDCPA to include deceased natural 

persons and, relatedly, provides that, if 

a debt collector knows or should know 

that the a consumer is deceased, and the 

debt collector has not previously 

provided the validation information to 

the deceased consumer, the debt 

collector must provide that information 

to a person who is authorized to act on 

behalf of the deceased consumer’s 

estate. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 5767 

6See Bureau of Consumer Fin. Prot., Fair Debt 

Collection Practices Act: CFPB Annual Report 2013, 

at 9 (Mar. 20, 2013), https://

www.consumerfinance.gov/data-research/researchreports/annual-report-on-the-fair-debt-collectionpractices-act/ (2013 FDCPA Annual Report). 

7See id. 

8See 85 FR 76734, 76735–37 (Nov. 30, 2020). 

9Bureau of Consumer Fin. Prot., Consumer Credit 

Reports: A Study of Medical and Non-Medical 

Collections, at 35–36 (Dec. 2014), http://

files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201412_cfpb_reports_

consumer-credit-medical-and-non-medicalcollections.pdf (CFPB Medical Debt Report). 

10See 85 FR 76735, 76736 (Nov. 30, 2020). 

11See 85 FR 12672, 12672–73 (Mar. 3, 2020). 

12See, e.g., Bureau of Consumer Fin. Prot., Fair 

Debt Collection Practices Act: CFPB Annual Report 

2020, at 13 (Mar. 2020), https://

files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_

fdcpa_annual-report-congress_03-2020.pdf (2020 

FDCPA Annual Report); Fed. Trade Comm’n, 2019 

Consumer Sentinel Network Databook, at 7 (Jan. 

2020), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/ 

reports/consumer-sentinel-network-data-book-2019/ 

consumer_sentinel_network_data_book_2019.pdf; 

Bureau of Consumer Fin. Prot., Fair Debt Collection 

Practices Act: CFPB Annual Report 2019, at 15–16 

(Mar. 2019), https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/ 

documents/cfpb_fdcpa_annual-report-congress_03- 

2019.pdf (2019 FDCPA Annual Report); Fed. Trade 

Comm’n, 2018 Consumer Sentinel Network 

Databook, at 4, 7 (Feb. 2019), https://www.ftc.gov/ 

system/files/documents/reports/consumer-sentinelnetwork-data-book-2018/consumer_sentinel_

network_data_book_2018_0.pdf; Bureau of 

Consumer Fin. Prot., Fair Debt Collection Practices 

Act: CFPB Annual Report 2018, at 14–15 (Mar. 

2018), https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/ 

documents/cfpb_fdcpa_annual-report-congress_03- 

2018.pdf (2018 FDCPA Annual Report); Fed. Trade 

Comm’n, 2017 Consumer Sentinel Network 

Databook, at 3, 6 (Mar. 2018), https://www.ftc.gov/ 

system/files/documents/reports/consumer-sentinelnetwork-data-book-2017/consumer_sentinel_data_

book_2017.pdf; Bureau of Consumer Fin. Prot., 

2017 Fair Debt Collection Practices Act: CFPB 

Annual Report 2017, at 15–16 (Mar. 2017), https:// 

files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201703_

cfpb_Fair-Debt-Collection-Practices-Act-AnnualReport.pdf (2017 FDCPA Annual Report); Fed. 

Trade Comm’n, Consumer Sentinel Network Data 

Book for January–December 2016, at 3, 6 (Mar. 

2017), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/ 

reports/consumer-sentinel-network-data-bookjanuary-december-2016/csn_cy-2016_data_

book.pdf. 

II. Background 

A. Debt Collection Market Background 

A consumer debt is commonly 

understood to be a consumer’s 

obligation to pay money to another 

person or entity. Sometimes a debt 

arises out of a closed-end loan. Other 

times, a debt arises from a consumer’s 

use of an open-end line of credit, 

commonly a credit card. And in other 

cases, a debt arises from a consumer’s 

purchase of goods or services with 

payment due thereafter. Often there is 

an agreed-upon payment schedule or 

date by which the consumer must repay 

the debt. 

For a variety of reasons, consumers 

sometimes are unable or unwilling to 

make payments when they are due. 

Collection efforts may directly recover 

some or all of the overdue amounts 

owed to debt owners and thereby may 

indirectly help to keep consumer credit 

available and more affordable to 

consumers.6 Collection activities also 

can lead to repayment plans or debt 

restructuring that may provide 

consumers with additional time to make 

payments or resolve their debts on more 

manageable terms.7

The November 2020 Final Rule 

provides an extensive overview of the 

debt collection market (including the 

roles of creditors, third-party debt 

collectors, debt buyers, and a variety of 

service providers in the market), 

methods of debt collection, and 

consumer protection concerns in debt 

collection.8 Below the Bureau 

summarizes information regarding debt 

collection methods and consumer 

protection concerns specifically related 

to the topics addressed in this final rule. 

B. Debt Collection Methods 

If a consumer’s payment obligations 

remain unmet, a creditor may send the 

account to a third-party debt collector to 

recover on the debt in the third-party 

debt collector’s name. A creditor 

typically stops communicating with a 

consumer once responsibility for an 

account has moved to a third-party debt 

collector. Active debt collection efforts 

typically begin with the debt collector 

attempting to locate the consumer, 

usually by identifying a valid telephone 

number or mailing address, so that the 

debt collector can establish contact with 

the consumer. Once a debt collector has 

obtained contact information for a 

consumer, the debt collector typically 

will seek to communicate with the 

consumer to obtain payment on some or 

all of the debt. 

As already noted, FDCPA section 

809(a) generally requires a debt collector 

to provide certain information to a 

consumer either at the time that, or 

shortly after, the debt collector first 

communicates with the consumer in 

connection with the collection of a debt. 

The required information includes: (1) 

Certain details about the debt, such as 

the amount of the debt and the name of 

the creditor to whom the debt is owed; 

and (2) a description of consumer 

protections, such as the consumer’s 

rights to dispute the debt and to request 

information about the original creditor. 

A debt collector may send a validation 

notice containing the required 

information as the initial 

communication to the consumer or send 

the required information in a validation 

notice within five days after the initial 

communication. Currently, validation 

notices include little or no information 

about the debt beyond the information 

specifically listed in FDCPA section 

809(a). This information may not be 

sufficient for the consumer to recognize 

the debt, particularly if, for example, the 

amount owed has changed over time 

due to interest, fees, payment, or credits, 

or if the debt collector has changed 

since an original collection attempt. 

A debt collector may tailor the 

collection strategy depending on a 

variety of factors, including the size and 

age of the debt and the debt collector’s 

assessment of the likelihood of 

obtaining money from the consumer. 

For example, rather than engage in 

active debt collection efforts by 

affirmatively locating and contacting 

consumers, some debt collectors 

collecting relatively small debts—such 

as many medical, utility, and 

telecommunications debts—report the 

debts to consumer reporting agencies 

and then wait for consumers to contact 

them after discovering the debts on their 

consumer reports.9

As discussed in the November 2020 

Final Rule, a debt owner may also try 

to recover on a debt through litigation.10

And debt collectors sometimes attempt 

to collect debt for which the applicable 

statute of limitations has expired. The 

length of the limitations period for debt 

collection claims usually varies by State 

and debt type; most limitations periods 

are between three and six years, 

although some are as long as 15 years. 

Currently, in most States, expiration of 

the statute of limitations, if raised by the 

consumer as an affirmative defense, 

precludes the debt collector from 

recovering on the debt through 

litigation, but it does not extinguish the 

debt itself. If the debt is not 

extinguished, a debt collector may use 

non-litigation means, such as letters and 

telephone calls, to collect a time-barred 

debt, as long as those means do not 

violate the FDCPA or other laws.11

C. Consumer Protection Concerns 

As discussed in the November 2020 

Final Rule, each year consumers submit 

tens of thousands of complaints about 

debt collection to Federal regulators.12

A significant proportion of those 

complaints involve debts that 

consumers believe they do not owe, 

which may be because the debt is being 

collected in error or because the 

consumer does not recognize the debt. 

Consumers also file thousands of private 

actions each year against debt collectors 

who allegedly have violated the FDCPA, 

including many cases alleging violations 

related to the validation notice. Since 

the Bureau began operations in 2011, it 

has brought numerous debt collection 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
5768 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

13See, e.g., Stipulated Final Judgment and 

Consent Order, Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau v. 

Encore Capital Grp., Inc., 3:20–cv–01750 (S.D. Cal. 

Oct. 15, 2020), https://www.courtlistener.com/ 

recap/gov.uscourts.casd.686719/ 

gov.uscourts.casd.686719.5.1.pdf; Consent Order, In 

re Asset Recovery Assocs., 2019–BCFP–0009 (Aug. 

28, 2019), https://www.consumerfinance.gov/ 

documents/7938/cfpb_asset-recovery-associates_

consent-order_2019-08.pdf; Consent Order, In re 

Encore Capital Grp., Inc., 2015–CFPB–0022 (Sept. 

9, 2015), http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/ 

201509_cfpb_consent-order-encore-capitalgroup.pdf; Consent Order, In re Portfolio Recovery 

Assocs., LLC, 2015–CFPB–0023 (Sept. 9, 2015), 

http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201509_cfpb_

consent-order-portfolio-recovery-associates-llc.pdf; 

Complaint, Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau v. Nat’l 

Corrective Grp., Inc., 1:15–cv–00899–RDB (D. Md. 

Mar. 30, 2015), http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/ 

201503_cfpb_complaint-national-correctivegroup.pdf. 

14 15 U.S.C. 45. 

15 15 U.S.C. 1692(b). 

16 15 U.S.C. 1692(a). 

17 15 U.S.C. 1692(e). 

18FDCPA section 814(d), 15 U.S.C. 1692l(d). 

19See 84 FR 23274 (May 21, 2019). 

20 Id. 

21 84 FR 37806 (Aug. 2, 2019). 

22See 85 FR 12672 (Mar. 3, 2020). 

cases against third-party debt collectors, 

alleging both FDCPA violations and 

unfair, deceptive, or abusive debt 

collection acts or practices in violation 

of the Dodd-Frank Act.13 In many of 

these cases, the Bureau has obtained 

civil penalties, monetary compensation 

for consumers, and other relief. In its 

supervisory work, the Bureau similarly 

has identified many FDCPA violations 

during examinations of debt collectors. 

Over the past decade, the Federal Trade 

Commission (FTC) and State regulators 

also have brought numerous additional 

actions against debt collectors for 

violating Federal and State debt 

collection and consumer protection 

laws. 

D. FDCPA and Dodd-Frank Act 

Protections for Consumers 

Federal and State governments 

historically have sought to protect 

consumers from harmful debt collection 

practices. From 1938 to 1977, the 

Federal government primarily protected 

consumers through FTC enforcement 

actions against debt collectors who 

engaged in unfair or deceptive acts or 

practices in violation of section 5 of the 

FTC Act.14 When Congress enacted the 

FDCPA in 1977, it found that ‘‘[e]xisting 

laws and procedures for redressing . . . 

injuries [were] inadequate to protect 

consumers.’’ 15 Congress found that 

‘‘[t]here [was] abundant evidence of the 

use of abusive, deceptive, and unfair 

debt collection practices by many debt 

collectors’’ and that these practices 

‘‘contribute to the number of personal 

bankruptcies, to marital instability, to 

the loss of jobs, and to invasions of 

individual privacy.’’ 16

The FDCPA was enacted, in part, ‘‘to 

eliminate abusive debt collection 

practices by debt collectors, [and] to 

insure that those debt collectors who 

refrain from using abusive debt 

collection practices are not 

competitively disadvantaged.’’ 17

Among other things, the FDCPA: (1) 

Prohibits debt collectors from engaging 

in harassment or abuse, making false or 

misleading representations, and 

engaging in unfair practices in debt 

collection; (2) restricts debt collectors’ 

communications with consumers and 

others; and (3) requires debt collectors 

to provide consumers with disclosures 

concerning the debts they owe or 

allegedly owe. 

The FDCPA, in general, applies to 

debt collectors as that term is defined 

under the statute. As discussed further 

in the section-by-section analysis of 

§ 1006.2(i) of the November 2020 Final 

Rule, the FDCPA generally provides that 

a debt collector is any person: (1) Who 

uses any instrumentality of interstate 

commerce or the mails in any business 

the principal purpose of which is the 

collection of any debts (i.e., the 

‘‘principal purpose’’ prong), or (2) who 

regularly collects, or attempts to collect, 

directly or indirectly, debts owed or due 

or asserted to be owed or due to another 

(i.e., the ‘‘regularly collects’’ prong). 

FDCPA section 803(6) also sets forth 

several exclusions from the general 

definition. 

Until the creation of the Bureau, no 

Federal agency was authorized to issue 

regulations to implement the 

substantive provisions of the FDCPA. 

Courts have issued opinions providing 

differing interpretations of various 

FDCPA provisions, and there is 

considerable uncertainty with respect to 

how the FDCPA applies to 

communication technologies that have 

developed since 1977. The Dodd-Frank 

Act amended the FDCPA to provide the 

Bureau with authority to ‘‘prescribe 

rules with respect to the collection of 

debts by debt collectors.’’ 18

III. Summary of the Rulemaking 

Process 

A. The November 2020 Final Rule 

The Bureau issued the November 

2020 Final Rule to finalize certain 

provisions of the proposed rule that the 

Bureau published in the Federal 

Register on May 21, 2019, to amend 

Regulation F.19 Specifically, the 

November 2020 Final Rule primarily 

addressed debt collection 

communications and related practices 

by debt collectors. The November 2020 

Final Rule reserved certain sections of 

Regulation F in anticipation of this final 

rule. 

B. The 2019 Proposal and 2020 

Supplemental Proposal 

As noted, on May 21, 2019, the 

Bureau published a proposed rule (the 

May 2019 proposal or proposal) in the 

Federal Register to amend Regulation 

F.20 The proposal provided a 90-day 

comment period that would have closed 

on August 19, 2019. To allow interested 

persons more time to consider and 

submit their comments, the Bureau 

issued an extension of the comment 

period until September 18, 2019.21 In 

response to the May 2019 proposal, the 

Bureau received more than 14,000 

comments from consumers, consumer 

groups, members of Congress, other 

government agencies, creditors, debt 

collectors, industry trade associations, 

and others. As discussed below, the 

Bureau has considered those comments 

in deciding to issue this final rule. 

As relevant to this final rule, in the 

May 2019 proposal, the Bureau 

proposed to implement and interpret 

FDCPA section 809(a) and (b) regarding 

the information that debt collectors 

must provide to consumers at the outset 

of debt collection communications and 

debt collectors’ obligations to respond to 

consumers’ disputes and requests for 

original-creditor information, including 

if the consumer obligated or allegedly 

obligated to pay the debt has died. The 

Bureau also proposed to prohibit debt 

collectors from bringing or threatening 

to bring a legal action against a 

consumer to collect a debt that the debt 

collector knows or should know is a 

time-barred debt. And the Bureau 

proposed to prohibit debt collectors 

from furnishing information regarding a 

debt to a consumer reporting agency 

before communicating with the 

consumer about the debt. 

On February 21, 2020, the Bureau 

released a supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking to amend 

Regulation F to require debt collectors 

to make certain disclosures when 

collecting time-barred debts (the 

February 2020 proposal).22 The 

February 2020 proposal provided a 60- 

day comment period that would have 

closed on May 4, 2020. To allow 

interested persons more time to 

consider and submit their comments, 

the Bureau issued two extensions of the 

comment period, the first until June 5, 

2020, and the second until August 4, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 5769 

23See 85 FR 17299 (Mar. 27, 2020) (first 

extension); 85 FR 30890 (May 21, 2020) (second 

extension). 

24The Bureau also tested a statement of consumer 

rights disclosure, but the Bureau decided not to 

propose to require debt collectors to provide such 

a disclosure to consumers. Instead, the Bureau 

proposed in the May 2019 proposal to require 

certain debt collectors to provide with the 

validation information a statement referring 

consumers to a Bureau-provided website that would 

describe certain consumer protections in debt 

collection. See the section-by-section analysis of 

§ 1006.34(c)(3)(iv). Because the Bureau did not 

propose to require debt collectors to provide 

consumers with a statement of consumer rights 

disclosure, the Bureau did not summarize testing 

related to that disclosure in the May 2019 proposal. 

25See 84 FR 23274, 23279 (May 21, 2019). 

26See generally Fors Marsh Grp., Debt Collection 

Focus Groups (Aug. 2014), https://

files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_debtcollection_fmg-focus-group-report.pdf (FMG Focus 

Group Report). The focus group testing was 

conducted in accordance with OMB control number 

3170–0022, Generic Information Collection Plan for 

the Development and/or Testing of Model Forms, 

Disclosures, Tools, and Other Similar Related 

Materials. 

27See generally Fors Marsh Grp., Debt Collection 

Cognitive Interviews (n.d.), https://

files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_debtcollection_fmg-cognitive-report.pdf (FMG Cognitive 

Report). The cognitive testing was conducted in 

accordance with OMB control number 3170–0022, 

Generic Information Collection Plan for the 

Development and/or Testing of Model Forms, 

Disclosures, Tools, and Other Similar Related 

Materials. 

28See generally Fors Marsh Grp., Debt Collection 

User Experience Study (Feb. 2016), https://

files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_debtcollection_fmg-usability-report.pdf (FMG Usability 

Report). Like the other testing, the usability testing 

was conducted in accordance with OMB control 

number 3170–0022, Generic Information Collection 

Plan for the Development and/or Testing of Model 

Forms, Disclosures, Tools, and Other Similar 

Related Materials. 

29See generally Fors Marsh Grp., Debt Collection 

Validation Notice Research: Summary of Focus 

Groups, Cognitive Interviews, and User Experience 

Testing (Feb. 2016), https://

files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_debtcollection_fmg-summary-report.pdf (FMG Summary 

Report). 

30OMB approved the Bureau’s request to conduct 

the survey on May 7, 2019. See Office of 

Information & Regulatory Affairs, Office of Mgmt. 

& Budget, ICR—OIRA Conclusion, https://

www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_

nbr=201902-3170-001# (last visited Feb. 18, 2020). 

31See Bureau of Consumer Fin. Prot., Disclosure 

of Time-Barred Debt and Revival: Findings from the 

CFPB’s Quantitative Disclosure Testing (Feb. 2020), 

https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/ 

cfpb_debt-collection-quantitative-disclosuretesting_report.pdf (CFPB Quantitative Testing 

Report). 

32See ICF Int’l, Inc., Quantitative Survey Testing 

of Model Disclosure Clauses and Forms for Debt 

Collection: Methodology Report (Jan. 21, 2020), 

https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/ 

cfpb_icf_debt-survey_methodology-report.pdf. 

33See 85 FR 12672, 12676–77 (Mar. 3, 2020). 

34See generally Fors Marsh Grp., Consumer 

Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) Usability 

Testing Report: Model Validation Notice (Nov. 20, 

2020), https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/ 

documents/cfpb_model-validation-notice_report_

2020-12.pdf (November 2020 Qualitative Testing 

Report). 

35The preamble to the May 2019 proposal 

includes a more thorough discussion of the 

outreach the Bureau conducted prior to issuing the 

proposal. See 84 FR 23274, 23278–80 (May 21, 

2019). 

36 78 FR 67848 (Nov. 12, 2013). 

37See generally Bureau of Consumer Fin. Prot., 

Study of Third-Party Debt Collection Operations 

(July 2016), https://www.consumerfinance.gov/ 

documents/755/20160727_cfpb_Third_Party_Debt_

Collection_Operations_Study.pdf (CFPB Debt 

Collection Operations Study). 

2020.23 In response to the February 2020 

proposal, the Bureau received 

approximately 90 comments from 

consumers, consumer groups, members 

of Congress, other government agencies, 

creditors, debt collectors, industry trade 

associations, and others. As discussed 

below, the Bureau has considered those 

comments in adopting this final rule. 

C. Consumer Testing 

The Bureau has undertaken two 

rounds of qualitative disclosure testing 

and one round of quantitative disclosure 

testing, all of which have informed this 

final rule. 

First, as discussed in more detail in 

the May 2019 proposal, the Bureau in 

2014 contracted with a third-party 

vendor, Fors Marsh Group (FMG), to 

assist with developing, and to conduct 

qualitative consumer testing of the 

model validation notice.24 This initial 

qualitative testing included focus group 

testing, cognitive testing, and usability 

testing conducted by FMG.25 Through 

the testing, the Bureau sought insight 

into consumers’ understanding of debt 

collection protections and how 

consumers would interact with the 

forms if the forms were incorporated 

into a final rule. Specific findings from 

the consumer testing are discussed in 

more detail in part V where relevant. In 

conjunction with the release of the May 

2019 proposal, the Bureau made 

available a report prepared by FMG 

regarding the focus group testing,26 the 

cognitive testing,27 the usability 

testing,28 and a report prepared by FMG 

summarizing the focus group testing, 

cognitive testing, and usability testing.29

Second, to obtain additional 

information about consumer 

comprehension and decision-making in 

response to sample debt collection 

disclosures relating to time-barred debt, 

in 2017 the Bureau contracted with ICF 

International, Inc. (ICF) to conduct a 

web survey of approximately 8,000 

individuals possessing a broad range of 

demographic characteristics.30 This 

quantitative testing concluded in late 

September 2019, and, in conjunction 

with the release of the February 2020 

proposal, the Bureau 31 and ICF 32

published detailed reports summarizing 

the testing methodology and results. 

The February 2020 proposal provides an 

extensive overview of the quantitative 

testing.33

Third, to further evaluate the 

effectiveness of the model validation 

notice, the Bureau contracted with FMG 

again in 2019 to conduct an additional 

round of qualitative testing. Because of 

the COVID–19 pandemic, FMG 

conducted this consumer testing by 

telephone, completing 51 one-on-one 

usability interviews between October 5 

and October 15, 2020. The qualitative 

testing showed, among other things, that 

80 percent of participants shared 

positive initial reactions to the model 

validation notice and indicated that the 

information in the notice was clear and 

available actions were obvious. In 

addition, 88 percent of participants 

rated the overall model validation 

notice as ‘‘very easy’’ or ‘‘easy’’ to 

understand, and no participants rated 

the notice as ‘‘difficult’’ or ‘‘very 

difficult’’ to understand. Finally, 77 

percent of participants answered 

correctly over 90 percent of the time 

when, after reviewing the notice, they 

were asked to answer certain questions 

about information included on the 

notice. In conjunction with release of 

this final rule, the Bureau is making 

available a report prepared by FMG 

regarding the qualitative testing.34

D. Other Outreach 35

In November 2013, the Bureau began 

the rulemaking process with the 

publication of an Advance Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) 

regarding debt collection.36 As 

discussed in the May 2019 proposal, the 

ANPRM sought information about a 

wide variety of both first- and thirdparty debt collection practices. The 

Bureau received more than 23,000 

comments in response to the ANPRM, 

which the Bureau considered when 

developing the proposals. 

To better understand the operational 

costs of debt collection firms, including 

law firms, the Bureau also surveyed 

debt collection firms and vendors and 

published a report based on that study 

in July 2016 (CFPB Debt Collection 

Operations Study or Operations 

Study).37 The Operations Study focused 

on understanding how debt collection 

firms obtain information about 

delinquent consumer accounts and 

attempt to collect on those accounts. 

In August 2016, the Bureau convened 

a Small Business Review Panel (Small 

Business Review Panel or Panel) with 

the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration (SBA) 

and the Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs with 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
5770 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

38The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), as amended by 

section 1100G(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act, requires 

the Bureau to convene a Small Business Review 

Panel before proposing a rule that may have a 

substantial economic impact on a significant 

number of small entities. See Public Law 104–121, 

tit. II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996) (as amended by the Small 

Business and Work Opportunity Act of 2007, Public 

Law. 110–28, tit. VIII, subtit. C, sec. 8302, 121 Stat. 

204 (2007)). 

39Bureau of Consumer Fin. Prot., Small Business 

Review Panel for Debt Collector and Debt Buyer 

Rulemaking: Outline of Proposals Under 

Consideration and Alternatives Considered (July 28, 

2016), https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/ 

documents/20160727_cfpb_Outline_of_

proposals.pdf (Small Business Review Panel 

Outline). The Bureau also gathered feedback on the 

Small Business Review Panel Outline from other 

stakeholders, members of the public, and the 

Bureau’s Consumer Advisory Board and 

Community Bank Advisory Council. 

40Bureau of Consumer Fin. Prot., U.S. Small Bus. 

Admin. & Office of Mgmt. & Budget, Final Report 

of the Small Business Review Panel on the CFPB’s 

Proposals Under Consideration for the Debt 

Collector and Debt Buying Rulemaking (Oct. 2016), 

https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/ 

cfpb_debt-collector-debt-buyer_SBREFA-report.pdf 

(Small Business Review Panel Report). 

41 83 FR 12286 (Mar. 21, 2018). 

42 83 FR 12881 (Mar. 26, 2018). 

43 15 U.S.C. 1692l(d). As noted, the Bureau is the 

first Federal agency with authority to prescribe 

substantive debt collection rules under the FDCPA. 

Prior to the Dodd-Frank Act’s grant of rulemaking 

authority to the Bureau, no agency had authority to 

issue substantive rules with respect to the 

collection of debts by debt collectors under the 

FDCPA, but the FTC published various materials 

providing guidance on the FDCPA. The FTC’s 

materials have informed the Bureau’s rulemaking 

and, if relevant to particular provisions, are 

discussed in part V. 

44 12 U.S.C. 5512(a). 

45 12 U.S.C. 5512(b)(1). 

46 12 U.S.C. 5481(12)(H), (14). 

47The Bureau proposed to rely on its Dodd-Frank 

Act section 1031 authority (relating to unfair, 

deceptive, or abusive acts or practices in connection 

with consumer financial products or services) to 

support two interventions in the May 2019 

proposal. The Bureau has not finalized any 

provisions of this final rule (or, as discussed in the 

November 2020 Final Rule, of that final rule), 

pursuant to its authority under Dodd-Frank Act 

section 1031. 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB).38 As part of this process, the 

Bureau prepared an outline of proposals 

under consideration and the alternatives 

considered (Small Business Review 

Panel Outline or Outline),39 which the 

Bureau posted on its website for review 

by the small entity representatives 

participating in the Panel process and 

by the general public. The Panel 

gathered information from the small 

entity representatives and made 

findings and recommendations 

regarding the potential compliance costs 

and other impacts on those entities of 

the proposals under consideration. 

Those findings and recommendations 

are set forth in the Small Business 

Review Panel Report, which is part of 

the administrative record in this 

rulemaking and is available to the 

public.40 The Bureau considered these 

findings and recommendations in 

preparing the proposals and this final 

rule. 

The Bureau has also met on many 

occasions with various stakeholders, 

including consumer advocates, debt 

collection trade associations, industry 

participants, academics with expertise 

in debt collection, Federal prudential 

regulators, and other Federal and State 

consumer protection regulators. The 

Bureau also received a number of 

comments specific to the debt collection 

rulemaking in response to its Request 

for Information Regarding the Bureau’s 

Adopted Regulations and New 

Rulemaking Authorities 41 and its 

Request for Information Regarding the 

Bureau’s Inherited Regulations and 

Inherited Rulemaking Authorities; 42 the 

Bureau considered these comments in 

developing the proposals and this final 

rule. In addition, the Bureau has 

engaged in general outreach, speaking at 

consumer advocate and industry events 

and visiting consumer organizations and 

industry stakeholders. The Bureau has 

provided other regulators with 

information about the proposals and 

this final rule, has sought their input, 

and has received feedback that has 

helped the Bureau to prepare this final 

rule. 

Under the Dodd-Frank Act, the 

Bureau is required to conduct an 

assessment of significant rules within 

five years of the rule’s effective date. 

The Bureau anticipates that this final 

rule may be significant and therefore 

may require an assessment within five 

years of the rule’s effective date. The 

Bureau is preparing now for this 

possible assessment. Specifically, the 

Bureau is considering how best to 

obtain information now to serve as a 

baseline for evaluation of the costs, 

benefits, and other effects of the final 

rule. The Bureau expects to collect data 

and other information from consumers, 

debt collectors, and other stakeholders 

to understand whether the rule is 

achieving its goals under the FDCPA 

and the Dodd-Frank Act, and to help the 

Bureau measure the costs and benefits 

of the rule. Topics of data collection 

could include: whether consumers are 

better able to identify a debt when 

receiving validation information after 

the rule compared to before the rule; 

whether debt collectors are receiving 

higher or lower rates of consumer 

disputes after the rule compared to 

before the rule; whether greater clarity 

about FDCPA requirements helps 

reduce litigation related to the 

validation notice after the rule 

compared to before the rule; and costs 

of the rule, both anticipated and 

unexpected, for consumers or for 

industry. The Bureau expects to conduct 

outreach in 2021 to explore how best to 

obtain such data, including potentially 

through surveying consumers or firms 

or by collecting operational data. 

IV. Legal Authority 

The Bureau is issuing this final rule 

primarily pursuant to its authority 

under the FDCPA and the Dodd-Frank 

Act. As amended by the Dodd-Frank 

Act, FDCPA section 814(d) provides that 

the Bureau ‘‘may prescribe rules with 

respect to the collection of debts by debt 

collectors,’’ as defined in the FDCPA.43

Section 1022(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act 

provides that ‘‘[t]he Bureau is 

authorized to exercise its authorities 

under Federal consumer financial law to 

administer, enforce, and otherwise 

implement the provisions of Federal 

consumer financial law.’’ 44 Section 

1022(b)(1) of the Dodd-Frank Act 

provides that the Director may prescribe 

rules and issue orders and guidance, as 

may be necessary or appropriate to 

enable the Bureau to administer and 

carry out the purposes and objectives of 

the Federal consumer financial laws, 

and to prevent evasions thereof.45

‘‘Federal consumer financial law’’ 

includes title X of the Dodd-Frank Act 

and the FDCPA.46 No provisions in this 

final rule are based on section 1031 of 

the Dodd-Frank Act.47

These and other authorities are 

discussed in greater detail in parts IV.A 

through C below. Part IV.A discusses 

the Bureau’s authority under sections 

806 through 808 of the FDCPA. Parts 

IV.B through C discuss the Bureau’s 

relevant authorities under the DoddFrank Act. 

A. FDCPA Sections 806 Through 808 

As discussed in part V, the Bureau is 

finalizing several provisions, in whole 

or in part, pursuant to its authority to 

interpret FDCPA sections 806 through 

808, which set forth general 

prohibitions on, and requirements 

relating to, debt collectors’ conduct and 

are accompanied by non-exhaustive lists 

of examples of unlawful conduct. The 

November 2020 Final Rule provides an 

overview of how the Bureau interprets 

FDCPA sections 806 through 808. 

FDCPA section 806 generally 

prohibits a debt collector from 

‘‘engag[ing] in any conduct the natural 

consequence of which is to harass, 

oppress, or abuse any person in 

connection with the collection of a 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 5771 

48 15 U.S.C. 1692d. 49 15 U.S.C. 1692d(1)–(6). 50 15 U.S.C. 1692e. 51 15 U.S.C. 1692e(1)–(16). 52 15 U.S.C. 1692f. 53 15 U.S.C. 1692f(1)–(8). 54See 85 FR 76734, 76738 (Nov. 30, 2020). 55 84 FR 23274, 23281–82 (May 21, 2019). 56Where the Bureau prescribes requirements 

pursuant only to its authority to implement and 

interpret sections 806 through 808 of the FDCPA, 

the Bureau does not take a position on whether 

such practices also would constitute an unfair, 

deceptive, or abusive act or practice under section 

1031 of the Dodd-Frank Act. 57See, e.g., S. Rep. No. 382, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 

2, 4 (1977), reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1695, 

1698 (S. Rep. No. 382) (‘‘[T]his bill prohibits in 

general terms any harassing, unfair, or deceptive 

collection practice. This will enable the courts, 

where appropriate, to proscribe other improper 

conduct which is not specifically addressed.’’). 

Courts have also cited legislative history in noting 

that, ‘‘in passing the FDCPA, Congress identified 

abusive collection attempts as primary motivations 

for the Act’s passage.’’ Hart v. FCI Lender Servs., 

Inc., 797 F.3d 219, 226 (2d Cir. 2015). 

58See, e.g., Stratton v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., 

LLC, 770 F.3d 443, 450 (6th Cir. 2014) (‘‘[T]he listed 

examples of illegal acts are just that—examples.’’). 

59 Id. See, e.g., Holzman v. Malcolm S. Gerald & 

Assocs., 920 F.3d 1264 (11th Cir. 2019); Tatis v. 

Allied Interstate, LLC, 882 F.3d 422 (3d Cir. 2018); 

Pantoja v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, 852 F.3d 

679 (7th Cir. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 736 

(2018); Daugherty v. Convergent Outsourcing Inc., 

836 F.3d 507 (5th Cir. 2016); Buchanan v. 

Northland Grp., Inc., 776 F.3d 393 (6th Cir. 2015); 

McMahon v. LVNV Funding, LLC, 744 F.3d 1010, 

1020 (7th Cir. 2014). 

60 85 FR 76734, 76740 (Nov. 30, 2020); 84 FR 

23274, 23282–83 (May 21, 2019). 

61 12 U.S.C. 5532(a). 

62 12 U.S.C. 5532(c). 

63 12 U.S.C. 5512(b)(1). 

64 12 U.S.C. 5481(14). 

65 12 U.S.C. 5512(b)(2). 

66 85 FR 76734, 76742 (Nov. 30, 2020). 

debt.’’ 48 Then, ‘‘[w]ithout limiting the 

general application of the foregoing,’’ it 

lists six examples of conduct that 

violate that section.49 Similarly, FDCPA 

section 807 generally prohibits a debt 

collector from ‘‘us[ing] any false, 

deceptive, or misleading representation 

or means in connection with the 

collection of any debt.’’ 50 Then, 

‘‘[w]ithout limiting the general 

application of the foregoing,’’ section 

807 lists 16 examples of conduct that 

violate that section.51 Finally, FDCPA 

section 808 prohibits a debt collector 

from ‘‘us[ing] unfair or unconscionable 

means to collect or attempt to collect 

any debt.’’ 52 Then, ‘‘[w]ithout limiting 

the general application of the 

foregoing,’’ FDCPA section 808 lists 

eight examples of conduct that violate 

that section.53 Consistent with the 

approach in the November 2020 Final 

Rule 54 and as proposed in the May 2019 

proposal,55 the Bureau interprets 

FDCPA sections 806 through 808 in 

light of: (1) The FDCPA’s language and 

purpose; (2) the general types of 

conduct prohibited by those sections 

and, where relevant, the specific 

examples enumerated in those sections; 

and (3) judicial decisions.56

In particular, the Bureau notes that, 

by their plain terms, FDCPA sections 

806 through 808 make clear that their 

examples of prohibited conduct do not 

‘‘limit[ ] the general application’’ of 

those sections’ general prohibitions. The 

FDCPA’s legislative history is consistent 

with this understanding,57 as are 

opinions by courts that have addressed 

this issue.58 Accordingly, the Bureau 

may interpret the general provisions of 

FDCPA sections 806 to 808 to prohibit 

conduct that the specific examples in 

FDCPA sections 806 through 808 do not 

address if the conduct violates the 

general prohibitions. In addition, the 

Bureau uses the specific examples to 

inform its understanding of the general 

prohibitions. The Bureau also interprets 

FDCPA sections 806 through 808 in 

light of the significant body of existing 

court decisions interpreting those 

sections, including, where applicable, 

cases discussing the collection of timebarred debt.59 Finally, consistent with 

the majority of courts, the Bureau 

interprets FDCPA sections 806 through 

808 to incorporate an objective, 

‘‘unsophisticated’’ or ‘‘least 

sophisticated’’ consumer standard.60

B. Dodd-Frank Act Section 1032 

Dodd-Frank Act section 1032(a) 

provides that the Bureau may prescribe 

rules to ensure that the features of any 

consumer financial product or service, 

‘‘both initially and over the term of the 

product or service,’’ are ‘‘fully, 

accurately, and effectively disclosed to 

consumers in a manner that permits 

consumers to understand the costs, 

benefits, and risks associated with the 

product or service, in light of the facts 

and circumstances.’’ 61 Under DoddFrank Act section 1032(a), the Bureau is 

empowered to prescribe rules regarding 

the disclosure of the ‘‘features’’ of 

consumer financial products and 

services generally. Accordingly, the 

Bureau may prescribe rules containing 

disclosure requirements even if other 

Federal consumer financial laws do not 

specifically require disclosure of such 

features. Dodd-Frank Act section 

1032(c) provides that, in prescribing 

rules pursuant to Dodd-Frank Act 

section 1032, the Bureau ‘‘shall consider 

available evidence about consumer 

awareness, understanding of, and 

responses to disclosures or 

communications about the risks, costs, 

and benefits of consumer financial 

products or services.’’ 62 The Bureau is 

finalizing §§ 1006.34 and 1006.38 based 

in part on its authority under DoddFrank Act section 1032. 

C. Other Authorities Under the DoddFrank Act 

Section 1022(b)(1) of the Dodd-Frank 

Act provides that the Bureau’s Director 

‘‘may prescribe rules and issue orders 

and guidance, as may be necessary or 

appropriate to enable the Bureau to 

administer and carry out the purposes 

and objectives of the Federal consumer 

financial laws, and to prevent evasions 

thereof.’’ 63 ‘‘Federal consumer financial 

laws’’ include the FDCPA and title X of 

the Dodd-Frank Act.64 Section 

1022(b)(2) of the Dodd-Frank Act 

prescribes certain standards for 

rulemaking that the Bureau must follow 

in exercising its authority under DoddFrank Act section 1022(b)(1).65 See part 

VII for a discussion of the Bureau’s 

standards for rulemaking under DoddFrank Act section 1022(b)(2). 

V. Section-by-Section Analysis 

Subpart A—General 

Section 1006.1 Authority, Purpose, 

and Coverage 

1(c) Coverage 

In the November 2020 Final Rule, the 

Bureau adopted § 1006.1(c)(1) to specify 

that, except as provided in § 1006.108 

and appendix A, Regulation F applies to 

debt collectors, as defined in § 1006.2(i), 

other than a person excluded from 

coverage by section 1029(a) of the 

Consumer Financial Protection Act of 

2010, title X of the Dodd-Frank Act (12 

U.S.C. 5519(a)).66 The Bureau also noted 

that it was not finalizing, as part of the 

November 2020 Final Rule, proposed 

§ 1006.1(c)(2), which provided that 

certain provisions of Regulation F 

applied to debt collectors only when 

they were collecting consumer financial 

product or service debt, as defined in 

§ 1006.2(f). The Bureau explained that it 

was not finalizing § 1006.1(c)(2) as part 

of the November 2020 Final Rule 

because all of the provisions of that final 

rule apply to debt collectors as defined 

in § 1006.2(i). The Bureau nevertheless 

reserved § 1006.1(c)(2) so that the 

Bureau could clarify which provisions 

of this final rule, if any, apply to debt 

collectors only if they are collecting 

debt related to a consumer financial 

product or service. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

section-by-section analysis of § 1006.34, 

two provisions of that section 

(§ 1006.34(c)(2)(iii) and (3)(iv)) apply to 

debt collectors only if they are 

collecting debt related to a consumer 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
5772 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

67 15 U.S.C. 1692a(3). 

68See 84 FR 23274, 23288 (May 21, 2019). 

69For the reasons discussed in the November 

2020 Final Rule, § 1006.2(e) as finalized in that rule 

also provides that, for purposes of § 1006.6, the 

term consumer includes the persons described in 

§ 1006.6(a). To account for any revisions adopted in 

this final rule, it also specifies that the Bureau may 

further define the term in Regulation F to clarify its 

application when the consumer is deceased. See 85 

FR 76734, 76744–45, 76888 (Nov. 30, 2020). 

70See the section-by-section analyses of 

§§ 1006.34 and 1006.38. 

71See 84 FR 23274, 23288 (May 21, 2019). 

72 In the proposal, the Bureau explained that its 

interpretation was ‘‘consistent with a modern trend 

in the law that favors recognizing, as a default, the 

continued existence of a natural person after 

death.’’ 84 FR 23274, 23288 (May 21, 2019). 

Consumer advocates pointed out that the authority 

cited for this proposition comes from contexts other 

than the FDCPA. But these commenters do not 

explain why this fact undermines the existence of 

the trend described by the Bureau. 

financial produce or service as defined 

in § 1006.2(f). Therefore, the Bureau is 

finalizing § 1006.1(c)(2) to provide that 

certain provisions of Regulation F apply 

to debt collectors only if they are 

collecting debt related to a consumer 

financial product or service as defined 

in § 1006.2(f), and to specify that those 

provisions are § 1006.34(c)(2)(iii) and 

(3)(iv). 

Section 1006.2 Definitions 

2(e) Consumer 

FDCPA section 803(3) defines a 

consumer as any natural person 

obligated or allegedly obligated to pay 

any debt.67 The Bureau proposed 

§ 1006.2(e) to implement this definition 

and to interpret it to include a deceased 

natural person who is obligated or 

allegedly obligated to pay a debt.68 The 

Bureau explained that this 

interpretation would ensure that 

individuals trying to resolve a deceased 

consumer’s debts have the same legal 

right to receive the validation notice, 

and to dispute the debt and request 

information about the original creditor, 

as the deceased consumer would have 

had. 

As the Bureau noted in the November 

2020 Final Rule, the Bureau received a 

number of comments regarding its 

proposal to interpret the term consumer 

to include deceased natural persons. 

The Bureau also noted that it had 

proposed that interpretation, in large 

part, to facilitate delivery of validation 

notices under proposed § 1006.34 if the 

consumer obligated, or allegedly 

obligated, on the debt has died. Further, 

the Bureau noted that it planned to 

address comments received regarding 

that interpretation, and to determine 

whether to finalize that interpretation, 

as part of this final rule. Thus, as 

finalized in the November 2020 Final 

Rule, § 1006.2(e) provides that the term 

consumer means any natural person 

obligated or allegedly obligated to pay 

any debt.69 The Bureau now addresses 

comments received regarding its 

proposal to interpret the definition to 

include deceased natural persons. 

Several commenters supported the 

Bureau’s proposed interpretation. One 

industry commenter stated that, in the 

decedent debt context, the person acting 

on behalf of a deceased consumer’s 

estate should have the same rights 

regarding validation notices and 

disputes as the consumer would have 

had if the consumer were still living. 

Another industry commenter reported 

that many debt collectors currently 

attempt to treat deceased consumers as 

‘‘consumers’’ under the FDCPA and 

explained that the proposal would 

provide additional clarity that would 

benefit both consumers and debt 

collectors in resolving the debts of 

deceased consumers. A group of 

consumer advocates supported 

clarifying the rights of executors, 

administrators, and personal 

representatives regarding validation 

notices and disputes. However, as 

discussed below, these consumer 

advocate commenters opposed the 

proposed interpretation and suggested a 

different way to address the issue. 

Other commenters opposed 

interpreting the term consumer to 

include deceased natural persons who 

are obligated or allegedly obligated to 

pay a debt. One industry commenter 

asserted that the proposed interpretation 

would serve no purpose because 

deceased consumers lacked privacy 

interests. A trade group commenter 

stated that no evidence of confusion 

existed in the decedent debt context, 

and that the Bureau’s interpretation 

would expand the class of individuals 

entitled to sue debt collectors for 

violations of the FDCPA and the final 

rule. Finally, a group of consumer 

advocates suggested that the Bureau’s 

interpretation was unnecessary because 

proposed comments 34(a)(1)–1 and 38– 

1 would clarify that a person who is 

authorized to act on behalf of the 

deceased consumer’s estate operates as 

the consumer for purposes of 

§§ 1006.34(a)(1) and 1006.38.70 These 

commenters also stated that, if the 

Bureau were attempting to change the 

class of individuals who may bring civil 

actions against debt collectors, the 

FDCPA already allows any ‘‘person’’ to 

bring such claims. 

For the reasons discussed below, the 

Bureau is revising § 1006.2(e), as set 

forth in the November 2020 Final Rule, 

to clarify that the definition of consumer 

includes deceased natural persons. As 

explained in the May 2019 proposal, the 

FDCPA does not specify whether a 

consumer, as defined in section 803(3), 

includes a deceased consumer (or 

whether a natural person, as that term 

is used in section 803(3), includes a 

deceased natural person).71 Because the 

definition of consumer in FDCPA 

section 803(3) is silent with respect to 

deceased consumers, other FDCPA 

provisions that refer to a debt collector’s 

obligations to a consumer lack clarity in 

the decedent debt context. For example, 

FDCPA provisions requiring debt 

collectors to provide validation 

information, and to respond to disputes 

and requests for original-creditor 

information, do not address situations 

in which the person obligated or 

allegedly obligated to pay the debt is 

deceased. Uncertainty surrounding 

these provisions increases the risk of 

consumer harm in the decedent debt 

context. Specifically, without validation 

information and an opportunity to 

dispute the debt, individuals trying to 

resolve debts in a deceased consumer’s 

estate will lack information needed to 

determine whether they are being asked 

to pay the right debt, in the right 

amount, and to the right debt collector, 

and, consequently, whether they should 

assert dispute rights. 

Accordingly, to increase clarity and to 

decrease the risk of consumer harm, the 

Bureau is revising § 1006.2(e) to provide 

that the term consumer means any 

natural person, whether living or 

deceased, obligated or allegedly 

obligated to pay any debt. The Bureau 

also is revising § 1006.2(e) to delete the 

statement that the Bureau may further 

define the term to clarify its application 

when the consumer is deceased, since 

this final rule contains that further 

definition.72 Relatedly, the Bureau is 

finalizing the commentary to 

§§ 1006.34(a)(1) and 1006.38 that 

clarifies that a person who is authorized 

to act on behalf of the deceased 

consumer’s estate, such as the executor, 

administrator, or personal 

representative, operates as the consumer 

for purposes of §§ 1006.34(a)(1) and 

1006.38. 

Regarding the comment that deceased 

consumers have no privacy rights, the 

Bureau disagrees. In its Policy 

Statement on Decedent Debt, the FTC 

prohibited debt collectors from openly 

referring to a deceased consumer’s debts 

in communications with third parties, 

instead adopting an approach that 

‘‘balance[d] the legitimate needs of the 

collector with the privacy interests of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 5773 

73Fed. Trade Comm’n, Statement of Policy 

Regarding Communications in Connection with the 

Collection of Decedents’ Debts at 44921 (July 27, 

2011), https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/ 

documents/federal_register_notices/statementpolicy-regarding-communications-connectioncollection-decedents-debts-policy-statement/ 

110720fdcpa.pdf (FTC Policy Statement on 

Decedent Debt). 

74See 85 FR 76734, 76797–00, 76890, 76900 

(Nov. 30, 2020). 

75See id. at 76836–39, 76892. 

76See id. at 76836–39. 

77 15 U.S.C. 1692k. 

78See 84 FR 23274, 23288 (May 21, 2019). 

79See 85 FR 76734, 76758 (Nov. 30, 2020); 81 FR 

71977, 71978 (Oct. 19, 2016). 

the decedent.’’ 73 In the November 2020 

Final Rule, the Bureau took a similar 

approach regarding location 

communications for decedent debt.74

Moreover, interpreting the term 

consumer in § 1006.2(e) to include 

deceased natural persons is supported 

by more than concern for a decedent’s 

privacy; it also clarifies debt collector’s 

obligations to a consumer and, in turn, 

to those authorized to act on the 

consumer’s behalf, if the consumer has 

died. This includes clarifying a debt 

collector’s obligations under the 

FDCPA’s provisions, as implemented in 

this final rule and in the November 2020 

Final Rule, regarding validation 

information and disputes and requests 

for original-creditor information, which 

help to ensure that consumers are not 

paying the wrong debt, in the wrong 

amount, to the wrong debt collector. 

This interpretation also clarifies the 

application of § 1006.22(f)(4), which the 

Bureau adopted in the November 2020 

Final Rule to prohibit debt collectors 

from communicating or attempting to 

communicate with a person in 

connection with the collection of a debt 

through a social media platform if the 

communication or attempt to 

communicate is viewable by the general 

public or the person’s social media 

contacts.75 In adopting that provision, 

the Bureau discussed that a consumer 

advocate commenter had stated that the 

Bureau should broaden the prohibition 

to apply to deceased consumers, such 

that debt collectors would be prohibited 

from posting publicly about a deceased 

consumer’s alleged debt on the 

consumer’s social media page. The 

consumer advocate commenter stated 

that a debt collector’s only reason for 

doing so would be to pressure surviving 

relatives to pay the debt, either to 

protect the deceased consumer’s 

reputation or out of a sense of moral 

obligation.76

In finalizing § 1006.22(f)(4) in the 

November 2020 Final Rule, Bureau 

noted that the prohibition applied to 

communications and attempts to 

communicate with ‘‘a person,’’ and that 

person, as defined in § 1006.2(k), 

includes a consumer. The Bureau again 

noted that it had received a number of 

comments regarding its proposal to 

interpret the term consumer to include 

deceased natural persons and that it 

would address such comments in this 

final rule. In determining to revise 

§ 1006.2(e) to include a deceased natural 

person who is obligated or allegedly 

obligated to pay a debt, the Bureau thus 

also clarifies that the prohibition in 

§ 1006.22(f)(4) includes deceased 

consumers. 

The Bureau disagrees with the 

industry commenter that there is no 

evidence of confusion about the 

definition of consumer in the decedent 

debt context. As explained above, the 

FDCPA’s current lack of clarity in the 

decedent debt context creates 

uncertainty in several situations arising 

during the collection of debts belonging 

to deceased consumers. Therefore, the 

Bureau determines that additional 

clarity will improve the debt collection 

system for all parties. 

Nor does § 1006.2(e) expand the class 

of potential plaintiffs who may bring 

suit under the FDCPA and Regulation F, 

as an industry commenter alleged. The 

civil liability provision of the FDCPA 

already creates liability for violations 

committed against any person.77 As 

noted in the proposal, the trend in the 

law has been to recognize, as a default, 

the continued existence of a natural 

person after death for purposes of 

bringing civil actions, particularly for 

remedial statutes like the FDCPA.78 This 

commenter did not explain how the 

Bureau’s interpretation would result in 

a lawsuit by someone other than a 

‘‘person’’ under the statute. 

Finally, the Bureau disagrees, as 

suggested by certain commenters, that 

the commentary to §§ 1006.34(a)(1) and 

1006.38 (final comments 34(a)(1)–1 and 

38–3) provide adequate clarity without 

interpreting the term consumer to 

include deceased natural persons. In 

fact, interpreting the term consumer to 

include deceased natural persons is a 

necessary predicate to provide that the 

persons identified in those comments 

operate as the consumer for purposes of 

the requirements relating to validation 

information, disputes, and requests for 

original-creditor information. 

Commenters raised additional issues 

related to § 1006.2(e). A few industry 

commenters suggested that the Bureau’s 

proposed interpretation was 

inconsistent with the Bureau’s mortgage 

servicing rules regarding successors in 

interest. One trade group commenter 

stated that allowing any individual 

authorized to act on behalf of a deceased 

consumer’s estate to meet Regulation F’s 

definition of consumer under 

§ 1006.2(e) will complicate and 

potentially impede the existing 

successor in interest process under 

Regulations X and Z. The commenter 

explained that, under proposed 

comment 34(a)(1)–1, mortgage servicers 

who are also debt collectors under 

Regulation F would have to send 

validation information to the person 

authorized to act on behalf of the 

deceased consumer’s estate but would 

not be able to send foreclosure-related 

disclosures required under State law to 

the same person, unless that person had 

assumed ownership of the obligation. 

The commenter also suggested that, 

under proposed comment 38–1, debt 

collectors would be required to focus 

resources on verifying the identify of an 

individual asserting to be a person 

authorized to act on behalf of the 

deceased consumer’s estate, which 

would take away from legitimate efforts 

to respond to disputes and requests for 

original-creditor information. 

Another trade group commenter 

stated that the clarification in proposed 

comment 34(a)(1)–1 to send the 

validation notice to the person 

authorized to act on behalf of the 

deceased consumer’s estate if the debt 

collector knows or should know that the 

consumer is deceased would, unlike the 

Bureau’s mortgage servicing rules, 

appear to create an affirmative 

obligation for mortgage servicers to track 

down information about potential 

successors in interest and cloud 

requirements for mortgage servicers 

under Regulation X. For this reason, a 

third trade group commenter suggested 

that, if a required notice must be sent 

and no individual has come forward as 

a potential or confirmed successor in 

interest, the Bureau should permit 

mortgage servicers to address a 

validation notice to the deceased 

consumer or ‘‘the estate of’’ the 

deceased consumer rather than require 

a search for an individual to whom to 

address the notice. 

As the Bureau has previously 

explained, while many mortgage 

servicers are not subject to the FDCPA, 

mortgage servicers that acquired a 

mortgage loan at the time that it was in 

default may be subject to the FDCPA 

with respect to that mortgage loan.79 As 

discussed below, the Bureau concludes 

that including a deceased natural person 

who is obligated or allegedly obligated 

to pay a debt within the definition of 

consumer under § 1006.2(e) is not 

inconsistent with the Bureau’s mortgage 

servicing rules on successors in interest. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
5774 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

80See the section-by-section analysis of 

§ 1006.34(a)(1). 81See 85 FR 76734, 76758–59 (Nov. 30, 2020). 

See also 12 CFR 1024.31, 1026.2(a)(27)(i). A 

confirmed successor in interest, in turn, means a 

successor in interest once a mortgage servicer has 

confirmed the successor in interest’s identity and 

ownership interest in the property that secures the 

mortgage loan or in the dwelling. See 12 CFR 

1024.31, 1026.2(a)(27)(ii). 82 12 CFR 1024.31, 1026.2(a)(27). 

83 12 CFR 1024.38(b)(1)(vi); comment 

38(b)(1)(vi)–1. 

84 Id. The general servicing policies, procedures, 

and requirements in 12 CFR 1024.38 do not apply 

to a mortgage servicer that qualifies as a small 

servicer pursuant to 12 CFR 1026.41(e). See 12 CFR 

1024.30(b)(1). 

85See 84 FR 23274, 23334 (May 21, 2019). 

86FTC Policy Statement on Decedent Debt, supra 

note 73, at 44920. 

87For example, § 1006.6(b) restricts, among other 

things, the times at which debt collectors can 

communicate or attempt to communicate with 

consumers. See 85 FR 76734, 76889 (Nov. 30, 2020). 

To the extent that ‘‘communicate’’ includes having 

a conversation, the Bureau believes it is obvious 

that this prohibition is simply inapplicable in the 

case of a deceased consumer (but does apply to 

having a conversation with the executor or 

administrator of the consumer’s estate). 

Although one commenter asserted that 

finalizing this definition as proposed 

would complicate and potentially 

impede the existing successor in interest 

process, the commenter failed to explain 

why that would be the case and the 

Bureau does not believe that to be the 

case. 

Regarding delivery of validation 

information, as discussed below, 

comment 34(a)(1)–1 clarifies that, if a 

debt collector knows or should know 

that a consumer is deceased, and if the 

debt collector has not previously 

provided the validation information to 

the deceased consumer, then in such 

circumstances, to comply with 

§ 1006.34(a)(1), a debt collector must 

provide the validation information to an 

individual whom the debt collector 

identifies by name and who is 

authorized to act on behalf of the 

deceased consumer’s estate.80 A person 

who is authorized to act on behalf of a 

deceased consumer’s estate may include 

the executor, administrator, or personal 

representative. However, as discussed in 

the November 2020 Final Rule, for 

purposes of Regulations X and Z, a 

successor in interest is, in general, a 

person to whom an ownership interest 

either in a property securing a mortgage 

loan subject to subpart C of Regulation 

X, or in a dwelling securing a closedend consumer credit transaction under 

Regulation Z, is transferred under 

specified circumstances including, for 

example, after a consumer’s death or as 

part of a divorce.81 Therefore, a person 

who is authorized to act on behalf of a 

deceased consumer’s estate for purposes 

of Regulation F may or may not also be 

a successor in interest under 

Regulations X and Z, depending on 

whether an ownership interest in a 

property securing a mortgage loan or a 

dwelling securing a closed-end 

consumer credit transaction is 

transferred to that person under the 

circumstances specified in Regulations 

X and Z.82

Comment 34(a)(1)–1 provides debt 

collectors clarity regarding to whom the 

validation information must be 

provided in the narrow circumstance in 

which the debt collector knows or 

should know that a consumer is 

deceased and the debt collector has not 

previously provided the validation 

information to the deceased consumer. 

According to the comment, under these 

circumstances, a debt collector who is 

collecting the debt of a deceased 

consumer must determine who is 

authorized to act on behalf of a deceased 

consumer’s estate. These efforts, 

however, do not create an affirmative 

obligation under the Bureau’s mortgage 

servicing rule for a mortgage servicer 

that is subject to the FDCPA with 

respect to a mortgage loan to seek out 

potential successors in interest within 

the meaning of the mortgage servicing 

rules. Under the mortgage servicing 

rules, a mortgage servicer is not required 

to conduct a search for potential 

successors in interest if the mortgage 

servicer has not received actual notice 

of their existence.83 If, in the course of 

determining who is authorized to act on 

behalf of a deceased consumer’s estate 

for purposes of § 1006.34(a)(1), a 

mortgage servicer receives actual notice 

of the existence of a potential successor 

in interest, the mortgage servicer must, 

as required under Regulation X, 

maintain policies and procedures 

reasonably designed to ensure that the 

servicer can retain this information and 

promptly facilitate communication with 

the potential successor in interest.84

However, because a mortgage servicer 

that is subject to the FDCPA with 

respect to a mortgage loan may comply 

with both this final rule and the 

applicable successor in interest 

provisions under Regulations X and Z, 

the Bureau concludes there is no 

conflict with the mortgage servicing 

rules. Additionally, nothing in this final 

rule is intended to alter the successor in 

interest provisions in Regulations X and 

Z or to impose additional requirements 

under Regulations X and Z. 

In response to the commenter’s 

concern regarding the burdens under 

comment 38–1 of determining who is 

authorized to act on behalf of a deceased 

consumer’s estate before responding to 

a dispute or request for original-creditor 

information, the potential burdens 

associated with responding to such 

incoming disputes and requests will be 

significantly reduced once a debt 

collector has procedures in place to 

make that threshold determination or 

has already made that determination for 

purposes of providing the validation 

information as described in comment 

34(a)(1)–1. 

The Bureau declines to adopt the 

suggestion to allow mortgage servicers 

to address a validation notice to the 

deceased consumer or to ‘‘the estate of’’ 

the deceased consumer. As discussed in 

the proposal, the Bureau shares the view 

of the FTC, which stated in its Policy 

Statement on Decedent Debt that 

individuals who lack the authority to 

resolve the estate but who wish to be 

helpful are likely to open 

communications addressed to the 

decedent’s estate, or to an unnamed 

executor or administrator, which makes 

such communications insufficiently 

targeted to a consumer with whom the 

debt collector may generally discuss the 

debt.85 The Bureau, therefore, shares the 

view of the FTC that ‘‘communication[s] 

addressed to the decedent’s estate, or an 

unnamed executor or administrator, 

[are] location communication[s] and 

must not refer to the decedent’s 

debts.’’ 86 Accordingly, comment 

34(a)(1)–1 specifies that a debt collector 

must provide the validation information 

to an individual that the debt collector 

identifies by name who is authorized to 

act on behalf of the deceased 

consumer’s estate. 

A group of consumer advocates stated 

that certain other provisions of the 

Bureau’s proposal, such as 

§ 1006.14(e)’s prohibition on publishing 

lists of consumers who allegedly refuse 

to pay debts and § 1006.18(b)(1)(iv)’s 

prohibition on falsely representing or 

implying that the consumer committed 

any crime or other conduct in order to 

disgrace the consumer, should apply to 

deceased consumers. But, these 

commenters claimed, other provisions, 

like § 1006.6(b)(1)’s restrictions on 

communicating at inconvenient times or 

places, were nonsensical as applied to 

deceased consumers. Therefore, these 

commenters argued, the Bureau’s 

interpretation in proposed § 1006.2(e) 

was overbroad. 

The Bureau acknowledges that there 

may be certain provisions in the 

November 2020 Final Rule and in this 

final rule that refer to a consumer that 

simply will be inapplicable in the 

context of a deceased consumer.87

Nevertheless, as consumer advocates 

acknowledged, other provisions that 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 5775 

88See the section-by-section analysis of 

§ 1006.34(b)(5). 

89 85 FR 76734, 76745 (Nov. 30, 2020). 

90See 84 FR 23274, 23286 (May 21, 2019). 

91See 84 FR 23274, 23327–28 (May 21, 2019). 

92See generally Rotella v. Wood, 528 U.S. 549, 

555 (2000) (identifying ‘‘the basic policies of all 

limitations provisions’’ as ‘‘repose, elimination of 

stale claims, and certainty’’). 

93United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111, 117 

(1979). 

refer to a consumer will apply to 

deceased consumers. For example, as 

discussed above, interpreting the term 

consumer in § 1006.2(e) to include 

deceased natural persons means that, as 

applied to § 1006.22(f)(4), debt 

collectors are prohibited from posting 

publicly about a deceased consumer’s 

alleged debt on a deceased consumer’s 

public-facing social media page. In 

situations that are currently unclear, 

such as delivery of validation 

information, the final rule adopts 

commentary clarifying debt collectors’ 

obligations. 

This group of consumer advocates 

also recommended that the Bureau 

require debt collectors to provide a 

validation notice to the person 

authorized to act on behalf of the 

deceased consumer’s estate even if 

validation information already was 

provided to the consumer. These 

commenters also asked the Bureau to 

provide that the validation period starts 

from the date the person authorized to 

act on behalf of the deceased 

consumer’s estate receives the 

validation notice, and to require debt 

collectors to respond to disputes and 

requests for original-creditor 

information submitted by this person, 

even if a response already was provided 

to the consumer. The Bureau declines to 

adopt these suggestions because the 

Bureau finds that, in the scenario 

described, the debt collector has already 

satisfied the debt collector’s obligations 

to the consumer as set forth in FDCPA 

section 809 and §§ 1006.34 and 1006.38. 

Depending on the facts, the debt 

collector could be required to provide a 

validation notice or dispute response to 

the person authorized to act on behalf 

of the deceased consumer’s estate,88 but 

the Bureau declines to require debt 

collectors to do so in all cases. 

Nevertheless, the Bureau notes that debt 

collectors who voluntarily provide 

validation notices after a consumer dies 

(as some industry commenters reported 

is done), and who, in doing so, start a 

new validation period, do not thereby 

violate the FDCPA or Regulation F. 

For the reasons discussed above, and 

pursuant to its authority under FDCPA 

section 814(d) to prescribe rules with 

respect to the collection of debts by debt 

collectors, the Bureau is finalizing 

§ 1006.2(e) as proposed to interpret the 

definition of consumer in FDCPA 

section 803(3) to mean any natural 

person, whether living or deceased, who 

is obligated or allegedly obligated to pay 

any debt. 

2(f) Consumer Financial Product or 

Service 

As discussed in the November 2020 

Final Rule, the Bureau proposed 

§ 1006.2(f) to define consumer financial 

product or service debt to mean any 

debt related to any consumer financial 

product or service, as consumer 

financial product or service is defined 

in section 1002(5) of the Dodd-Frank 

Act.89 As also discussed in the 

November 2020 Final Rule, the Bureau 

did not finalize § 1006.2(f) as part of that 

rulemaking because the Bureau did not 

finalize in that rulemaking any 

provisions for which the definition in 

proposed § 1006.2(f) would have been 

relevant. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

section-by-section analyses of 

§§ 1006.1(c) and 1006.34, the Bureau is 

adopting in this final rule two 

provisions (§ 1006.34(c)(2)(iii) and 

(3)(iv)) that apply to debt collectors only 

if they are collecting debt related to a 

consumer financial product or service. 

This includes, for example, debt 

collectors collecting debts related to 

consumer mortgage loans or credit 

cards.90 To facilitate compliance with 

those provisions, the Bureau is adopting 

§ 1006.2(f) to provide that consumer 

financial product or service has the 

meaning in section 1002(5) of the DoddFrank Act (12 U.S.C. 5481(5)). 

The Bureau notes that it originally 

proposed § 1006.2(f) to define the term 

‘‘consumer financial product or service 

debt.’’ However, because the relevant 

defined term in the Dodd-Frank Act is 

‘‘consumer financial product or 

service,’’ and because certain 

commenters observed that including 

two definitions of the term ‘‘debt’’ in the 

rule would be confusing, the Bureau is 

finalizing § 1006.2(f) to provide that the 

defined term in the rule is ‘‘consumer 

financial product or service’’ and that 

the term has the same meaning given to 

it in section 1002(5) of the Dodd-Frank 

Act. 

Subpart B—Rules for FDCPA Debt 

Collectors 

Section 1006.26 Collection of TimeBarred Debts 

The May 2019 proposal and the 

February 2020 proposal both addressed 

the collection of time-barred debt. In the 

May 2019 proposal, the Bureau 

proposed to define several terms 

(proposed § 1006.26(a)) and to prohibit 

debt collectors from bringing or 

threatening to bring legal actions against 

consumers to collect certain time-barred 

debts (proposed § 1006.26(b)). In the 

February 2020 proposal, the Bureau 

proposed to require debt collectors to 

provide disclosures if collecting certain 

time-barred debts (proposed 

§ 1006.26(c)). The February 2020 

proposal also included model language 

and forms that debt collectors could use 

to comply with the proposed disclosure 

requirements. In the November 2020 

Final Rule, the Bureau noted that it 

planned to address its proposals 

regarding time-barred debt in this final 

rule, and the Bureau reserved § 1006.26 

for that purpose. After considering the 

comments received in response to both 

the May 2019 and February 2020 

proposals, the Bureau is now finalizing 

proposed § 1006.26(a) and (b) with 

modifications as described below. The 

Bureau is not finalizing proposed 

§ 1006.26(c). 

26(a) Definitions 

Proposed § 1006.26(a) defined two 

terms not defined in the FDCPA: Statute 

of limitations and time-barred debt. The 

Bureau proposed to define these terms 

to facilitate compliance with proposed 

§ 1006.26(b) and (c). As discussed 

below, the Bureau is finalizing 

§ 1006.26(a) as proposed. The Bureau is 

finalizing § 1006.26(a) pursuant to its 

authority under FDCPA section 814(d) 

to prescribe rules with respect to the 

collection of debts by debt collectors. 

26(a)(1) Statute of Limitations 

Proposed § 1006.26(a)(1) defined the 

term statute of limitations to mean the 

period prescribed by applicable law for 

bringing a legal action against the 

consumer to collect a debt.91

Statutes of limitation, which typically 

are established by State law, provide 

time limits for bringing suit on legal 

claims. As the Bureau explained in the 

May 2019 proposal, statutes of 

limitation serve several purposes.92

First, statutes of limitations advance a 

defendant’s interest in repose. That is, 

they reflect a legislative judgment that it 

is ‘‘unjust to fail to put the adversary on 

notice to defend within a specified 

period of time.’’ 93 Second, statutes of 

limitations eliminate stale claims. That 

is, they 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
5776 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

94 Id. 

95 Young v. United States, 535 U.S. 43, 47 (2002) 

(quoting Rotella, 528 U.S. at 555). 

96See 84 FR 23274, 23328 (May 21, 2019). 97See, e.g., Cal. Civ. Code sec. 1788.52(d)(3); 

Conn. Gen. Stat. sec. 36a–805(a)(14); Mass. Code 

Regs., tit. 940, § 7.07(24); N.M. Code. R. sec. 

12.2.12.9(A); N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs., tit. 23, 

sec. 1.3; New York City, N.Y., Rules, tit. 6, sec. 2– 

191(a); W. Va. Code sec. 46a–2–128(f). 98See Fed. Trade Comm’n, The Structure and 

Practices of the Debt Buying Industry, at 49 (Jan. 

2013), https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/ 

documents/reports/structure-and-practices-debtbuying-industry/debtbuyingreport.pdf (FTC Debt 

Buying Report) (‘‘The data the Commission received 

from debt buyers suggests that debt buyers usually 

are likely to know or be able to determine whether 

the debts on which they are collecting are beyond 

the statute of limitations.’’). Similarly, the majority 

of respondents to the Bureau’s Debt Collection 

Operations Study reported always or often receiving 

certain information and documentation that may be 

relevant to determining whether a debt is time 

barred, such as debt balance at charge off, account 

agreement documentation, and billing statements. 

See CFPB Debt Collection Operations Study, supra 

note 37, at 23. 

99Another commenter seeking clarification on the 

scope of proposed § 1006.26(b) asserted that in rem 

enforcement of a security instrument is not 

inherently debt collection. The Bureau notes that 

§ 1006.26, like the rest of this final rule, applies 

only to FDCPA debt collectors. The Supreme Court 

recently held that a business engaged in no more 

than nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings is not an 

FDCPA debt collector, except for the limited 

purpose of FDCPA section 808(6). See Obduskey v. 

McCarthy & Holthus LLP, 139 S. Ct. 1029 (2019). 

FDCPA section 808(6) specifically prohibits taking 

or threatening to take any nonjudicial action in 

certain circumstances, such as where there is no 

present right to possession through an enforceable 

security instrument. 

memories, disappearance of documents, 

or otherwise.’’ 94 Third, statutes of 

limitations provide ‘‘certainty about a 

plaintiff’s opportunity for recovery and 

a defendant’s potential liabilities.’’ 95

For debt collection claims, the length of 

the applicable statute of limitations 

often varies by State and, within each 

State, by debt type. Although most 

statutes of limitations applicable to debt 

collection claims are between three and 

six years, some are as long as 15 years. 

Several commenters addressed 

proposed § 1006.26(a)(1). One industry 

commenter confirmed that the proposed 

definition of statute of limitations 

comported with debt collectors’ 

understanding of the term. A number of 

other industry commenters requested 

that the Bureau modify the definition to 

account for the fact that it can be 

challenging to determine the applicable 

statute of limitations in certain 

circumstances. For example, two 

industry commenters requested that the 

Bureau clarify that, in determining the 

applicable statute of limitations, a debt 

collector need only conduct a 

reasonable investigation based on 

objectively ascertainable facts, and that 

a debt collector would only be charged 

with knowing that the statute of 

limitations has expired if the law is 

clearly established. The commenters 

also requested that the Bureau more 

specifically define certain elements of 

the term statute of limitations to lessen 

the burden on debt collectors of 

determining whether a debt is time 

barred. For example, they suggested 

defining ‘‘applicable law’’ as the law of 

the jurisdiction where the consumer 

resides or is believed to reside at the 

time collections begin, or the law of the 

jurisdiction in which the consumer 

signed any underlying contract. 

Commenters suggested that these 

changes would make it easier for a debt 

collector to determine the statute of 

limitations applicable to a particular 

debt while protecting a debt collector 

from liability when it is difficult 

determine the exact date on which a 

debt becomes time barred. 

The Bureau is finalizing 

§ 1006.26(a)(1) as proposed. As industry 

commenters confirmed, the definition of 

statute of limitations in § 1006.26(a)(1) 

is consistent with debt collectors’ 

understanding of the term. The Bureau 

declines to modify the definition to 

identify the type of investigation a debt 

collector must or should undertake to 

ascertain the applicable statute of 

limitations. The Bureau also declines to 

define the term ‘‘applicable law’’ in the 

manner requested by commenters. The 

Bureau recognizes that, in some cases, it 

can be challenging and costly for a debt 

collector to determine what statute of 

limitations applies to a legal action 

against the consumer to collect a 

particular debt, and that, in some cases, 

the commenters’ suggestions could 

reduce those challenges and costs. The 

Bureau declines, however, to address 

the challenges and costs associated with 

determining whether a debt is time 

barred by modifying the definition of 

statute of limitations, a term with a 

meaning widely understood by debt 

collectors, or by defining new terms. 

Comments relating to the difficulty of 

determining whether a debt is time 

barred are discussed further in the 

section-by-section analysis of 

§ 1006.26(b). 

26(a)(2) Time-Barred Debt 

Proposed § 1006.26(a)(2) defined the 

term time-barred debt to mean a debt for 

which the applicable statute of 

limitations has expired.96

As the Bureau explained in the May 

2019 proposal, many debt collectors 

already determine whether the statute of 

limitations applicable to a debt has 

expired. Some do so to comply with 

State and local disclosure laws that 

require them to inform consumers when 

debts are time barred.97 Others do so to 

assess whether they can sue to collect 

the debt, which may affect their 

collection strategy. In addition, the 

information that debt buyers generally 

receive when bidding on and 

purchasing debts, and the information 

that other debt collectors generally 

receive at placement, may allow them to 

determine whether the applicable 

statute of limitations has expired.98

Several commenters addressed 

proposed § 1006.26(a)(2). An industry 

commenter confirmed that the proposed 

definition comported with debt 

collectors’ understanding of the term. 

Two other industry commenters 

expressed concern that the term timebarred debt may imply that a debt 

collector has no right at all to collect the 

debt, whereas in most jurisdictions a 

debt’s time-barred status only limits the 

debt collector’s right to recover on the 

debt through a lawsuit. Several industry 

commenters expressed concern that the 

proposal seemed to contemplate that a 

debt is a single amount that becomes 

time barred at a single moment in time 

and noted that not all debts operate in 

that manner. For example, these 

commenters stated that an installment 

loan could become time barred on a 

rolling basis depending on when each 

installment was due. In addition, 

according to some commenters, a legal 

action to collect a debt may be based on 

more than one legal theory or involve 

more than one cause of action, and each 

theory or cause of action may be subject 

to a different statute of limitations. 

Similarly, according to some 

commenters, certain secured debts may 

be subject to more than one method of 

suit and more than one statute of 

limitations. For example, these 

commenters asserted, in some States a 

mortgagee may choose whether to 

pursue a remedy at law on the note, a 

remedy in equity on the mortgage, or 

both, and the statute of limitations 

applicable to these claims may differ. 

Relatedly, one industry commenter 

asked the Bureau to clarify that debt 

collectors are not prohibited from taking 

legal action to enforce a lien even if a 

claim on the underlying obligation is 

time barred. Alternatively, the 

commenter asked the Bureau to clarify 

that the requirements of proposed 

§ 1006.26 would apply only when all 

causes of action associated with the 

underlying note and with the security 

instrument are time barred.99

The Bureau is finalizing 

§ 1006.26(a)(2) as proposed. As industry 

commenters confirmed, the definition of 

time-barred debt in § 1006.26(a)(2) is 

consistent with debt collectors’ 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 5777 

100See 84 FR 23274, 23328–29 (May 21, 2019). 

101 137 S. Ct. 1407 (2017). 

102See generally Midland Funding, LLC v. 

Johnson, 137 S. Ct. 1407, 1411–12 (2017) (noting 

that under ‘‘the law of many States . . . a creditor 

has the right to payment of a debt even after the 

limitations period expires,’’ and collecting State 

laws). In Mississippi and Wisconsin, however, 

debts are extinguished when the applicable statute 

of limitations expires. See Miss. Code Ann. sec. 15– 

1–3 (‘‘The completion of the period of limitation 

prescribed to bar any action, shall defeat and 

extinguish the right as well as the remedy.’’); Wis. 

Stat. Ann. sec. 893.05 (‘‘When the period within 

which an action may be commenced on a 

Wisconsin cause of action has expired, the right is 

extinguished as well as the remedy.’’). 

103Revival extinguishes the consumer’s right to 

raise the expiration of the statute of limitations as 

an affirmative defense to litigation; that is, it revives 

the debt collector’s right to sue to collect the debt. 

Although State revival laws vary, there are 

generally several circumstances in which revival 

occurs. First, in some States, a consumer’s partial 

payment on a time-barred debt revives the debt 

collector’s right to sue. Second, in some States, a 

consumer’s written acknowledgement of a timebarred debt revives the debt collector’s right to sue. 

Third, a consumer’s oral acknowledgement of a 

time-barred debt may revive the debt collector’s 

right to sue in some States. See, e.g., Lima v. 

Schmidt, 595 So. 2d 624, 631 (La. 1992) (‘‘Our 

courts have consistently held that renunciation 

must be clear, direct, and absolute and manifested 

by words or actions of the party in whose favor 

prescription has run.’’) (citations omitted); 22 Tenn. 

Pract. Contract Law and Practice § 12:88 (rev. Aug. 

2020) (‘‘[T]he defendant may revive a plaintiff’s 

remedy that has been barred by the statute of 

limitations. This event can occur either when the 

defendant expressly promises to pay a debt or when 

the defendant acknowledges the debt and expresses 

a willingness to pay it . . . . The expression of a 

defendant’s willingness to pay might be implied 

from the words or action of a debtor . . . .’’) 

(citations and internal quotation marks omitted). 

104See FTC Debt Buying Report, supra note 98, 

at 45 (observing that ‘‘90 percent or more of 

consumers sued in [debt collection actions] do not 

appear in court to defend,’’ which ‘‘creates a risk 

that consumer will be subject to a default judgment 

on a time-barred debt’’); Peter A. Holland, The One 

Hundred Billion Dollar Problem in Small Claims 

Court: Robo-Signing and Lack of Proof in Debt 

Buyer Cases, 6 J. Bus. & Tech. L. 259, 265 (2011) 

(‘‘In the majority of debt buyer cases, the courts 

grant the debt buyer a default judgment because the 

consumer has failed to appear for trial . . . . 

Debtors who do receive notice usually appear 

without legal representation.’’); CFPB Debt 

Collection Operations Study, supra note 37, at 18 

(observing that respondents reported obtaining 

default judgments in 60 to 90 percent of their filed 

suits); cf. Kimber v. Fed. Fin. Corp., 668 F. Supp. 

1480, 1478 (M.D. Ala. 1987) (‘‘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. And, even if the consumer realizes that 

she can use time as a defense, she will more than 

likely still give in rather than fight the lawsuit 

because she must still expend energy and resources 

and subject herself to the embarrassment of going 

into court to present the defense; this is particularly 

true in light of the costs of attorneys today.’’). 

105See 85 FR 12672, 12677–79 (Mar. 3, 2020). 

understanding of the term. In response 

to commenters’ concerns that the term 

time-barred debt might imply that a debt 

collector has no right to collect the debt, 

the Bureau notes that, in most 

jurisdictions, as commenters observed 

and as is discussed in the section-bysection analysis of § 1006.26(b), a debt 

is not extinguished when the statute of 

limitations expires. Rather, in these 

jurisdictions, a debt collector still may 

collect the debt using non-litigation 

means, such as telephone calls and 

letters, and the Bureau’s use of the term 

time-barred debt neither changes that 

fact nor is meant to imply otherwise. 

With respect to industry commenters’ 

concern about debts for which multiple 

statutes of limitation may be relevant, 

the Bureau notes that a debt is a timebarred debt under § 1006.26(a)(2) if the 

applicable statute of limitations has 

expired. The applicable statute of 

limitations depends on the specific legal 

action the debt collector takes or 

represents that it will take. For some 

debts, such as certain installment loans 

and secured debts, it may be the case 

that one claim associated with a debt is 

time barred while another claim 

associated with the debt is not. In such 

a case, the prohibitions in § 1006.26(b) 

apply to the time-barred claim only. 

26(b) Legal Actions and Threats of Legal 

Actions Prohibited 

The Bureau proposed § 1006.26(b) to 

prohibit a debt collector from bringing 

or threatening to bring a legal action 

against a consumer to collect a debt that 

the debt collector knows or should 

know is a time-barred debt.100 In 

response to comments, the Bureau is 

finalizing proposed § 1006.26(b) with 

two principal changes. First, the Bureau 

is not adopting the proposed knows-orshould-know standard; instead, a debt 

collector may violate final § 1006.26(b) 

even if the debt collector neither knew 

nor should have known that a debt was 

time barred. Second, consistent with the 

Supreme Court’s decision in Midland 

Funding, LLC v. Johnson, the final rule 

clarifies that the prohibitions in 

§ 1006.26(b) do not apply to proofs of 

claim filed in bankruptcy 

proceedings.101

Prohibitions 

As the Bureau explained in the May 

2019 proposal, in most States the 

expiration of the applicable statute of 

limitations, if raised by the consumer as 

an affirmative defense, precludes the 

debt collector from recovering on the 

debt using judicial processes, but it does 

not extinguish the debt itself.102 In other 

words, in most States a debt collector 

may use non-litigation means to collect 

a time-barred debt, as long as those 

means do not violate the FDCPA or 

other laws. If a debt collector does sue 

to collect a time-barred debt, and if the 

consumer proves the expiration of the 

statute of limitations as an affirmative 

defense, the court will dismiss the suit. 

Suits and threats of suit on timebarred debts can harm consumers in 

multiple ways. A debt collector’s threat 

to sue on a time-barred debt may 

prompt some consumers to pay or 

prioritize that debt over others in the 

mistaken belief that doing so is 

necessary to avoid litigation. In some 

jurisdictions, a consumer’s payment on 

or acknowledgement of a debt can 

revive the debt collector’s right to sue 

for the entire amount, opening the 

consumer to new legal liability.103

Similarly, suits on time-barred debts 

may lead to judgments against 

consumers on claims for which those 

consumers had meritorious defenses, 

including defenses based on the statute 

of limitations. Few consumers who are 

sued for allegedly unpaid debts— 

whether time barred or not—actually 

defend themselves in court, and those 

who do often are unrepresented. As a 

result, the vast majority of judgments on 

unpaid debts, including on time-barred 

debts, are default judgments, entered 

solely on the representations contained 

in the debt collector’s complaint.104

Consumer and consumer advocate 

commenters generally supported the 

prohibitions in proposed § 1006.26(b). 

Many of these commenters also argued 

that, to prevent deception, the Bureau 

should prohibit the collection of timebarred debt altogether, even though the 

Bureau did not propose such a 

prohibition in the May 2019 proposal or 

the February 2020 proposal. The Bureau 

certainly supports measures to prevent 

deception because of the harm it causes 

to consumers. However, the Bureau 

concludes that is not necessary to ban 

the collection of time-barred debt to 

prevent potential deception. As 

discussed in the February 2020 

proposal, the Bureau’s quantitative 

testing generally indicates that 

disclosures, in certain situations, can be 

effective in curing the potential 

deception associated with the collection 

of time-barred debt.105 The Bureau 

concludes that a prohibition on the 

collection of time-barred debt would 

impose significant burden on debt 

collectors to identify such debts and 

would decrease the value of time-barred 

debts to little or nothing; a debt has 

little or no value if the owner cannot 

collect the debt either in litigation or 

outside of litigation. The Bureau 

declines to impose such extraordinarily 

large costs because much less costly 

measures—namely, disclosures—can be 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
5778 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

106See, e.g., ACA Int’l v. Healey, 457 F. Supp. 3d 

17, 25–26 (D. Mass. 2020); Stover v. Fingerhut 

Direct Mktg., 709 F. Supp. 2d 473, 479 (S.D. W.Va. 

2009). 

107See Cent. Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Pub. 

Serv. Comm’n, 447 U.S. 557, 566 (1980). 

108 In re R.M.J., 455 U.S. 191, 203 (1982); see also 

Pearson v. Shalala, 164 F.3d 650 (D.C. Cir. 1999). 

109See, e.g., Consent Order ¶¶ 65–69, In re Encore 

Capital Grp., Inc., No. 2015–CFPB–0022 (Sept. 9, 

2015), http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201509_

cfpb_consent-order-encore-capital-group.pdf; 

Consent Order ¶¶ 56–59, In re Portfolio Recovery 

Assocs. LLC, No. 2015–CFPB–0023 (Sept. 9, 2015), 

http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201509_cfpb_

consent-order-portfolio-recovery-associates-llc.pdf; 

see also Complaint ¶¶ 30–35, Bureau of Consumer 

Fin. Prot. v. Encore Capital Grp., Inc., No. 

2020CV1750 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2020), https://

www.consumerfinance.gov/documents/9167/cfpb_

encore-capital-group-et-al_complaint_2020-08.pdf. 

110See, e.g., Kimber, 668 F. Supp. at 1489 (‘‘By 

threatening to sue Kimber on her alleged debt . . . 

FFC implicit[ly] represented that it could recover in 

a lawsuit, when in fact it cannot properly do so.’’). 

111See FMG Focus Group Report, supra note 26, 

at 9–10; FMG Cognitive Report, supra note 27, at 

36–37; FMG Summary Report, supra note 29, at 35– 

36; see also Fed. Trade Comm’n, Repairing a 

Broken System: Protecting Consumers in Debt 

Collection Litigation and Arbitration at iii, 26 (July 

2010), https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/ 

documents/reports/federal-trade-commissionbureau-consumer-protection-staff-report-repairingbroken-system-protecting/debtcollectionreport.pdf 

(FTC Litigation Report). 

112See, e.g., Pantoja v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., 

LLC, 852 F.3d 679, 683–84 (7th Cir. 2017); 

McMahon v. LVNV Funding, LLC, 744 F.3d 1010, 

1020 (7th Cir. 2014); Phillips v. Asset Acceptance, 

LLC, 736 F.3d 1076, 1079 (7th Cir. 2013); Huertas 

effective in preventing potential 

deception. 

Moreover, the Bureau emphasizes that 

prohibiting the collection of time-barred 

debt when doing so is unnecessary to 

prevent potential deception is 

inconsistent with the First Amendment 

limitations on the Bureau’s authority to 

ban commercial speech. Courts have 

held that a debt collector who asks a 

consumer to pay a debt is engaging in 

commercial speech.106 Prohibiting the 

collection of time-barred debt therefore 

would restrict commercial speech. The 

Supreme Court has held that restrictions 

on commercial speech are permissible 

when they: (1) Are supported by a 

substantial government interest; (2) 

directly advance that interest; and (3) 

are no more extensive than necessary to 

serve that interest.107 If the potential 

deception associated with the collection 

of time-barred debt can be cured by a 

disclosure, then prohibiting the 

collection of time-barred debt would 

impose a restriction that is more 

extensive than necessary.108 As noted 

above, the Bureau’s quantitative testing 

generally indicates that, in certain 

situations involving the collection of 

time-barred debt, disclosures can be 

effective in curing potential deception. 

Therefore, the Bureau declines to 

finalize a prohibition on the collection 

of time-barred debt. 

In addition to consumers and 

consumer advocates, several industry 

commenters, Federal agency staff, and 

one local government commenter 

expressed support for the proposed 

prohibitions. Commenters who 

supported the proposed prohibitions 

asserted that suits and threats of suit on 

time-barred debts may induce 

consumers to make payments they 

otherwise would not make. Some 

consumer advocate commenters noted 

that these payments can revive the debt 

collector’s right to sue in certain 

jurisdictions. Additionally, consumer 

advocate commenters asserted that 

consumers often assume that the mere 

filing of a lawsuit means that they owe 

the debt, that the amount owed is 

accurately stated, and that the debt 

collector has the legal right to collect the 

debt, whereas in fact the debt collector 

may lack support for its claims. These 

commenters also asserted that 

consumers generally lack the knowledge 

and resources to defend their rights in 

court, and, as a consequence, many 

claims result in default judgments on 

debts that were not legally enforceable. 

Consumer advocate commenters also 

provided anecdotes and pointed to 

recent enforcement actions to show that 

debt collectors continue to sue and 

threaten to sue on time-barred debt.109

One industry commenter who 

supported elements of proposed 

§ 1006.26(b) acknowledged that 

proposed § 1006.26(b) is consistent with 

long-standing FDCPA case law. 

Several industry commenters who 

opposed proposed § 1006.26(b) argued 

that the Bureau should not prohibit 

suits and threats of suit on time-barred 

debt because, in most jurisdictions, 

expiration of the statute of limitations 

does not prohibit a debt collector from 

bringing suit but rather provides the 

consumer with an affirmative defense to 

liability. According to these 

commenters, proposed § 1006.26(b) 

would effectively preempt State 

affirmative defense laws by making 

expiration of the statute of limitations a 

total bar to suit, thereby interfering with 

debt collectors’ right to legal recourse 

under State law. Relatedly, an industry 

commenter argued that State courts are 

capable of addressing situations in 

which a debt collector sues to collect a 

time-barred debt, including by 

dismissing the debt collector’s claim 

and awarding sanctions if appropriate. 

Another industry commenter asserted 

that consumers should be responsible 

for tracking the legal obligations 

associated with their debts, and that it 

would be unduly burdensome to require 

debt collectors to determine whether a 

debt is time barred, particularly for debt 

collectors who are small businesses. 

Some industry commenters argued 

that the Bureau lacks the authority to 

prohibit suits and threats of suit on 

time-barred debts. For example, several 

industry commenters argued that 

proposed § 1006.26(b) exceeds the 

Bureau’s authority because, in their 

view, nothing in the FDCPA permits the 

Bureau to preempt State laws relating to 

debt collection or access to courts or 

establishes a Federal role in determining 

State law defenses. Similarly, one 

industry commenter asserted that 

proposed § 1006.26(b) contradicts the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 

State-law equivalents and abridges a 

debt collector’s right to petition the 

courts. The commenter pointed to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, 

pursuant to which an attorney’s claims, 

defenses, and other legal contentions 

must be warranted by existing law or by 

a nonfrivolous argument for extending, 

modifying, or reversing existing law or 

for establishing new law. According to 

this commenter, the proposed 

prohibitions conflict with Rule 11 and 

its equivalents by discouraging debt 

collectors from filing legitimate lawsuits 

that argue in good faith for the 

modification or reversal of existing law. 

Final § 1006.26(b) prohibits a debt 

collector from bringing or threatening to 

bring a legal action against a consumer 

to collect a time-barred debt. A debt 

collector who sues or threatens to sue a 

consumer to collect a time-barred debt 

explicitly or implicitly misrepresents to 

the consumer that the debt is legally 

enforceable, and that misrepresentation 

is material to consumers because it may 

affect their conduct with regard to the 

collection of that debt, including 

whether to pay it.110 The Bureau’s 

consumer testing suggests that 

consumers often are uncertain about 

their rights concerning time-barred 

debt.111 Consumers sued or threatened 

with suit on a time-barred debt 

generally do not recognize that the debt 

is time barred, that time-barred debts are 

unenforceable in court, or that they 

must raise the expiration of the statute 

of limitations as an affirmative defense. 

The prohibitions in final § 1006.26(b) 

generally are consistent with the current 

state of the law. Multiple courts have 

held that suits and threats of suit on 

time-barred debt violate the FDCPA, 

reasoning that such practices violate 

FDCPA section 807’s prohibition on 

false or misleading representations, 

FDCPA section 808’s prohibition on 

unfair practices, or both.112 The FTC 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 5779 

v. Galaxy Asset Mgmt., 641 F.3d 28, 33 (3d Cir. 

2011) (per curiam); Goins v. JBC & Assocs., P.C., 

352 F. Supp. 2d 262, 273 (D. Conn. 2005); Kimber, 

668 F. Supp. at 1487–89. 

113FTC Litigation Report, supra note 111, at 23. 

114See, e.g., Goins, 352 F. Supp. 2d at 272 

(holding that, although the statute of limitations is 

an affirmative defense, threatening to bring suit on 

time-barred debt ‘‘can at best be described as a 

‘misleading’ representation, in violation of 

§ 1692e,’’ because the statute of limitations is a 

complete defense to any suit). 

115See, e.g., Aguilar v. LVNV Funding LLC, No. 

2:19–cv–105, 2019 WL 3369706, at *3–4 (M.D. Fla. 

July 26, 2019); Tobing v. Parker McCay, P.A., No. 

3:17–cv–00474, 2018 WL 2002799, at *9 (D.N.J. 

Apr. 30, 2018); Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau v. 

Frederick J. Hanna & Assocs., P.C., 114 F. Supp. 3d 

1342, 1359–61 (N.D. Ga. 2015); Johnson v. Riddle, 

305 F.3d 1107, 1118 (10th Cir. 2002). 

also has concluded that the FDCPA bars 

actual and threatened suits on timebarred debt.113 In addition, the 

prohibitions in final § 1006.26(b) 

generally are consistent with current 

industry practice. For example, a 

number of industry commenters stated 

they do not sue or threaten to sue on 

time-barred debt as a matter of policy, 

and one trade group commenter stated 

that it requires its members to refrain 

from suing or threatening to sue on 

time-barred debts. 

The Bureau recognizes that, in most 

jurisdictions, expiration of the statute of 

limitations provides the consumer with 

an affirmative defense to liability, but it 

does not bar a debt collector from 

bringing suit. The Bureau concludes, 

however, that consumers are unlikely to 

know whether the applicable statute of 

limitations has expired or that the 

expiration of the statute of limitations 

provides an affirmative defense. Suits 

and threats of suit on time-barred debts 

therefore imply to the least 

sophisticated consumer not simply that 

the debt collector may sue or has sued 

the consumer but also that the debt 

collector’s claim is legally enforceable. 

For time-barred debts, this is misleading 

because expiration of the statute of 

limitations provides the consumer with 

a complete defense.114 Accordingly, the 

Bureau concludes that bringing or 

threatening to bring a legal action to 

collect a time-barred debt is a deceptive 

practice under FDCPA section 807 even 

if expiration of the statute of limitations 

is an affirmative defense rather than a 

categorical bar to suit. 

As explained below, the Bureau is 

finalizing § 1006.26(b) as an 

interpretation of FDCPA section 807’s 

prohibition on deception; such an 

interpretation is squarely within the 

Bureau’s authority under FDCPA 

section 814(d) to prescribe rules with 

respect to the collection of debts by debt 

collectors. Contrary to commenters’ 

claims, § 1006.26(b) does not preempt 

State laws relating to when a debt 

collector may bring a lawsuit in State 

court. Rather, it provides that a debt 

collector who sues or threatens to sue a 

consumer to collect a time-barred debt 

violates the FDCPA even if applicable 

State law permits the suit. In addition, 

contrary to commenters’ assertions, 

§ 1006.26(b) does not exceed the 

Bureau’s authority by regulating access 

to the courts or litigation activities. Debt 

collectors have repeatedly argued that 

they cannot be held liable under the 

FDCPA for actions taken in litigation 

because, for example, the United States 

Constitution allows debt collectors to 

petition the courts, or because the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (or 

their State equivalents) allow debt 

collectors to argue for the modification 

or reversal of existing law. Many courts 

have rejected such arguments, generally 

reasoning that the FDCPA 

unquestionably applies to litigation 

activities.115 The fact that expiration of 

a State’s statute of limitations may not 

extinguish a debt under State law or bar 

a lawsuit in State court unless an 

affirmative defense is raised and proven 

does not render the FDCPA’s 

prohibition on using deceptive or 

misleading representations or means in 

debt collection inapplicable. There is 

nothing unusual about the proposition 

that some behavior permitted by State 

law may nevertheless violate Federal 

law. Moreover, nothing in § 1006.26(b) 

prohibits a debt collector from bringing 

a legal action against a consumer in 

which the debt collector argues for an 

extension, modification, or reversal of 

existing law or the establishment of new 

law—including a legal action in which 

the debt collector argues that a debt is 

not time barred. Debt collectors remain 

free to do so. But a debt collector who 

brings such an action may violate 

§ 1006.26(b) if a court ultimately 

determines that the debt was time 

barred. 

Liability Standard 

Proposed § 1006.26(b) would have 

prohibited a debt collector from 

bringing or threatening to bring a legal 

action against a consumer to collect a 

time-barred debt only if the debt 

collector knew or should have known 

the debt was time barred. 

In proposing a knows-or-should-know 

standard, the Bureau explained that 

determining whether a debt is time 

barred may involve analyzing which 

State law applies, which statute of 

limitations applies, when the statute of 

limitations began to run, and whether 

the statute of limitations has been tolled 

or reset. In many cases, a debt collector 

will know, or will be able to readily 

determine, whether the statute of 

limitations has expired. In some 

instances, however, a debt collector may 

be genuinely uncertain even after 

undertaking a reasonable investigation, 

such as if the case law in a State is 

unclear as to which statute of 

limitations applies to a particular type 

of debt. The proposed knows-or-shouldknow standard was meant to address 

this concern by not imposing liability 

on a debt collector if it had no way of 

knowing that a particular debt was time 

barred. But the Bureau also 

acknowledged that it sometimes may be 

difficult to determine whether a knowsor-should-know standard has been met. 

Such uncertainty could increase 

litigation costs and make it difficult for 

consumers and government agencies to 

bring actions against debt collectors. To 

address this concern, the Bureau sought 

comment on an alternative strict 

liability standard pursuant to which a 

debt collector would be liable for suing 

or threatening to sue on a time-barred 

debt even if the debt collector neither 

knew nor should have known that the 

debt was time barred. 

Industry commenters generally did 

not support a strict liability standard. 

These commenters generally agreed that 

it can be difficult for a debt collector to 

determine whether a debt is time barred 

and asserted that holding debt collectors 

strictly liable for good faith errors would 

be unduly harsh. These commenters 

stated, for example, that determining the 

applicable statute of limitations and 

whether it has expired may require 

analyzing a variety of factual and legal 

questions specific to the debt, and that, 

in many cases, a debt collector may 

reach the wrong conclusion even after 

undertaking a reasonable investigation 

and analysis. Industry commenters 

asserted that debt collectors may be 

unable to reliably determine the statute 

of limitations before filing suit because 

the law is unclear, because some 

information relevant to the analysis may 

be unavailable, or both. Some industry 

commenters also asserted that the 

analysis may change over time. For 

example, according to these 

commenters, a consumer’s decision to 

move to a different State after signing a 

loan agreement could affect a debt 

collector’s analysis of which State law 

applies and whether the statute of 

limitations has been tolled. As another 

example, an industry commenter stated 

that, in certain jurisdictions, the statute 

of limitations applicable to mortgage 

debt is in flux because of unprecedented 

access by consumers to loss mitigation 

and an increase in bankruptcy filings in 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
5780 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

116A group of academic commenters challenged 

the Bureau’s assertion that debt buyers generally 

receive enough information to determine whether a 

debt is time barred. These commenters noted that 

fewer than half of respondents to the Bureau’s 

industry survey reported receiving account 

agreement documentation or billing statements, 

information that the commenters believed would 

help a debt collector calculate the applicable statute 

of limitations and whether it has expired. 

the wake of the foreclosure crisis. 

Several industry commenters also 

expressed concern that debt collectors 

who are not attorneys may have 

particular difficulty making an accurate 

time-barred debt determination. For 

these reasons, industry commenters 

asserted that a strict liability standard, 

which would leave no room for error, 

would expose debt collectors to liability 

even though it would be challenging or 

very costly in many circumstances to 

determine if a debt is time barred. 

Some industry commenters supported 

the proposed knows-or-should-know 

standard. These commenters generally 

asserted that the proposed standard 

would help debt collectors avoid 

liability for good-faith mistakes in 

determining whether a debt is time 

barred—something industry 

commenters argued is important given 

the complexity and uncertainty of 

certain time-barred debt analyses. One 

industry commenter asserted that the 

proposed standard also would 

adequately protect consumers from 

harm. However, several industry 

commenters who expressed general 

support for the proposed standard also 

asked the Bureau to provide additional 

guidance, including examples of 

circumstances in which a debt collector 

neither knows nor should know that a 

debt is time barred. 

Not all industry commenters 

supported the proposed knows-orshould-know standard. Some industry 

commenters argued that the proposed 

standard was vague and subjective and 

could increase litigation risk rather than 

mitigating it. Other industry 

commenters asked the Bureau to clarify 

that the knows-or-should-know 

standard depends on the specific 

understanding and sophistication of the 

particular debt collector. They asserted, 

for example, that what an attorney debt 

collector knows or should know about 

a debt’s time-barred status may differ 

from what a non-attorney debt collector 

knows or should know. 

Some industry commenters who 

opposed the proposed knows-or-shouldknow standard offered alternative 

standards. For example, several industry 

commenters recommended that the 

Bureau finalize a reasonable 

investigation standard such that a debt 

collector who sued or threatened to sue 

to collect a time-barred debt would not 

be liable if the debt collector undertook 

a reasonable investigation before doing 

so. Similarly, some industry 

commenters argued that a debt collector 

who acts in good faith should not be 

liable for suits and threats of suit on 

time-barred debts. Other industry 

commenters suggested that the Bureau 

finalize a liability standard akin to 

qualified immunity such that a debt 

collector who sued or threatened to sue 

to collect a time-barred debt would not 

be liable unless the applicable statute of 

limitations was clearly established. 

Other industry commenters suggested 

that the Bureau finalize an actual 

knowledge standard such that a debt 

collector who sued or threatened to sue 

on a time-barred debt would be liable 

only if the debt collector knew the debt 

was time barred. 

Some commenters suggested that the 

Bureau finalize various safe harbors for 

debt collectors. For example, industry 

commenters recommended safe harbors 

for debt collectors collecting debts of a 

certain age and for debt collectors who 

rely on information provided by the 

creditor. Other industry commenters 

suggested that a debt collector who 

maintains and follows reasonable 

procedures for determining whether a 

debt is time barred should receive a safe 

harbor from liability in the event that 

the debt collector inadvertently sues or 

threatens to sue on a time-barred debt. 

One industry commenter requested that 

the Bureau specifically confirm that 

FDCPA section 813(c)’s bona fide error 

defense would apply to violations of 

§ 1006.26(b). 

Other commenters, including 

consumers, consumer advocates, 

academics, some members of Congress, 

a group of State Attorneys General, and 

several local governments, urged the 

Bureau to adopt a strict liability 

standard. Although some of these 

commenters acknowledged that 

determining whether a debt is time 

barred can be complicated,116 others 

argued that determining whether a debt 

is time barred is relatively 

straightforward in most cases. One 

commenter suggested that, if the Bureau 

finalizes the proposed knows-or-shouldknow standard, the Bureau should 

clarify that in most cases a debt 

collector will know (or should know) 

whether the statute of limitations has 

run because in most cases debt 

collectors have the necessary 

information to make the determination. 

Some consumer advocate commenters 

who argued for a strict liability standard 

stated that it would incentivize debt 

collectors to determine whether a debt 

is time barred before threatening or 

filing suit. Some consumer advocate 

commenters suggested that this would 

help reduce the consumer protection 

risks associated with the collection of 

time-barred debt, including the risk that 

consumers may be unable to adequately 

protect their rights in court and the risk 

that consumers may make a payment on 

the debt under the misimpression that 

the debt is legally enforceable, which 

could revive the debt collector’s right to 

sue. Some commenters expressed 

concern that the proposed knows-orshould-know standard would not 

adequately incentivize debt collectors to 

determine the time-barred status of 

debts. Around two dozen members of 

Congress asserted that finalizing a 

knows-or-should-know standard 

without additional protections could 

encourage willful ignorance on the part 

of a debt collector about the time-barred 

status of a debt. A group of State 

Attorneys General and some consumer 

advocate commenters similarly argued 

that a knows-or-should-know standard 

would promote willful ignorance by 

debt collectors. 

A number of commenters, including 

consumer advocate commenters and a 

group of State Attorneys General, 

advocated a strict liability standard 

because, in their view, debt collectors 

generally have more resources and 

expertise and better access to 

information than consumers. These 

commenters generally asserted that it 

would often be difficult for a consumer 

to establish that a debt was time barred 

and that the debt collector knew or 

should have known that fact. 

Many of these commenters also 

argued that the proposed knows-orshould-know standard was inconsistent 

with the FDCPA (which some 

commenters described as a strict 

liability statute) and with FDCPA 

section 807’s prohibition on deception 

(which does not include a knowledge 

element). Some commenters pointed out 

that, because FDCPA section 813(c) 

provides debt collectors with a bona 

fide error defense to liability in certain 

circumstances, a strict liability standard 

would not expose debt collectors to 

undue liability. Commenters also argued 

that the proposed knows-or-shouldknow standard was inconsistent with 

case law imposing or implying a strict 

liability standard when evaluating 

claims that a debt collector sued or 

threatened to sue to collect a timebarred debt. Several commenters agreed 

with the Bureau that a strict liability 

standard generally would reduce 

ambiguity and be easier to enforce than 

the proposed knows-or-should-know 

standard. Federal government agency 

staff encouraged the Bureau to consider 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 5781 

117For the same reasons, the Bureau concludes 

that the alternative standards proposed by industry 

commenters—including, for example, an actual 

knowledge standard, a reasonable-investigation 

standard, or a clearly-established-law standard—are 

generally inconsistent with FDCPA section 807. 

118See, e.g., Pantoja, v. Portfolio Recovery 

Assocs., LLC, 852 F.3d 679, 683 (7th Cir. 2017); 

Buchanan v. Northland Grp., Inc., 776 F.3d 393, 

399 (6th Cir. 2015); Phillips v. Asset Acceptance, 

LLC, 736 F.3d 1076, 1083–84 (7th Cir. 2013); Clark 

v. Capital Credit & Collection Servs., 460 F.3d 1162, 

1176 (9th Cir. 2006); Gearing v. Check Brokerage 

Corp., 233 F.3d 469, 472 (7th Cir. 2000). 

119See, e.g., POM Wonderful, LLC v. FTC, 777 

F.3d 478, 497 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (‘‘We acknowledge 

that RCTs [i.e., randomized clinical trials] may be 

costly. . . . Yet if the cost of an RCT proves 

prohibitive, petitioners can choose to specify a 

lower level of substantiation for their claims. As the 

Commission observed, the need for RCTs is driven 

by the claims petitioners have chosen to make.’’) 

(internal brackets and quotation marks omitted); In 

re POM Wonderful LLC, 2013 WL 268926, at *50 

(F.T.C. Jan. 16, 2013) (rejecting argument that an 

advertiser may ‘‘make particular claims that go 

beyond the substantiation it possesses and then ask 

the Commission to excuse the inadequacy of its 

support by asserting that [the] advertiser did the 

best it could because the proper substantiation for 

the actual claim would be too expensive’’); In re 

Kroger Co., 98 F.T.C. 639, 737 (1981) (‘‘Where the 

demands of the purse require such compromises, 

the advertiser must generally limit the claims it 

makes for its data or make appropriate disclosures 

to insure proper consumer understanding of the 

survey’s results.’’). 

120See Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer 

& Ulrich LPA, 559 U.S. 573 (2010) (holding that 

bona fide error defense is not available when 

FDCPA violation arises from a debt collector’s 

mistaken interpretation of FDCPA’s legal 

requirements but noting that bona fide error defense 

is available when FDCPA violation arises from 

certain other types of errors). 

121Commenters also asked the Bureau to adopt a 

number of interventions that the Bureau did not 

propose, such as a prohibition on revival and a 

prohibition on perpetual tolling, which commenters 

asserted prevents a statute of limitations from ever 

expiring in certain circumstances. The Bureau did 

not propose these interventions and it is not 

finalizing them. 

122A consumer advocate commenter argued that 

the rule should expressly prohibit filing a 

bankruptcy proof of claim to recover a time-barred 

debt. 

123 137 S. Ct. 1407 (2017). 

further whether a knows-or-shouldknow standard would place an 

unnecessary burden on law enforcement 

agencies. 

The Bureau is not finalizing the 

proposed knows-or-should-know 

standard and is instead finalizing a 

strict liability standard. Although 

determining whether a debt is time 

barred can be challenging or costly in 

certain circumstances, the Bureau 

concludes that the proposed knows-orshould-know standard is generally 

inconsistent with FDCPA section 807, 

which does not include an exception or 

exclusion for debt collectors whose 

deceptive statements are unintentional 

or for whom ensuring that a statement 

is not deceptive is burdensome.117 The 

Bureau also concludes that a strict 

liability standard is more consistent 

with FDCPA section 807’s prohibition 

on deception, as well as case law 

imposing or implying such a standard 

when evaluating claims under FDCPA 

section 807 generally and claims related 

to suits and threats of suit on timebarred debt specifically.118

Moreover, the Bureau notes that a 

knows-or-should-know standard could, 

in some circumstances, shift the risk 

that a claim is deceptive from debt 

collectors to consumers. As explained 

above, suits and threats of suit on timebarred debt can cause consumer harm. 

In a case in which it is difficult or costly 

to determine whether a debt is time 

barred, a knows-or-should-know 

standard could allow debt collectors to 

avoid liability for causing such harm. In 

other consumer protection contexts, 

courts and the FTC have recognized that 

an advertiser who makes an 

unsubstantiated claim may be liable for 

deception even if the cost of 

substantiating the claim is high or 

prohibitively expensive.119 The 

Bureau’s decision to finalize a strict 

liability standard is generally consistent 

with this principle. 

The Bureau emphasizes that, although 

a strict liability standard might create 

some risk for debt collectors if a debt’s 

time-barred status is unclear, debt 

collectors have multiple ways to manage 

such risk. In particular, a debt collector 

can avoid liability under § 1006.26(b) by 

confirming that the statute of limitations 

has not expired before bringing or 

threatening to bring a legal action. 

Similarly, a debt collector who is 

ultimately unable to determine with 

certainty whether a debt is time barred 

can avoid liability under § 1006.26(b) by 

refraining from bringing or threatening 

to bring a legal action while, in most 

States, continuing with non-litigation 

collection activities. Moreover, a debt 

collector who brings or threatens to 

bring a legal action against a consumer 

to collect a time-barred debt may, 

depending upon the reason for the debt 

collector’s error, have a defense to civil 

liability under FDCPA section 813 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.120 For these reasons, the 

Bureau concludes that finalizing a strict 

liability standard under § 1006.26(b) 

does not pose an undue risk of liability 

for debt collectors, even in cases in 

which a debt collector is unable to 

determine with certainty whether a debt 

is time barred. 

Requests for Clarification 

Several commenters asked the Bureau 

to clarify the scope of proposed 

§ 1006.26(b)’s prohibitions.121 Two 

industry commenters suggested that the 

term ‘‘legal action’’ is unclear and could 

be interpreted to encompass any action 

in any court of law or equity. These 

commenters suggested replacing ‘‘legal 

action’’ with ‘‘lawsuit,’’ asserting that, 

although ‘‘legal action’’ and ‘‘lawsuit’’ 

have overlapping meanings, ‘‘lawsuit’’ 

has a narrower connotation that 

excludes certain legal actions, such as 

bankruptcy proceedings. Alternatively, 

these commenters argued that, if the 

Bureau declines to change the term legal 

action, the prohibitions in proposed 

§ 1006.26(b) should be adjusted to 

specifically exclude certain types of 

legal actions, such as garnishment 

actions, probate actions, and the filing 

of proofs of claim in bankruptcy 

proceedings.122 Another commenter 

asked the Bureau to clarify that, for 

purposes of proposed § 1006.26(b), the 

term ‘‘legal action’’ does not include 

‘‘non-original complaints,’’ such as 

amended complaints, supplemental 

complaints, complaints re-filed after a 

prior dismissal without prejudice, postjudgment court filings, or post-judgment 

communications (such as executions or 

garnishments). 

Final § 1006.26(b) uses the term ‘‘legal 

action.’’ In Midland Funding, LLC v. 

Johnson, the Supreme Court held that 

filing a proof of claim on a time-barred 

debt in a bankruptcy proceeding does 

not violate the FDCPA sections 807 or 

808.123 Consistent with Midland, the 

final rule clarifies that § 1006.26(b) does 

not prohibit the filing of proofs of claim 

in a bankruptcy proceeding. The Bureau 

does not see a basis to categorically 

exclude other types of legal actions, 

such as garnishment and probate 

actions, from the prohibitions in 

§ 1006.26(b). No other section of the 

FDCPA pertaining to legal actions 

contains a similar exclusion, and the 

commenters did not explain why they 

believe an exclusion is merited here. 

At least one industry commenter 

asked the Bureau to clarify the types of 

actions and statements that qualify as a 

threat of legal action or that could be 

interpreted by a consumer as a threat of 

legal action. The Bureau declines to do 

so at this time. Whether a particular 

action or statement constitutes a threat 

of legal action depends on the facts and 

circumstances of the particular case. 

Nevertheless, the Bureau notes that 

§ 1006.26(b) prohibits not only explicit 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
5782 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

124A consumer advocate commenter requested 

that the Bureau clarify that a debt collector who 

brings or threatens to bring a legal action against a 

consumer to collect a time-barred debt also violates 

the Dodd-Frank Act. The Bureau is finalizing 

§ 1006.26(b) as an interpretation of FDCPA section 

807 only. 

125See, e.g., Pantoja, 852 F.3d at 683; McMahon, 

744 F.3d at 1020; Phillips, 736 F.3d at 1079; Kimber, 

668 F. Supp. at 1488–89. 

126Specifically, proposed § 1006.26(c)(1) would 

have required a debt collector collecting a debt that 

the debt collector knows or should know is a timebarred debt to disclose (i) that the law limits how 

long a consumer can be sued for a debt and that, 

because of the age of the debt, the debt collector 

will not sue the consumer to collect it; and (ii) if, 

under applicable law, the debt collector’s right to 

bring a legal action against the consumer can be 

revived, then the fact that revival can occur and the 

circumstances in which it can occur. 85 FR 12672, 

12696 (Mar. 3, 2020). 

127See id. at 12678–79. 

128Courts have applied an objective standard of 

an ‘‘unsophisticated’’ or ‘‘least sophisticated’’ 

consumer to claims brought under FDCPA section 

807. Jensen v. Pressler & Pressler, 791 F.3d 413, 419 

(3d Cir. 2015) (‘‘The standard is an objective one, 

meaning that the specific plaintiff need not prove 

that she was actually confused or misled, only that 

the objective least sophisticated debtor would be.’’); 

Hartman v. Great Seneca Fin. Corp., 569 F.3d 606, 

613 (6th Cir. 2009) (applying least sophisticated 

consumer standard to section 807 claim); Bentley v. 

Great Lakes Collection Bureau, 6 F.3d 60, 62 (2d 

Cir. 1993) (same); Swanson v. S. Or. Credit Serv., 

Inc., 869 F.2d 1222, 1227 (9th Cir. 1988) (per 

curiam) (same). This standard ‘‘protects the 

consumer who is uninformed, naive, or trusting, yet 

it admits an objective element of reasonableness.’’ 

Gammon v. GC Servs. Ltd. P’ship, 27 F.3d 1254, 

1257 (7th Cir. 1994). As discussed in part IV, the 

Bureau interprets FDCPA sections 807 to 

incorporate an objective, ‘‘unsophisticated’’ or 

‘‘least sophisticated’’ consumer standard. 

threats of legal action but also implicit 

ones. 

For the reasons discussed above, the 

Bureau is finalizing § 1006.26(b), which 

provides that a debt collector must not 

bring or threaten to bring a legal action 

against a consumer to collect a timebarred debt. Section 1006.26(b) also 

states that these prohibitions do not 

apply to proofs of claim filed in 

connection with a bankruptcy 

proceeding. The Bureau is finalizing 

§ 1006.26(b) as an interpretation of 

FDCPA section 807. FDCPA section 807 

generally prohibits debt collectors from 

using ‘‘any false, deceptive, or 

misleading representation or means in 

connection with the collection of any 

debt,’’ and FDCPA section 807(2)(A) 

specifically prohibits falsely 

representing ‘‘the character, amount, or 

legal status of any debt.’’ The Bureau 

interprets FDCPA section 807 and 

807(2)(A) to prohibit debt collectors 

from suing or threatening to sue 

consumers on time-barred debts because 

such suits and threats of suit explicitly 

or implicitly misrepresent, and cause 

consumers to believe, that the debts are 

legally enforceable. In addition, threats 

to sue consumers on time-barred debts 

are similar to threats to take actions that 

cannot legally be taken, which FDCPA 

section 807(5) specifically prohibits, 

because both involve the threat of action 

to which the consumer has a complete 

legal defense.124 The Bureau’s 

interpretation of FDCPA section 807 is 

generally consistent with wellestablished case law holding that suits 

and threats of suits on time-barred debt 

violate FDCPA section 807.125

Proposed Provision Not Finalized 

In the February 2020 proposal, the 

Bureau proposed to require a debt 

collector collecting a debt that the debt 

collector knows or should know is a 

time-barred debt to provide time-barred 

debt disclosures and, if applicable, 

revival disclosures (proposed 

§ 1006.26(c)(1) and (2)).126 The Bureau 

proposed to require these disclosures in 

the debt collector’s initial 

communication with the consumer, on 

any validation notice, and in certain 

situations if the debt became time 

barred during collections. The February 

2020 proposal also included, among 

other things, model forms and language 

a debt collector could have used to 

comply with the proposed disclosure 

requirements (proposed Model Forms 

B–4 through B–7), and it provided a safe 

harbor to a debt collector who used the 

model forms or language (proposed 

§ 1006.26(c)(3)). In support of proposed 

§ 1006.26(c), the Bureau cited, among 

other things, the results of its 

quantitative testing survey.127

Although some commenters 

expressed general support for the idea of 

addressing the risk of deception 

associated with the collection of timebarred debts by requiring time-barred 

debt and revival disclosures, many 

commenters opposed the Bureau’s 

specific proposal. According to industry 

commenters, the proposal would have 

imposed a significant burden on debt 

collectors by requiring them to conduct 

time-barred debt and revival analyses 

for each debt in collection. These 

commenters also reported that they 

would face a significant risk of liability 

given uncertainty about the statute of 

limitations and revival law in at least 

some States. Industry commenters 

stated that most debt collectors lack the 

legal training to determine whether a 

debt is time barred or the circumstances 

in which it can be revived. To comply 

with the disclosure requirements, these 

commenters asserted that debt collectors 

would need to engage an attorney or 

otherwise incur substantial costs. 

Industry commenters particularly 

objected to imposing these costs on debt 

collectors who never sue to collect 

debts, or never sue to collect revived 

debts. Industry commenters also raised 

concerns about being required to 

respond to legal questions from 

consumers as a result of providing the 

disclosures. 

Among consumer, consumer 

advocate, academic, and State Attorneys 

General commenters who opposed the 

Bureau’s proposal, many doubted that 

disclosures can effectively convey 

information about topics as complicated 

and unfamiliar to consumers as timebarred debt and revival. These 

commenters also raised concerns about 

the Bureau’s proposed model 

disclosures, characterizing them as 

confusing, vague, and ineffective— 

particularly for the least sophisticated 

consumer.128 Some consumer advocate 

commenters also expressed concern 

about the accuracy of the proposed 

disclosures and the frequency with 

which the Bureau proposed to require 

them. These commenters urged the 

Bureau to reconsider or significantly 

revise the proposal. 

Given industry commenters’ concerns 

about the burden on debt collectors of 

the Bureau’s specific proposal, and 

consumer advocate commenters’ 

concerns about whether the Bureau’s 

specific proposal would effectively cure 

consumer deception, the Bureau has 

decided not to finalize proposed 

§ 1006.26(c). In deciding not to finalize 

proposed § 1006.26(c), the Bureau 

determines only that the specific 

disclosure requirements described in 

the February 2020 proposal may not 

sufficiently accommodate the concerns 

raised by different stakeholders. 

However, the Bureau concludes, as 

discussed in the February 2020 

proposal, that, in many circumstances, 

disclosures can effectively cure the 

potential deception associated with the 

collection of time-barred debt. 

Finally, the Bureau emphasizes that 

the FDCPA, the November 2020 Final 

Rule, and this final rule nevertheless 

apply to debt collectors’ activities 

involving the collection of time-barred 

debts, including debt collectors’ 

communications when collecting such 

debts. Accordingly, a debt collector may 

not use any false, deceptive, or 

misleading representation or means in 

connection with the collection of a timebarred debt. Nor may a debt collector 

use unfair or unconscionable means to 

collect or attempt to collect a timebarred debt. Depending on the 

circumstances associated with the 

collection of a specific time-barred debt, 

a debt collector may decide that, to 

avoid violating the FDCPA and the final 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 5783 

129 15 U.S.C. 1681a(f). 

130See, e.g., Fox v. Citicorp Credit Servs., Inc., 15 

F.3d 1507, 1517 (9th Cir. 1994) (reversing grant of 

summary judgment to debt collector in part because 

‘‘a jury could rationally find’’ that filing writ of 

garnishment was unfair or unconscionable under 

section 808 when debt was not delinquent); Ferrell 

v. Midland Funding, LLC, No. 2:15–cv–00126–JHE, 

2015 WL 2450615, at *3–4 (N.D. Ala. May 22, 2015) 

(denying debt collector’s motion to dismiss section 

806 claim where debt collector allegedly initiated 

collection lawsuit even though it knew plaintiff did 

not owe debt); Pittman v. J.J. Mac Intyre Co. of Nev., 

Inc., 969 F. Supp. 609, 612–13 (D. Nev. 1997) 

(denying debt collector’s motion to dismiss claims 

under sections 807 and 808 where debt collector 

allegedly attempted to collect fully satisfied debt). 131 15 U.S.C. 1681s–2(a)(5) and (7). 

rule, the debt collector needs to disclose 

information to consumers about the debt 

collector’s ability to sue and the 

possibility of revival and, in that case, 

the debt collector may do so. 

Section 1006.30 Other Prohibited 

Practices 

30(a) Required Actions Prior to 

Furnishing Information 

The Bureau proposed in § 1006.30(a) 

to prohibit so-called passive collections, 

i.e., the practice of a debt collector 

furnishing to a consumer reporting 

agency, as defined in section 603(f) of 

the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA),129

information regarding a debt before 

communicating with the consumer 

about the debt. The Bureau proposed 

§ 1006.30(a) pursuant to its authority 

under FDCPA section 814(d) to 

prescribe rules with respect to the 

collection of debts by debt collectors; 

pursuant to its authority to interpret 

FDCPA section 806, which prohibits a 

debt collector from engaging in any 

conduct the natural consequence of 

which is to harass, oppress, or abuse 

any person in connection with the 

collection of a debt; and pursuant to its 

authority to interpret FDCPA section 

808, which prohibits a debt collector 

from using unfair or unconscionable 

means to collect or attempt to collect 

any debt. Courts have interpreted 

FDCPA sections 806 and 808 to prohibit 

certain coercive collection methods that 

may cause consumers to pay debts not 

actually owed.130

For the reasons discussed below, the 

Bureau is: (1) Finalizing § 1006.30(a) as 

§ 1006.30(a)(1), with changes to specify 

the required actions that a debt collector 

generally must take before furnishing 

information to a consumer reporting 

agency; and (2) finalizing in 

§ 1006.30(a)(2) a special rule for 

information furnished to certain 

specialty consumer reporting agencies. 

30(a)(1) In General 

The Bureau received comments on 

proposed § 1006.30(a) from consumer 

advocates and individuals, nonprofits, 

industry commenters, and government 

agencies. Many commenters supported 

the proposed prohibition on passive 

collections. A consumer group 

emphasized the consumer harms 

identified in the proposal and agreed 

that, because with passive collections a 

consumer does not know a debt is in 

collection, the practice can cause a 

consumer’s credit score to decrease, 

increase the cost of future credit for the 

consumer, make it more difficult for a 

consumer to obtain affordable housing, 

and jeopardize some job opportunities, 

all without the consumer’s knowledge. 

Three government commenters also 

supported the proposed prohibition; one 

of them reported receiving consumer 

complaints regarding passive 

collections. An industry commenter 

supporting the proposal noted that the 

commenter provides consumers with a 

90-day grace period before furnishing 

information to consumer reporting 

agencies. 

A number of comments, primarily 

from industry or industry trade groups, 

opposed the prohibition or suggested 

changes or clarifications. Two industry 

trade groups and a law firm commenter 

argued that proposed § 1006.30(a) 

should not be finalized because it 

conflicts with the FCRA, including 

section 623(a)(7), which requires certain 

financial institutions to provide written 

notice to customers if they furnish 

negative information to a consumer 

reporting agency, and section 623(a)(5), 

which requires furnishers to provide 

certain information about a reported 

delinquency to the consumer reporting 

agency no later than 90 days after 

furnishing information.131 Other 

industry commenters argued that the 

proposal would encourage consumers to 

ignore communications, provide 

inaccurate forwarding information to 

the creditor, or falsely mark mail as 

undeliverable to avoid having collection 

items furnished to consumer reporting 

agencies. In addition, several industry 

commenters stated that locating 

consumers for certain debts, such as 

medical debt, telecommunications debt, 

or rental debt, is costly and may not be 

justified for small amounts. If debt 

collectors cannot passively collect these 

debts, the commenters argued, then the 

debts are effectively uncollectible. One 

industry trade group similarly argued 

that passive collections benefits 

consumers who otherwise cannot be 

located, rather than harming them, 

because the collection item on their 

credit report will provide them contact 

information for the debt collector, 

which the consumer can then use to 

make payment arrangements. 

A number of commenters suggested 

changing or clarifying the proposed 

requirement to ‘‘communicate’’ before 

furnishing information to a consumer 

reporting agency. Some urged the 

Bureau to adopt a stricter requirement, 

such as by requiring written notice to 

the consumer before reporting, 

mandating specific disclosure language, 

imposing across-the-board waiting 

periods before reporting, or prohibiting 

indirect communications. Others 

expressed concern that the proposal 

would impose more stringent 

communication requirements than the 

FDCPA otherwise requires and asked 

the Bureau to relax the proposal, such 

as by clarifying that proof of receipt of 

a communication is not required, by 

allowing debt collectors to satisfy the 

proposed requirement by leaving 

limited-content messages (as defined in 

§ 1006.2(j) of the November 2020 Final 

Rule), or by permitting debt collectors to 

presume receipt of a communication 

after a waiting period expires. 

After considering all of the comments, 

the Bureau is finalizing proposed 

§ 1006.30(a) and its related commentary 

with substantial revisions, as follows. 

Subject to § 1006.30(a)(2) (discussed 

below), final § 1006.30(a)(1) requires a 

debt collector to take certain actions 

before furnishing information about a 

debt to a consumer reporting agency, as 

defined in section 603(f) of the FCRA. 

Specifically, the debt collector must 

either: (1) Speak to the consumer about 

the debt in person or by telephone, or 

(2) place a letter in the mail or send an 

electronic message to the consumer 

about the debt and wait a reasonable 

period of time to receive a notice of 

undeliverability. During the reasonable 

period, the debt collector must permit 

receipt of, and monitor for, notifications 

of undeliverability from 

communications providers. If the debt 

collector receives such a notification 

during the reasonable period, the debt 

collector must not furnish information 

about the debt to a consumer reporting 

agency until the debt collector 

otherwise satisfies § 1006.30(a)(1). The 

Bureau is finalizing commentary to 

clarify these requirements as discussed 

below. 

The Bureau finalizes the requirements 

under § 1006.30(a)(1) to address 

consumer harms that may arise if a debt 

collector furnishes information about a 

debt to a consumer reporting agency 

without first informing the consumer 

about the debt. As discussed in the 

proposal, consumers who have not been 

informed about the debt are likely to be 

unaware that they have a debt in 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
5784 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

132 84 FR 23274, 23330 (May 21, 2019). 

133Because medical offices, telecommunications 

companies, and rental offices typically have contact 

information for their customers, and because a 

variety of options to verify and forward mail to a 

consumer’s new address exist, a debt collector of 

such debts should be able to satisfy § 1006.30(a)’s 

requirements without incurring significant costs. 

134For example, FCRA section 623(a)(7) requires 

certain financial institutions that furnish negative 

information to a consumer reporting agency, as 

defined in FCRA section 603(p), to provide a 

written notice to consumers prior to, or no later 

than 30 days after, furnishing the negative 

information. A financial institution that is required 

to provide a written notice under FCRA section 

623(a)(7) and that is also acting as an FDCPA debt 

collector could comply with both requirements by, 

for example, placing a letter in the mail to the 

consumer that contains sufficient information to 

satisfy both requirements before furnishing 

information to a consumer reporting agency. 

135See, e.g., 15 U.S.C. 1692c(b), 1692d(3). 

136For purposes of § 1006.6(a), the term 

‘‘consumer’’ also includes the consumer’s spouse, 

parent (if the consumer is a minor), legal guardian, 

executor or administrator of the consumer’s estate, 

if the consumer is deceased, and a confirmed 

successor in interest. See 85 FR 76734, 76889 (Nov. 

30, 2020). 

137A debt collector sending an email or text 

message who uses the procedures provided for in 

§ 1006.6(d)(4) or (5) as finalized in the November 

2020 Final Rule does not violate the prohibition on 

third-party disclosure under § 1006.6(d)(1). 

collection unless they obtain and review 

their consumer report. In turn, many 

consumers may not obtain their 

consumer reports until they apply for 

credit, housing, employment, or another 

product or service provided by an entity 

that reviews consumer reports during 

the application process. At that point, 

consumers may feel pressure to pay 

debts that they otherwise would 

dispute, including debts they do not 

owe, or may face the denial of an 

application, a higher interest rate, or 

other negative consequences. 

In addition, as discussed in the 

proposal, debt collectors may attempt to 

collect debts passively if the expected 

return from that technique exceeds the 

cost of attempting to collect the debt by 

communicating with consumers.132 The 

Bureau understands that imposing a 

requirement intended to inform the 

consumer about a debt before furnishing 

information about a debt to consumer 

reporting agencies will increase costs for 

debt collectors who do not currently 

attempt to do so. However, passive 

collection practices can harm 

consumers for the reasons discussed 

above. The Bureau has determined that 

the final rule best balances debt 

collectors’ cost concerns with 

protections for consumers against the 

harms imposed by passive collection 

practices. Final § 1006.30(a)(1) gives a 

debt collector flexibility to contact 

consumers in a variety of ways, 

including in person, by telephone, by 

mail, or by electronic message.133 This 

gives debt collectors flexibility to 

contact the consumer in a manner that 

works best for their operations, and debt 

collectors need not confirm receipt of 

mail or electronic messages. 

Although proposed § 1006.30(a) used 

the term ‘‘communicate,’’ the proposal 

did not clearly specify a debt collector’s 

obligations if the debt collector learned 

after furnishing information to a 

consumer reporting agency that no 

communication actually occurred 

(because, e.g., the communication was 

sent by mail to the consumer’s current 

address but the debt collector later 

received a notification that the letter 

was not delivered). Some commenters 

raised concerns that the proposal’s use 

of the term ‘‘communicate’’ could be 

construed to require debt collectors to 

confirm a consumer’s receipt of the 

information before furnishing 

information about a debt to a consumer 

reporting agency. 

To respond to such comments, and 

because the proposal was designed to 

increase the likelihood that consumers 

would learn that a debt attributed to 

them is in collection but was not 

intended to be a broader limitation on 

furnishing valid information about debts 

to consumer reporting agencies, the 

Bureau finalizes specific requirements a 

debt collector must take before 

furnishing. The actions specified in the 

final rule are ones that increase the 

likelihood that a consumer will learn 

about a debt before a debt collector 

begins furnishing information about that 

debt to a consumer reporting agency. 

For this reason, after a debt collector has 

complied with § 1006.30(a)(1) and 

furnished information to a consumer 

reporting agency, the debt collector may 

furnish additional information with 

respect to that debt without having to 

repeat the actions specified in 

§ 1006.30(a)(1). Accordingly, the Bureau 

does not incorporate a receipt 

requirement in final § 1006.30(a)(1) and, 

instead of using the term 

‘‘communicate,’’ sets forth the specific 

actions that a debt collector must take 

before furnishing. 

The Bureau has also determined that 

final § 1006.30(a)(1) does not conflict 

with FCRA section 623(a)(7) or (5) 

because those provisions have different 

requirements and goals than 

§ 1006.30(a)(1). FCRA section 623(a)(7) 

applies only to ‘‘financial institutions’’ 

as defined in FCRA section 603(t), 

which will cover few, if any, FDCPA 

debt collectors. Final § 1006.30(a)(1) 

does not prevent debt collectors from 

complying with the FCRA, and the 

FCRA does not prevent debt collectors 

from complying with final 

§ 1006.30(a)(1).134 The FCRA also does 

not state that it is the exclusive Federal 

law governing credit reporting and, 

indeed, the FDCPA also references a 

debt collector’s interactions with 

consumer reporting agencies.135

Because final § 1006.30(a)(1) clearly 

describes the specific actions that a debt 

collector must take before furnishing 

information about a debt to a consumer 

reporting agency, a debt collector may 

ensure compliance with the final rule 

based on the debt collector’s own 

actions, such as by placing a letter about 

the debt in the mail to the consumer and 

waiting a reasonable period of time to 

receive a notice of undeliverability. 

Therefore, the final rule also resolves 

concerns about consumers avoiding a 

debt collector’s communications to 

prevent the debt collector from 

furnishing information to a consumer 

reporting agency. 

The final rule specifies in 

§ 1006.30(a)(1)(i) and (ii) the methods by 

which a debt collector may meet its 

obligation to take certain actions before 

furnishing information about a debt to a 

consumer reporting agency. All of the 

methods require that information ‘‘about 

the debt’’ be conveyed to the consumer. 

Although the final rule does not specify 

the particular information required to 

meet the ‘‘about the debt’’ requirement, 

the final rule adds comment 30(a)(1)–1 

to clarify that the validation information 

required by § 1006.34(c), including such 

information if provided in a validation 

notice, is information ‘‘about the debt.’’ 

Under § 1006.30(a)(1), information 

about a debt must be transmitted ‘‘to the 

consumer’’ as defined in § 1006.2(e). A 

debt collector who sends information 

about the debt that reaches a 

‘‘consumer’’ as defined in § 1006.6(a), 

which includes additional persons,136

may not have communicated with the 

consumer as defined in § 1006.2(e). 

The Bureau notes that, in taking any 

of the actions specified in 

§ 1006.30(a)(1), a debt collector must 

comply with the FDCPA and the 

November 2020 Final Rule, including 

the prohibition on communicating, in 

connection with the collection of any 

debt, with a third party.137

Proposed comment 30(a)–1 provided 

clarifications regarding the term 

‘‘communicate’’ in proposed 

§ 1006.30(a)(1). Because final 

§ 1006.30(a)(1) does not use the term 

‘‘communicate’’ and instead states the 

specific actions the debt collector must 

take before furnishing information about 

a debt to a consumer reporting agency, 

proposed comment 30(a)–1 is no longer 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 5785 

138The Bureau does not impose a similar period 

when a debt collector speaks to a consumer about 

the debt in person or by telephone because these 

scenarios do not have the potential for an 

equivalent undeliverable notice outcome. 

139The Bureau notes that the 14-consecutive-day 

period is a safe harbor. To comply with the rule, 

a debt collector only needs to wait a ‘‘reasonable 

period of time’’ to receive a notice of 

undeliverability. Therefore, a debt collector who 

shows that the debt collector waited a reasonable 

time period to receive notices of undeliverability for 

electronic messages may be able to satisfy the 

requirements of the final rule without waiting 14 

days. 

necessary and the Bureau is not 

finalizing it. 

The final rule specifies in 

§ 1006.30(a)(1)(ii) that a debt collector 

who places a letter in the mail or sends 

an electronic message to the consumer 

about the debt to satisfy § 1006.30(a)(1) 

must wait a reasonable period of time to 

receive a notice of undeliverability 

before furnishing information about a 

debt to a consumer reporting agency. 

New comment 30(a)(1)–2 clarifies that 

the reasonable period of time begins on 

the date that the debt collector places 

the letter in the mail or sends the 

electronic message. Comment 30(a)(1)–2 

also provides a safe harbor for waiting 

a reasonable period of time by clarifying 

that a period of 14 consecutive days 

after the date that the debt collector 

places a letter in the mail or sends an 

electronic message is a reasonable 

period of time. 

Comment 30(a)(1)–3 clarifies that a 

debt collector who places a letter in the 

mail or sends an electronic message to 

the consumer about the debt to satisfy 

§ 1006.30(a)(1) and does not receive a 

notice of undeliverability during the 

reasonable period of time, and who 

thereafter furnishes information about 

the debt to a consumer reporting agency, 

does not violate § 1006.30(a)(1) even if 

the debt collector subsequently receives 

a notice of undeliverability. Comment 

30(a)(1)–3 also provides three examples 

illustrating this requirement. 

The Bureau determines that these 

provisions clarify the proposal with 

respect to pre-furnishing outreach by 

mail or electronic message and provide 

protection for consumers.138 The Bureau 

understands that the U.S. Postal Service 

typically notifies senders of most 

undeliverable-as-addressed mail within 

14 days. The amount of time it takes a 

communications provider to return a 

notice of undeliverability with respect 

to electronic messages is less clear. 

While an undeliverability notice is 

typically received soon after sending an 

electronic message, the Bureau 

understands that the time for receiving 

a notice of undeliverability with respect 

to such electronic messages may vary by 

provider, and the Bureau does not have 

sufficient information to determine a 

uniform time period for electronic 

messages. Nevertheless, the Bureau has 

no reason to believe that notices of 

undeliverability are typically received 

more than 14 days after an electronic 

message is sent. Therefore, the Bureau is 

finalizing the same safe harbor time 

period (i.e., 14 consecutive days) for 

electronic messages as for mailed 

letters.139 The Bureau may consider 

revising the safe harbor for electronic 

messages in the future based on actual 

stakeholder experience with this 

provision. 

The Bureau recognizes that the final 

rule may result in instances in which 

debt collectors furnish information 

about a debt to a consumer reporting 

agency even though the consumer has 

not been made aware of the collection 

item, either because the mail or 

electronic message is returned as 

undeliverable after the reasonable 

period has passed or is not received but 

is also not returned. These consumers 

will not have the same opportunity to 

receive a message about their debt as 

those consumers for whom the mail or 

electronic message is delivered. 

Nevertheless, the Bureau determines 

that establishing a requirement that debt 

collectors wait a reasonable period of 

time after placing a letter in the mail or 

sending an electronic message provides 

sufficient consumer protection without 

unduly prohibiting a debt collector from 

furnishing information about a valid 

debt to a consumer reporting agency. 

The Bureau declines commenters’ 

other suggestions, such as those to 

require communications in writing, 

dictate specific language, apply longer 

waiting periods (e.g., 180 days), or 

establish other safe harbors because the 

suggestions are unnecessary to achieve 

the purpose of the passive collections 

ban. For example, requiring written 

communications and specific disclosure 

language is unnecessary to put the 

consumer on notice that a debt is in 

collections. Additional safe harbors are 

unnecessary and unwarranted at this 

time because the final rule clarifies the 

specific actions that must occur before 

furnishing information to a consumer 

reporting agency. 

30(a)(2) Special Rule—Information 

Furnished to Certain Specialty 

Consumer Reporting Agencies 

The Bureau did not propose a special 

rule regarding furnishing to specialty 

consumer reporting agencies. An 

industry commenter and a consumer 

reporting agency argued in a joint 

comment that the final rule should 

exempt from § 1006.30(a) information 

furnished to certain nationwide 

specialty consumer reporting agencies 

described in FCRA section 603(x)(3), 

i.e., consumer reporting agencies that 

maintain and compile files on 

consumers on a nationwide basis 

relating to check writing history (‘‘check 

verification consumer reporting 

agencies’’). 

The commenters explained that 

merchants use check verification 

consumer reporting agencies to 

determine whether they should accept a 

particular check. When a merchant 

seeks check verification information, the 

check verification consumer reporting 

agency issues a check verification report 

with a code that will indicate if the 

check appears acceptable, the check is 

potentially fraudulent, or the checking 

account is likely overdrawn. These 

inquiries are usually completed in real 

time, while a transaction is occurring in 

a checkout lane or in remote retailing. 

The commenters expressed concern that 

proposed § 1006.30(a) would degrade 

the timely content of check verification 

reports issued by check verification 

consumer reporting agencies because 

debt collectors would be required to 

delay or refrain from reporting 

altogether, which would undermine the 

accuracy of check verification reports 

and reduce the willingness of merchants 

to accept checks. 

The commenters argued that the 

current system benefits consumers by 

alerting them to potential fraud or that 

their account may be overdrawn. 

Requiring contact before furnishing 

information would harm these 

consumers because the fraud or 

overdrawn status of the account may 

never be detected and, thus, consumers 

may not be alerted to potential fraud or 

may unknowingly continue writing 

checks on an overdrawn account. 

Further, the commenters stated that 

these requirements could harm 

consumers by decreasing the number of 

merchants that accept checks or 

increasing prices at merchants who 

continue to accept checks. 

The commenters also expressly 

recognized the harm that can occur if a 

debt unexpectedly appears on a creditrelated consumer reporting agency 

report if the consumer is applying for 

credit, a job, or rental housing, and 

cannot move forward with the 

transaction. However, they noted that 

check verification reporting does not 

present comparable risk of harm 

because (1) such reports are used to 

determine whether a particular check 

should be accepted, not to evaluate a 

consumer’s creditworthiness for credit, 

a job, or rental housing; and (2) any 

harm caused by refusal to accept a 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
5786 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

140Colo. Rev. Stat. sec. 12–14–108 limits when 

‘‘debt collectors’’ may furnish information to a 

consumer reporting agency, but exempts checks, 

negotiable instruments, or credit card drafts. 

California and Utah also limit when information 

can be furnished to a consumer reporting agency, 

but those laws only apply to ‘‘creditors.’’ Cal. Civ. 

Code sec. 1785.26; Utah Code sec. 70C–7–107. 

141 If and to the extent a check verification 

consumer reporting agency compiles and maintains 

other types of information specified in FCRA 

section 603(x) (e.g., residential or tenant history), 

the special rule in § 1006.30(a)(2) does not apply 

with respect to a debt collector’s furnishing of that 

information to the check verification consumer 

reporting agency. 

142See 15 U.S.C. 1692g(a). 

143S. Rep. No. 382, supra note 57; see also 

Jacobson v. Healthcare Fin. Servs., Inc., 516 F.3d 

85, 95 (2d Cir. 2008) (validation notices ‘‘make the 

rights and obligations of a potentially hapless 

debtor as pellucid as possible’’); Wilson v. 

Quadramed Corp., 225 F.3d 350, 354 (3d Cir. 2000); 

Miller v. Payco-Gen. Am. Credits, Inc., 943 F.2d 

482, 484 (4th Cir. 1991); Swanson v. S. Oregon 

Credit Serv., Inc., 869 F.2d 1222, 1225 (9th Cir. 

1988). 

144See S. Rep. No. 111–176, at 19 (‘‘In addition 

to concerns about debt collection tactics, the 

Committee is concerned that consumers have little 

ability to dispute the validity of a debt that is being 

collected in error.’’). 

check is outweighed by benefits, 

including alerting the consumer to 

potential fraud and preventing them 

from incurring additional overdraft or 

non-sufficient funds fees. 

After carefully considering the 

comment, the Bureau has determined 

that § 1006.30(a) should not apply to a 

debt collector’s furnishing of 

information about a debt to a check 

verification consumer reporting agency. 

The Bureau finds that a debt collector’s 

furnishing of information about a debt 

to a check verification consumer 

reporting agency before engaging in 

outreach to the consumer about the debt 

is unlikely to undermine the ability of 

consumers to decide whether to pay 

debts in the same manner as the 

furnishing of information about debts to 

other consumer reporting agencies. As a 

result, the Bureau has not found that 

furnishing information about a debt to a 

check verification consumer reporting 

agency before engaging in outreach to 

the consumer about the debt constitutes 

conduct that may have the natural 

consequence of harassment, oppression, 

or abuse in violation of FDCPA section 

806, or that is an unfair or 

unconscionable means to collect or 

attempt to collect a debt under FDCPA 

section 808. 

Immediate and frequent reporting 

appears to be a critical aspect of check 

verification consumer reporting, and it 

appears that imposing a requirement 

that debt collectors inform consumers 

about debts before furnishing 

information to those check verification 

consumer reporting agencies would 

require significant operational changes 

and could significantly reduce the 

effectiveness of those reports. This is 

unlike credit-related reporting, which 

typically involves less immediate 

furnishing. The Bureau also finds that 

the consumer harm that § 1006.30(a)(1) 

is designed to address is not present for 

check verification consumer reporting 

because these reports are unlikely to be 

used in making credit, employment, or 

rental housing decisions. While 

consumers could also be harmed if they 

are unaware of checking account report 

items, the harm of reducing the 

effectiveness of the check verification 

system, including the potential harm to 

consumers if checks are accepted by 

fewer merchants, outweighs the benefits 

of requiring communication before 

furnishing. In addition, the immediacy 

of the current check verification system 

provides countervailing benefits to 

consumers who are alerted to potential 

fraud or to discontinue writing checks 

on an overdrawn account. Further, a 

special rule for check verification 

consumer reporting agencies is 

consistent with several State laws 

regulating passive collections.140 For 

these reasons, the Bureau concludes that 

furnishing of information to a check 

verification consumer reporting agency 

before engaging in outreach to the 

consumer does not raise concerns under 

FDCPA sections 806 and 808 similar to 

furnishing to other types of consumer 

reporting agencies. 

Therefore, the final rule adds 

§ 1006.30(a)(2) to state that 

§ 1006.30(a)(1) does not apply to a debt 

collector’s furnishing of information 

about a debt to a nationwide specialty 

consumer reporting agency that 

compiles and maintains information on 

a consumer’s check writing history, as 

described in FCRA section 603(x)(3).141

For the reasons discussed above, the 

Bureau is adopting final § 1006.30(a) 

pursuant to its authority under FDCPA 

section 814(d) to prescribe rules with 

respect to the collection of debts by debt 

collectors. The Bureau is also adopting 

final § 1006.30(a) pursuant to its 

authority to interpret FDCPA section 

806, which prohibits a debt collector 

from engaging in any conduct the 

natural consequence of which is to 

harass, oppress, or abuse any person in 

connection with the collection of a debt, 

and FDCPA section 808, which 

prohibits a debt collector from using 

unfair or unconscionable means to 

collect or attempt to collect any debt. 

Section 1006.34 Notice for Validation 

of Debts 

FDCPA section 809(a) generally 

requires a debt collector to provide 

certain information to a consumer either 

at the time that, or shortly after, the debt 

collector first communicates with the 

consumer in connection with the 

collection of a debt.142 The required 

information—i.e., the validation 

information—includes details about the 

debt and about consumer protections, 

such as the consumer’s rights to dispute 

and receive verification of the debt and 

to request information about the original 

creditor. When this validation 

information is provided in writing, the 

document containing the information is 

commonly referred to as a ‘‘validation 

notice.’’ 

The requirement to provide validation 

information is an important component 

of the FDCPA and was intended to 

improve the debt collection process by 

helping consumers to recognize debts 

that they owe and raise concerns about 

debts that are unfamiliar. Congress in 

1977 considered the requirement a 

‘‘significant feature’’ of the FDCPA, 

explaining that it was designed to 

‘‘eliminate the recurring problem of debt 

collectors dunning the wrong person or 

attempting to collect debts which the 

consumer has already paid.’’ 143

Congress provided the Bureau with 

rulemaking authority in 2010 apparently 

to address continuing inadequacies 

around validation information and 

verification, among other things.144 In 

addition, debt collectors have sought 

clarification about how to provide 

information consistent with the FDCPA, 

noting, for instance, that a significant 

number of lawsuits are filed each year 

alleging deficiencies in their validation 

notices. 

For these reasons, the Bureau 

proposed § 1006.34 to require debt 

collectors to provide certain validation 

information to consumers and to specify 

when and how the information must be 

provided. As discussed in more detail 

below, the Bureau is finalizing § 1006.34 

with modifications in response to 

feedback and for clarity and consistency 

with other provisions in this final rule 

and the November 2020 Final Rule. 

Final § 1006.34(a) sets forth the 

general requirement to provide 

validation information and describes 

how such information may be provided 

on a validation notice. Section 

1006.34(b) sets forth definitions for 

purposes of § 1006.34. Section 

1006.34(c) sets forth the validation 

information, and § 1006.34(d) sets forth 

a general requirement that such 

information be clear and conspicuous. 

Section 1006.34(d) also provides safe 

harbors for use of Model Form B–1 in 

appendix B to Regulation F, specified 

variations of the model notice, or a 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 5787 

145The Bureau proposed a model validation 

notice as Model Form B–3. The Bureau is finalizing 

that form, with revisions, as Model Form B–1. This 

Notice refers to proposed Model Form B–3 as the 

‘‘proposed model validation notice’’ or the 

‘‘proposed model notice’’ and final Model Form B– 

1 as the ‘‘model validation notice’’ or ‘‘model 

notice.’’ This Notice uses the phrase ‘‘specified 

variations of the model notice’’ to refer to the 

specifically enumerated versions of the model 

notice that receive a safe harbor pursuant to 

§ 1006.34(d)(2)(i) and (ii) (i.e., notices that are the 

same as, or substantially similar to, the model 

notice but for: Omitting some or all of the optional 

disclosures that appear on the model notice; 

including optional disclosures that do not appear 

on the model notice; or including certain 

disclosures on a separate page as permitted by 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(viii) and (5)). 

146See 84 FR 23274, 23333–34 (May 21, 2019). 147Proposed § 1006.34(b)(4) defined a validation 

notice as any written or electronic notice that 

provides the validation information described in 

§ 1006.34(c). 

148As finalized, § 1006.42 generally requires debt 

collectors to send written disclosures in a manner 

that is reasonably expected to provide actual notice, 

and in a form that the consumer may keep and 

access later. 85 FR 76734, 76893 (Nov. 30, 2020). 

149Proposed § 1006.34(b)(2) provided that, with 

limited exceptions, initial communication means 

the first time that, in connection with the collection 

of a debt, a debt collector conveys information, 

directly or indirectly, to the consumer regarding the 

debt. 

150 85 FR 76734, 76854 (Nov. 30, 2020). 

151The Bureau additionally notes that, if a statute 

(here, FDCPA section 809(a)) requires a written 

disclosure, E–SIGN Act section 104(c)(1) states that 

Federal agencies’ authority to interpret E–SIGN Act 

section 101 (including the consumer-consent 

provisions in E–SIGN Act section 101(c)) does not 

include the ‘‘authority to impose or reimpose any 

requirement that a record be in a tangible printed 

or paper form.’’ See 15 U.S.C. 7004(c)(1). 

substantially similar form, and describes 

optional disclosures that debt collectors 

may, but are not required to, provide 

with the validation information.145

Section 1006.34(e) affirmatively permits 

debt collectors to provide validation 

notices translated into other languages 

and requires debt collectors who offer to 

provide consumers translated notices to 

provide them to consumers who request 

them. 

As discussed in further detail in the 

section-by-section analysis of 

§ 1006.34(d), the Bureau proposed to 

require that validation notices must be 

the same as, or substantially similar to, 

the proposed model validation notice. 

The Bureau is not finalizing that 

requirement. Instead, the final rule 

provides certain safe harbors for 

compliance with the information and 

form requirements in § 1006.34(c) and 

(d)(1) for debt collectors who use the 

model validation notice, specified 

variations of the model notice, or a 

substantially similar notice. 

34(a) Validation Information Required 

34(a)(1) In General 

FDCPA section 809(a) provides, in 

relevant part, that, within five days after 

the initial communication with a 

consumer in connection with the 

collection of any debt, a debt collector 

shall send the consumer a written notice 

containing the validation information, 

unless that information is contained in 

the initial communication or the 

consumer has paid the debt. The Bureau 

proposed § 1006.34(a)(1) to implement 

and interpret this general 

requirement.146 Specifically, proposed 

§ 1006.34(a)(1) provided that, subject to 

a limited exception for if a consumer 

has already paid a debt, a debt collector 

must provide a consumer the required 

validation information either: (1) By 

sending the consumer a validation 

notice (i.e., a written or electronic 

notice) 147 in the manner permitted by 

§ 1006.42 148 in the initial 

communication with the consumer in 

connection with the collection of the 

debt (proposed § 1006.34(a)(1)(i)(A)) or 

within five days of that initial 

communication (proposed 

§ 1006.34(a)(1)(i)(B)); or (2) by providing 

the validation information orally in the 

initial communication (proposed 

§ 1006.34(a)(1)(ii)).149 As discussed 

below, the Bureau is adopting 

§ 1006.34(a)(1) with certain minor 

revisions. 

Some commenters recommended that 

the Bureau modify proposed 

§ 1006.34(a)(1) generally. Some 

consumer advocate commenters stated 

that the Bureau should require debt 

collectors to provide non-electronic, 

written validation notices to all 

consumers. According to at least one 

commenter, the Bureau should require a 

written validation notice even if a debt 

collector also provides the validation 

information electronically. Another 

consumer advocate commenter asked 

the Bureau to require debt collectors to 

provide a consumer a validation notice 

in every communication. 

The Bureau declines to require debt 

collectors to always provide written, 

non-electronic validation notices to 

consumers. For the reasons set forth in 

the November 2020 Final Rule, the 

Bureau interprets FDCPA section 809(a) 

as not requiring that the notice of debt 

be provided in writing when it is 

contained in the initial 

communication.150 Moreover, if FDCPA 

section 809(a) does require that the 

notice of debt be provided in writing— 

i.e., if the validation information is not 

contained within the initial 

communication—nothing in the FDCPA 

prohibits a debt collector from 

providing the required written 

validation notice electronically in 

accordance with the consumer-consent 

provisions of section 101(c) of the E– 

SIGN Act. In turn, if a statute (here, the 

FDCPA) requires a written disclosure, 

the E–SIGN Act’s consumer-consent 

provisions specify requirements 

pursuant to which debt collectors may 

send the required written disclosures 

electronically. Accordingly, pursuant to 

§ 1006.42, a debt collector may send the 

validation notice electronically under 

§ 1006.34(a)(1)(i)(A) (i.e., within the 

initial communication) if the debt 

collector complies with § 1006.42(a)(1), 

which requires that the debt collector 

send the notice in a manner that is 

reasonably expected to provide actual 

notice, and in a form that the consumer 

may keep and access later. A debt 

collector may send the validation notice 

electronically under § 1006.34(a)(1)(i)(B) 

(i.e., not within the initial 

communication) if the debt collector 

complies with § 1006.42(a)(1) and also 

complies with § 1006.42(b), which 

requires that the debt collector send the 

notice in accordance with section 101(c) 

of the E–SIGN Act. The Bureau 

concludes that, if debt collectors send 

validation notices electronically as 

described above, there is a reasonable 

likelihood that consumers will receive 

and be able to retain the notices. 

The Bureau determines, therefore, 

that it is unnecessary and unwarranted 

to impose the burden on debt collectors 

that would result from a requirement to 

always provide the validation notice in 

written, non-electronic form; to provide 

a validation notice in written form even 

if the debt collector also provides the 

validation notice electronically; or to 

provide a validation notice or validation 

information with every consumer 

communication.151 Such requirements 

would go beyond the FDCPA’s 

provisions and would be unduly 

burdensome on debt collectors, because, 

as stated above, the Bureau concludes 

that the Regulation F provisions that the 

Bureau is adopting provide sufficient 

consumer protection. Accordingly, the 

Bureau does not impose such 

requirements. 

The Bureau received few comments 

specifically about proposed 

§ 1006.34(a)(1)(i). Commenters who 

provided feedback supported the 

Bureau’s proposal. Thus, the Bureau is 

adopting § 1006.34(a)(1)(i) largely as 

proposed. 

A large number of commenters 

responded to the clarification in 

proposed § 1006.34(a)(1)(ii) that debt 

collectors may provide validation 

information orally in the initial 

communication. Commenters, including 

most consumer advocates who 

addressed the topic, urged the Bureau to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
5788 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

152Proposed § 1006.34(c) described the validation 

information that proposed § 1006.34(a)(1) would 

have required debt collectors to provide. As 

discussed in the section-by-section analysis of 

§ 1006.34(c), the final rule requires debt collectors 

to provide up to 18 items of validation information. 

153Section 1006.34(c) requires a significant 

amount of validation information that debt 

collectors may not currently include in the 

validation information they provide to consumers. 

It might be difficult for a debt collector to convey 

all of the required information orally, particularly 

in an initial communication, which is the only 

context in which a debt collector could comply 

with its legal obligation by providing the validation 

information orally. Further, real-time 

communications with consumers are unpredictable. 

Accordingly, even if the required components of the 

validation information are contained in the oral 

communication, the debt collector might not 

convey them in a way that meets the requirements 

of the regulation; for example, as commenters noted 

the debt collector might not convey the required 

information clearly and conspicuously. 154See 15 U.S.C. 1692e(11). 155See 84 FR 23274, 23334–35 (May 21, 2019). 

prohibit debt collectors from providing 

validation information orally. These 

commenters stated that debt collectors 

could not effectively convey orally to 

consumers the amount of validation 

information that the Bureau 

proposed.152 Commenters argued that, if 

validation information were conveyed 

orally, a consumer would be unable to 

review the information at a later time, 

unless the consumer transcribed or 

recorded the communication with the 

debt collector. Commenters stated that 

this dynamic would place an 

unreasonable burden on consumers and 

would be atypical compared to other 

consumer law disclosure regimes, 

which mandate that required notices be 

provided in written form. At least one 

commenter stated that oral delivery 

would be incompatible with the 

formatting requirements in proposed 

§ 1006.34(d). 

On the other hand, some industry 

commenters supported the Bureau’s 

clarification that debt collectors may 

provide validation information orally. 

These commenters asked the Bureau to 

provide additional guidance about oral 

delivery of validation information, 

including, for example, specific content 

for an oral notice, such as a script. 

As proposed, the Bureau is finalizing 

the provision in § 1006.34(a)(1)(ii) that 

debt collectors may provide the required 

validation information orally in the 

initial communication. The Bureau 

agrees that there may be significant 

challenges to conveying the required 

validation information orally.153

Nevertheless, FDCPA section 809(a) 

does not prohibit oral delivery. FDCPA 

section 809(a) states that the required 

validation information may be 

‘‘contained in the initial 

communication’’ and that a written 

notice is mandatory only if that required 

information is not contained in the 

initial communication. Further, FDCPA 

section 807(11) indicates that the initial 

communication may be oral.154

Accordingly, the Bureau concludes that 

the most reasonable interpretation of 

FDCPA sections 809(a) and 807(11) is 

that the FDCPA permits the required 

validation information to be conveyed 

orally if it is contained in the initial 

communication. 

Moreover, debt collectors providing 

validation information orally will not be 

able to use the model validation notice 

and therefore will not receive a safe 

harbor for compliance under 

§ 1006.34(d)(2). The Bureau declines to 

provide additional guidance about oral 

delivery of validation information. The 

Bureau is not aware of debt collectors 

providing validation information orally 

today, and, for the reasons discussed, 

the Bureau believes they will be 

unlikely to do so in the future. As a 

result, the Bureau concludes that such 

additional guidance is not necessary or 

warranted at this time. 

The Bureau proposed comment 

34(a)(1)–1 to clarify the provision of 

validation notices if the consumer is 

deceased. Proposed comment 34(a)(1)–1 

explained that, if the debt collector 

knows or should know that the 

consumer is deceased, and if the debt 

collector has not previously provided 

the deceased consumer the validation 

information, a person who is authorized 

to act on behalf of the deceased 

consumer’s estate operates as the 

consumer for purposes of providing 

validation information under 

§ 1006.34(a)(1). Under proposed 

comment 34(a)(1)–1, a debt collector 

attempting to collect a debt from a 

deceased consumer’s estate generally 

would provide the validation 

information to the named person who is 

authorized to act on behalf of the 

deceased consumer’s estate, if the debt 

collector had not already provided that 

information to the consumer. 

As discussed in the section-by-section 

analysis of § 1006.2(e), the Bureau is 

interpreting the term consumer to mean 

any natural person, whether living or 

deceased, who is obligated or allegedly 

obligated to pay any debt. And the 

Bureau is adopting commentary 

clarifying how this definition operates 

in the decedent debt context, including 

with respect to debt collectors’ 

obligations to provide the validation 

information and respond to disputes 

and requests for original-creditor 

information. Accordingly, the Bureau is 

finalizing comment 34(a)(1)–1 as 

proposed. 

For all of these reasons, and pursuant 

to its authority under FDCPA section 

814(d) to prescribe rules with respect to 

the collection of debts by debt 

collectors, the Bureau is finalizing 

§ 1006.34(a)(1) to implement and 

interpret the FDCPA section 809(a) 

requirement that debt collectors provide 

validation information to consumers. 

34(a)(2) Exception 

FDCPA section 809(a) contains a 

limited exception that provides that, if 

required validation information is not 

contained in the initial communication, 

a debt collector need not send the 

consumer a written validation notice 

within five days of that communication 

if the consumer has paid the debt prior 

to the time that the notice is required to 

be sent. The Bureau proposed in 

§ 1006.34(a)(2) to implement this 

exception by providing that a debt 

collector who otherwise would be 

required to send a validation notice 

pursuant to § 1006.34(a)(1)(i)(B) is not 

required to do so if the consumer has 

paid the debt prior to the time that 

§ 1006.34(a)(1)(i)(B) would require the 

validation notice to be sent. Proposed 

§ 1006.34(a)(2) generally restated the 

statute, except for minor changes for 

organization and clarity.155

At least two consumer advocate 

commenters recommended that debt 

collectors be required to provide a 

validation notice even if a consumer has 

already paid the debt. According to 

these commenters, some consumers, 

including seniors, will pay a debt that 

they do not owe or recognize because 

they ‘‘pay first and ask questions later.’’ 

These commenters suggested that 

validation information would help such 

consumers assess after the fact whether 

they paid a debt that they owed. An 

industry trade group commenter stated 

that, for open-end credit, a debt 

collector should be permitted to satisfy 

§ 1006.34(a)(1) by providing a periodic 

statement pursuant to Regulation Z, 12 

CFR 1026.7, because periodic 

statements disclose sufficient account 

information to consumers. 

The Bureau declines to require debt 

collectors to provide a validation notice 

if a consumer has already paid the debt. 

FDCPA section 809(a) explicitly 

provides that a debt collector is not 

required to send the validation notice if 

the consumer has paid the debt, and the 

Bureau has determined that it is neither 

necessary nor warranted to adopt a rule 

requiring otherwise. 

The Bureau also declines to adopt 

recommendations to include an 

exception to § 1006.34(a)(1) for openVerDate Sep<11>2014 20:52 Jan 17, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JAR8.SGM 19JAR8

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 5789 

156See 12 CFR 1005.31(a)(1), comment 31(a)(1)– 

1. 

157See 84 FR 23274, 23335 (May 21, 2019). 

158See, e.g., 12 CFR 1026.5(a)(1)(i) (disclosures 

for open-end credit) and 12 CFR 1026.17(a)(1) 

(disclosures for closed-end credit). Moreover, a 

consumer does not typically get to choose which 

debt collector collects the consumer’s debt, whereas 

a consumer does choose his or her financial 

services providers. Further, some customer 

relationships between consumers and debt 

collectors may be of shorter duration than customer 

relationships between consumers and other types of 

consumer financial services providers. These 

factors suggest that a standard for clear and 

conspicuous disclosures may be even more 

important in the debt collection context than in 

other consumer financial services contexts. 

159See 12 CFR 1005.31(a)(1), comment 31(a)(1)– 

1. See also, e.g., the general disclosure requirements 

for open-end and closed-end credit in, respectively, 

12 CFR 1026.5(a)(1) and 1026.17(a)(1) and their 

commentary. 

160The section-by-section analysis of 

§ 1006.38(b)(2) discusses a new safe harbor from the 

overshadowing prohibition in § 1006.38(b)(1) for a 

debt collector who uses the model validation 

notice. 

end credit, because a periodic statement 

provided in accordance with Regulation 

Z, 12 CFR 1026.7, is not an adequate 

substitute for the validation 

information. While such a periodic 

statement discloses some information 

about the debt, it typically does not 

disclose other information required 

under the final rule, such as the 

information about consumer protections 

required by FDCPA section 809(a)(3) 

through (5) and the corresponding 

provisions of final § 1006.34. 

Accordingly, pursuant to its authority 

under FDCPA section 814(d) to 

prescribe rules with respect to the 

collection of debts by debt collectors, 

and to implement and interpret FDCPA 

section 809(a), the Bureau is finalizing 

§ 1006.34(a)(2) as proposed. 

34(b) Definitions 

To facilitate compliance with 

§ 1006.34, proposed § 1006.34(b) 

defined several terms that appear 

throughout the section. As discussed 

below, the Bureau is finalizing those 

definitions and related commentary 

with certain modifications in response 

to feedback. Consistent with the 

proposal, unless noted otherwise below, 

the Bureau is finalizing the definitions 

to implement and interpret FDCPA 

section 809(a) and pursuant to its 

authority under FDCPA section 814(d) 

to prescribe rules with respect to the 

collection of debts by debt collectors. 

34(b)(1) Clear and Conspicuous 

The Bureau proposed § 1006.34(b)(1) 

to define the term clear and 

conspicuous for purposes of Regulation 

F consistent with the standards used in 

other consumer financial services laws 

and their implementing regulations, 

including, for example, Regulation E, 

subpart B (Remittance Transfers).156

Proposed § 1006.34(b)(1) thus provided 

that disclosures are clear and 

conspicuous if they are readily 

understandable. The proposal provided 

that, in the case of written and 

electronic disclosures, the location and 

type size also must be readily noticeable 

to consumers and that, in the case of 

oral disclosures, the disclosures must be 

given at a volume and speed sufficient 

for a consumer to hear and comprehend 

them.157 For the reasons discussed 

below, the Bureau is adopting 

§ 1006.34(b)(1) largely as proposed but 

with minor modifications for clarity and 

in response to feedback. 

An industry commenter objected to 

the clear and conspicuous definition in 

proposed § 1006.34(b)(1). This 

commenter stated that a clear-andconspicuous requirement is unnecessary 

in the debt collection context because 

consumers have an ongoing relationship 

with debt collectors, and a consumer 

therefore has the ability to ask a debt 

collector to explain a particular 

disclosure or communication if the 

consumer does not understand it. 

Other commenters asked the Bureau 

to clarify the proposed definition. For 

instance, industry trade group and 

consumer advocate commenters offered 

various suggestions for specific font size 

or disclosure placement requirements. 

At least one industry commenter 

suggested that the Bureau explain how 

proposed § 1006.34(b)(1) would interact 

with State disclosure laws, which may 

have their own clear-and-conspicuous 

standards that dictate font size or 

disclosure placement. An industry trade 

group commenter asked the Bureau to 

provide additional guidance about oral 

delivery of the validation information 

because, in the commenter’s view, the 

proposal that oral communications be 

‘‘given at a volume and speed sufficient 

for a consumer to hear and comprehend 

them’’ was ambiguous. 

The Bureau disagrees that ongoing 

relationships between debt collectors 

and consumers make a clear and 

conspicuous definition unnecessary or 

unwarranted in the debt collection 

context. Consumer financial services 

laws and their implementing regulations 

commonly include standards for clear 

and conspicuous disclosures provided 

in the context of ongoing customer and 

business relationships between 

consumers and consumer financial 

services providers.158 Additionally, 

validation information is provided at 

the outset of collection 

communications. If a consumer chooses 

not to engage with the debt collector, no 

ongoing communications will be 

established. 

The Bureau declines to further clarify 

the clear and conspicuous definition in 

§ 1006.34(b)(1) by, for example, 

dictating font sizes or requirements 

regarding disclosure placement as 

requested by some commenters. 

Different debt collectors may design 

their communications in different ways, 

and the Bureau does not believe it is 

necessary or warranted to specify such 

details, as long as the disclosure 

satisfies the clear and conspicuous 

standard. In addition, the definition is 

consistent with, and provides the same 

level of specificity as, standards in some 

other consumer financial services laws 

and their implementing regulations, 

including but not limited to the 

Bureau’s Remittance Transfers rule,159

which do not specify font size or 

disclosure placement requirements. 

Moreover, the Bureau concludes that the 

lack of more prescriptive guidance will 

not impose material burden on debt 

collectors. As discussed in the sectionby-section analysis of § 1006.34(d)(2), a 

debt collector who uses the model 

validation notice, specified variations of 

the model notice, or a substantially 

similar form, receives a safe harbor for 

the information requirements in 

§ 1006.34(c) and for the clear-andconspicuous requirement in 

§ 1006.34(d)(1). Because debt collectors 

may use the model validation notice, 

specified variations of the model notice, 

or a substantially similar form if 

providing validation notices, debt 

collectors need not incur significant 

expenses ascertaining what meets the 

clear-and-conspicuous standard. 

Nevertheless, the final rule does clarify 

that, in the case of written and 

electronic disclosures, although no 

minimum font size is required, the 

location and type size must be both 

readily noticeable and legible to 

consumers.160

The Bureau declines to revise 

§ 1006.34(b)(1) to clarify how the 

definition of clear and conspicuous 

interrelates with State disclosure laws. 

A debt collector can comply with both 

§ 1006.34(b)(1) and State disclosure 

requirements that specify font size or 

disclosure placement. With respect to 

font size, the Bureau concludes, in 

general, that debt collectors satisfying 

State-law minimum-font-size 

requirements will also satisfy the 

standard in § 1006.34(b)(1) for a type 

size that is readily noticeable and 

legible to consumers. With respect to 

disclosure placement, as discussed in 

the section-by-section analysis of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
5790 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

161See 15 U.S.C. 1692a(2). The November 2020 

Final Rule implemented this definition in 

§ 1006.2(d). 85 FR 76734, 76888 (Nov. 30, 2020). 

162See 15 U.S.C. 1692g(d), (e). 

163See 84 FR 23274, 23335 (May 21, 2019). 

164To receive a distribution from a bankruptcy 

estate, a creditor generally must file with the 

bankruptcy court a proof of claim, which includes 

details about an alleged debt or interest. See Fed. 

R. Bankr. P. 3002. 

165See 11 U.S.C. 362. 

166A debtor’s bankruptcy petition operates as an 

automatic stay that, among other things, prohibits 

‘‘any act to collect, assess, or recover a claim against 

the debtor that arose before the commencement of 

the case.’’ 11 U.S.C. 362(a)(6). When a debtor’s 

liability is discharged through bankruptcy, the 

discharge ‘‘operates as an injunction against the 

commencement or continuation of an action, the 

employment of process, or an act, to collect, recover 

or offset any such debt as a personal liability of the 

debtor, whether or not discharge of such debt is 

waived.’’ 11 U.S.C. 524(a)(2). 

167See, e.g., In re Chaussee, 399 B.R. 225, 238 

(B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2008) (‘‘In our opinion, the debt 

validation provisions required by the FDCPA 

clearly conflict with the claims processing 

procedures contemplated by the [Bankruptcy] Code 

and Rules.’’). 

168See Walls v. Wells Fargo Bank, 276 F.3d 502, 

511 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding that the Bankruptcy 

Code precludes application of FDCPA requirements 

in bankruptcy cases); Chaussee, 399 B.R. at 239 

(same); contra Simon v. FIA Card Servs., N.A., 732 

F.3d 259, 274 (3d Cir. 2013) (stating that when 

‘‘FDCPA claims arise from communications a debt 

collector sends a bankruptcy debtor in a pending 

bankruptcy proceeding, and the communications 

are alleged to violate the Bankruptcy Code or Rules, 

there is no categorical preclusion of the FDCPA 

claims’’). 

169See Simon, 732 F.3d at 273; Townsend v. 

Quantum3 Grp., LLC, 535 B.R. 415, 423 (M.D. Fla. 

2015); In re Brimmage, 523 B.R. 134, 141–42 (Bankr. 

N.D. Ill. 2015). 

170The official bankruptcy proof-of-claim form is 

available here: https://www.uscourts.gov/forms/ 

bankruptcy-forms/proof-claim-0. 

§ 1006.34(d)(3)(iv), a debt collector may 

place disclosures specifically required 

under other applicable law, which 

includes disclosures specifically 

required by State law, on the reverse (or, 

in certain specified circumstances, on 

the front) of the validation notice. The 

Bureau believes that § 1006.34(d)(3)(iv) 

will permit debt collectors to provide 

State law disclosures in a manner that 

is clear and conspicuous under 

applicable law. 

The Bureau also declines to further 

clarify the meaning of clear and 

conspicuous in the context of oral 

delivery of validation information. The 

Bureau determines that the proposed 

and final regulatory text is sufficiently 

clear and that the final rule will not 

impose an undue burden on debt 

collectors, particularly in light of the 

Bureau’s expectation that few, if any, 

oral disclosures will be provided. 

For the reasons discussed above, the 

Bureau is finalizing § 1006.34(b)(1) to 

provide that clear and conspicuous 

means readily understandable and that, 

in the case of written and electronic 

disclosures, the location and type size 

also must be readily noticeable and 

legible to consumers, although no 

minimum type size is mandated. Final 

§ 1006.34(b)(1) also provides that oral 

disclosures must be given at a volume 

and speed sufficient for the consumer to 

hear and comprehend them. 

34(b)(2) Initial Communication 

FDCPA section 809(a) requires debt 

collectors to provide consumers with 

certain validation information either in 

the debt collector’s initial 

communication with the consumer in 

connection with the collection of the 

debt, or within five days after that initial 

communication. FDCPA section 803(2) 

defines the term communication 

broadly to mean the conveying of 

information regarding a debt directly or 

indirectly to any person through any 

medium.161 FDCPA section 809(d) and 

(e) identifies particular communications 

that are not initial communications for 

purposes of FDCPA section 809(a) and 

that therefore do not trigger the 

validation notice requirement.162

Pursuant to FDCPA section 809(d), an 

initial communication excludes a 

communication in the form of a formal 

pleading in a civil action. Pursuant to 

FDCPA section 809(e), an initial 

communication also excludes the 

sending or delivery of any form or 

notice that does not relate to the 

collection of the debt and is expressly 

required by the Internal Revenue Code 

of 1986, title V of the Gramm-LeachBliley Act, or any provision of Federal 

or State law relating to notice of a data 

security breach or privacy, or any 

regulation prescribed under any such 

provision of law. 

The Bureau proposed § 1006.34(b)(2) 

to implement FDCPA section 809(a), (d), 

and (e) by defining the term initial 

communication. The proposed 

definition largely restated the FDCPA 

and defined initial communication as 

the first time that, in connection with 

the collection of a debt, a debt collector 

conveys information, directly or 

indirectly, regarding the debt to the 

consumer, other than a communication 

in the form of a formal pleading in a 

civil action, or a communication in any 

form or notice that does not relate to the 

collection of the debt and is expressly 

required by any of the laws referenced 

in FDCPA section 809(e).163

An industry trade group 

recommended a bankruptcy-specific 

exception to the definition of initial 

communication for debt collectors 

collecting debts owed by consumers in 

bankruptcy. The commenter expressed 

concern that certain actions by a debt 

collector in the context of a consumer’s 

bankruptcy proceeding, in particular 

filing a proof of claim, may be construed 

to be an initial communication and 

therefore trigger the FDCPA section 

809(a) validation notice requirement.164

Additionally, according to the 

commenter, content on the validation 

notice, including the debt collection 

communication disclosure required by 

FDCPA section 807(11), could be 

construed as a demand for payment that 

violates the automatic stay provisions of 

the United States Bankruptcy Code 

(Bankruptcy Code) 165 or, if the 

consumer has been relieved of personal 

liability, the discharge injunction.166

According to the commenter, some 

courts have opined that a debt collector 

would face an irreconcilable conflict 

between complying with the FDCPA 

and the Bankruptcy Code if the debt 

collector were required to provide a 

validation notice to a consumer in 

bankruptcy.167

The Bureau has determined to 

interpret the term initial communication 

not to include proofs of claim filed in 

bankruptcy proceedings. Courts have 

reached different conclusions about 

whether the FDCPA conflicts with the 

Bankruptcy Code.168 The Bureau is 

unaware of any case definitively 

holding that a proof of claim is an initial 

communication and that a debt collector 

therefore must provide a validation 

notice after filing a proof of claim. On 

the other hand, some courts have held 

that proofs of claim are not initial 

communications because, under FDCPA 

section 809(d), they are communications 

in the form of a formal pleading in a 

civil action.169 Further, the Bureau has 

decided to permit a debt collector to file 

a proof of claim in a bankruptcy 

proceeding as required by the 

Bankruptcy Code without thereby 

triggering the debt collector’s obligation 

to provide a validation notice under the 

FDCPA, because the Bureau finds it 

unlikely that consumer harm will result 

if a consumer does not receive a 

validation notice subsequent to a proof 

of claim in bankruptcy. The bankruptcy 

proof-of-claim form is filed under 

penalty of perjury, and a person who 

files a fraudulent claim could be fined 

up to $500,000, imprisoned for up to 5 

years, or both.170 Thus, the Bureau 

concludes that bankruptcy proof-ofclaim forms generally are likely to 

contain accurate information about the 

debt. 

Accordingly, to provide clarity for 

debt collectors while maintaining 

protections for consumers, the Bureau is 

interpreting the term initial 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 5791 

171 Generally, under Regulation X, each transferor 

servicer and transferee servicer of any mortgage 

loan shall provide to the borrower a notice of 

transfer for any assignment, sale, or transfer of the 

servicing of the mortgage loan. 12 CFR 

1024.33(b)(1). Generally, the transferor servicer 

shall provide the notice of transfer to the borrower 

not less than 15 days before the effective date of the 

transfer of the servicing of the mortgage loan. The 

transferee servicer shall provide the notice of 

transfer to the borrower not more than 15 days after 

the effective date of the transfer. The transferor and 

transferee servicers may provide a single notice, in 

which case the notice shall be provided not less 

than 15 days before the effective date of the transfer 

of the servicing of the mortgage loan. 12 CFR 

1024.33(b)(3)(i). 

172For example, a debt collector potentially could 

convey information regarding the debt during a 

consumer’s visit to a website through a website chat 

feature. 173See 15 U.S.C. 1692g(a)(1). 

174Proposed § 1006.34(c)(2)(vii) and (viii) would 

have required debt collectors to disclose, 

respectively, the itemization date and the amount 

of the debt on the itemization date. Proposed 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(ix) would have required debt 

collectors to disclose an itemization of the debt 

reflecting interest, fees, payments, and credits since 

the itemization date. For additional discussion of 

these provisions, which have been renumbered in 

the final rule, see the section-by-section analysis of 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(vi) through (viii). 

175See 84 FR 23274, 23335–37 (May 21, 2019). 

The reference dates were set forth in proposed 

§ 1006.34(b)(3)(i) through (iv) and are discussed in 

the section-by-section analysis of those paragraphs 

below. 

communication not to include proofs of 

claim filed in bankruptcy. Specifically, 

the Bureau is adopting new comment 

34(b)(2)–1, which clarifies that a proof 

of claim that a debt collector files in a 

bankruptcy proceeding in accordance 

with the requirements of the Bankruptcy 

Code is a communication in the form of 

a formal pleading in a civil action and 

therefore is not an initial 

communication for purposes of 

§ 1006.34. The Bureau adopts this 

comment as an interpretation of the 

phrase ‘‘[a] communication in the form 

of a formal pleading in a civil action’’ 

in FDCPA section 809(d). The Bureau 

interprets that phrase to include a proof 

of claim that a debt collector files in a 

bankruptcy proceeding in accordance 

with the requirements of the Bankruptcy 

Code. 

The Bureau acknowledges that other 

scenarios may exist in which a debt 

collector communicates with a 

consumer in bankruptcy and 

subsequently may be required to 

provide a validation notice. To the 

extent that debt collectors do provide 

validation notices to consumers in 

bankruptcy, § 1006.34(a)(1) implements 

an existing FDCPA disclosure 

requirement and does not create a new 

tension between the FDCPA and the 

Bankruptcy Code. In addition, nothing 

in the final rule requires debt collectors 

to include payment requests in the 

validation information; instead, 

payment requests are optional 

disclosures that § 1006.34(d)(3)(iii) 

permits debt collectors to include along 

with the validation information. 

Consequently, a debt collector 

concerned that a payment request 

would violate the Bankruptcy Code’s 

automatic stay or discharge injunction is 

not required to include a payment 

request and, additionally, could use the 

model validation notice, specified 

variations of the model notice, or a 

substantially similar form, without a 

payment request and receive a safe 

harbor under § 1006.34(d)(2). 

An industry trade group 

recommended that the Bureau exclude 

from the § 1006.34(b)(2) definition of 

initial communication the notice of 

transfer of loan servicing required by 

Regulation X.171 According to the 

commenter, after an FDCPA-covered 

mortgage debt is transferred and a 

consumer receives a servicing transfer 

notice, the transferee may not have 

received all the information necessary to 

send a validation notice within the fiveday timeframe required by FDCPA 

section 809(a). For this reason, the 

commenter suggested that Regulation X 

servicing transfer notices should not 

trigger the validation information 

requirement. 

The Bureau declines to interpret the 

term initial communication to exclude 

servicing transfer notices required by 

Regulation X. Section 1006.34(b)(2) 

largely mirrors existing language in 

FDCPA sections 803(2) and 809(a), (d), 

and (e) and does not impose new 

substantive requirements or obligations 

on covered entities. As discussed in the 

section-by-section analysis of 

§ 1006.34(c), Regulation F will result in 

validation notices containing more 

information about the debt than they 

typically do today, but that information 

is, generally, either routine account 

information that owners of debts 

currently provide to debt collectors or 

that owners of debts can include 

without significant additional expense. 

Although the commenter argues that 

there may be timing considerations 

unique to mortgage servicing transfer 

notices, the Bureau determines that 

such timing concerns do not warrant an 

exception that would deem a mortgage 

servicing transfer notice, even one that 

does convey information, directly or 

indirectly, regarding the debt to the 

consumer to be excluded from the 

definition of an ‘‘initial 

communication.’’ 

Other commenters asked the Bureau 

to clarify whether a consumer-initiated 

communication, such as a consumer 

visiting a debt collector’s website or a 

consumer leaving a voicemail with a 

debt collector, would constitute an 

initial communication under proposed 

§ 1006.34(b)(2). The Bureau notes that, 

under § 1006.34(b)(2), for an initial 

communication to occur, a debt 

collector must ‘‘convey[ ] information, 

directly or indirectly, regarding the 

debt. . . .’’ Section 1006.34(b)(2) is 

clear that, if a debt collector conveys no 

information, directly or indirectly, 

regarding the debt, an initial 

communication has not occurred and, 

consequently, the validation notice 

requirement has not been triggered. 

Thus, a consumer’s voicemail left with 

a debt collector generally would not 

qualify as an initial communication. 

Similarly, an initial communication 

generally would not include a 

consumer’s visit to a debt collector’s 

website, unless during that visit the debt 

collector conveyed information 

regarding the consumer’s specific 

debt.172

For the reasons discussed above, the 

Bureau is finalizing § 1006.34(b)(2) 

largely as proposed but with a revision 

to clarify that proofs of claim filed in 

bankruptcy proceedings are not initial 

communications. 

34(b)(3) Itemization Date 

FDCPA section 809(a)(1) requires debt 

collectors to disclose to consumers, 

either in the debt collector’s initial 

communication in connection with the 

collection of the debt, or within five 

days after that communication, the 

amount of the debt.173 The Bureau 

proposed in § 1006.34(c)(2)(vii) through 

(ix) to interpret the phrase ‘‘amount of 

the debt’’ to mean that debt collectors 

must disclose the amount of the debt as 

of a particular ‘‘itemization date.’’ 174 To 

facilitate compliance with proposed 

§ 1006.34(c)(2), the Bureau proposed 

§ 1006.34(b)(3) to define itemization 

date as one of four reference dates for 

which a debt collector can ascertain the 

amount of the debt. The proposed 

reference dates were the last statement 

date, the charge-off date, the last 

payment date, and the transaction 

date.175

The proposed definition of 

itemization date was designed to allow 

the use of dates that debt collectors 

could identify with relative ease 

because they reflect routine and 

recurring events, and that correspond to 

notable events in the debt’s history that 

consumers may recall or be able to 

verify with records. The proposed 

definition also was intended to include 

dates for which debt collectors typically 

may receive account information from 

debt owners and that, therefore, debt 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
5792 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

176See 84 FR 23274, 23336 (May 21, 2019). 

177FDCPA section 803(5) defines a ‘‘debt’’ as any 

obligation arising out of a transaction ‘‘primarily for 

personal, family, or household purposes.’’ 15 U.S.C. 

1692a(5). According to the commenter, a debt a 

consumer owes to a government in many cases does 

not meet this definition. 

collectors would be able to use to 

provide the disclosures proposed in 

§ 1006.34(c)(viii) and (ix). 

Proposed comment 34(b)(3)–1 

explained that a debt collector could 

select any of the four reference dates as 

the itemization date. Once a debt 

collector used one of the reference dates 

for a specific debt in a communication 

with a consumer, however, the debt 

collector would be required to use that 

reference date for that debt consistently 

when providing disclosures pursuant to 

§ 1006.34 to that consumer. 

For the reasons discussed below, the 

Bureau is adopting § 1006.34(b)(3) and 

its related commentary largely as 

proposed but with minor wording 

changes and to include an additional 

reference date in response to feedback: 

The judgment date. The Bureau also is 

adopting new comment 34(b)(3)–2, 

which provides that a debt collector 

may use a different reference date than 

a prior debt collector used for the same 

debt. 

Some industry commenters supported 

the itemization date definition in 

proposed § 1006.34(b)(3). At least two 

industry commenters supported 

providing debt collectors with a choice 

of several reference dates because a debt 

collector might not be able ascertain the 

amount of the debt on a single reference 

date. According to an industry trade 

group commenter, the proposed 

reference dates would provide adequate 

flexibility, as a creditor’s information 

systems will have recorded at least one 

of those dates for any given debt. 

Another industry trade group 

commenter stated that the proposal’s 

standardization of account information 

would allow debt collectors to build 

better internal procedures and improve 

consumer communication practices. An 

industry commenter stated that 

proposed § 1006.34(b)(3) would require 

significant client education and 

information technology investment but 

ultimately concluded that the 

framework was feasible. 

Other commenters objected to 

proposed § 1006.34(b)(3). An industry 

commenter stated that creditors may 

provide debt collectors information 

about multiple reference dates. 

According to this commenter, analyzing 

creditor records to identify and organize 

account information as of a single 

reference date would be complicated, 

costly, and increase the likelihood of 

validation notice errors. A group of 

consumer advocate commenters stated 

that, instead of permitting debt 

collectors to choose between reference 

dates, § 1006.34(b)(3) should define the 

itemization date as a single reference 

date supported by consumer testing. 

The Bureau determines that 

§ 1006.34(b)(3) will facilitate 

compliance with the itemization daterelated requirements in final 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(vi) through (viii). 

Account information available to debt 

collectors may vary by debt type 

because some account information is 

not universally tracked or used across 

product markets. To facilitate the ability 

of debt collectors across debt markets to 

comply with Regulation F, the final rule 

permits debt collectors to determine the 

itemization date by selecting from one 

of five reference dates for which they 

can ascertain the amount of the debt. 

The Bureau finds that this framework 

will not result in undue industry 

burden. Debt collectors today routinely 

analyze and organize account 

information included in files from 

creditors when creditors place accounts 

for collection. Debt collectors should be 

able to use or build on these existing 

functions to select an itemization date 

based on the definition in 

§ 1006.34(b)(3). Therefore, even if 

creditors provide or retain account 

information based on multiple reference 

dates, debt collectors should not face 

substantial new costs or litigation risks 

from complying with § 1006.34(b)(3). 

The Bureau declines consumer 

advocates’ suggestion to specify a single 

reference date. As discussed in the 

proposal, the Bureau considered 

requiring debt collectors to provide an 

itemization of the debt based on a single 

reference date but rejected that 

approach because of the infeasibility of 

identifying a single reference date that 

applies to all debt types across all 

relevant markets.176 The group of 

consumer advocate commenters that 

recommended a single reference date 

did not suggest or provide evidence that 

it would be feasible to identify a single 

date that would be appropriate for all 

types of debt. The Bureau also declines 

to exercise its discretion to conduct 

consumer testing to attempt to 

determine an optimal itemization date 

for debt collectors to use within each 

debt collection market (e.g., mortgage 

debt, credit card debt, student loan debt, 

medical debt, and so on). The Bureau 

determines that such testing is not 

necessary or warranted, because the 

Bureau finds that debt collectors’ use of 

any one of the five itemization dates set 

forth in § 1006.34(b)(3) should 

correspond, in most cases, to events in 

the debt’s history that consumers may 

recall or be able to verify with records. 

In the proposal, the Bureau requested 

comment on whether the itemization 

date should be structured as a 

prescriptive ordering of reference dates, 

such as a hierarchy that would permit 

a debt collector to use a date listed later 

in the hierarchy only if the debt 

collector did not have information about 

any dates earlier in the hierarchy. 

Industry and industry trade group 

commenters generally favored the 

proposed flexible approach. According 

to commenters, a prescriptive ordering 

would significantly increase costs and 

litigation risk for debt collectors. As 

noted above, consumer advocates 

expressed concern that the proposed 

approach would result in disclosure of 

itemization dates that are not 

meaningful to consumers and urged the 

Bureau to use consumer testing to 

determine a date that would be 

meaningful. 

The Bureau agrees that a prescriptive 

ordering could impose undue costs and 

litigation risks for debt collectors. In 

addition, as discussed below in the 

section-by-section analysis of 

§ 1006.34(b)(3)(i) through (v), each 

reference date may be meaningful to 

consumers because it corresponds to a 

notable event in the debt’s history that 

consumers may recall or be able to 

verify with records. Because each 

reference date may be meaningful to a 

consumer, and because each reference 

date may be more or less meaningful to 

the consumer than one of the other 

reference dates depending on the 

circumstances surrounding the debt, 

there may not be a benefit to consumers 

if the Bureau were to structure the dates 

as a hierarchy. The Bureau therefore 

declines to adopt a prescriptive ordering 

of the reference dates. 

Some commenters who did not object 

to the proposed itemization date 

framework in principle either raised 

concerns that the proposed reference 

dates would not accommodate debts in 

all product markets or recommended 

additional reference dates. At least one 

industry trade group commenter asked 

the Bureau to clarify what reference date 

debt collectors should use for debts in 

bankruptcy. An industry commenter 

stated that the proposal might not 

accommodate a debt a consumer owes 

to a government, such as a tax debt. 

According to this commenter, although 

the FDCPA does not cover many debts 

consumers owe to governments,177 some 

debt collectors who collect debts on 

behalf of Federal government agencies 

are legally or contractually obliged to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 5793 

178For example, debt collectors who collect on 

behalf of the Internal Revenue Service under a 

‘‘qualified tax collection contract’’ generally are 

required by statute to comply with the FDCPA. See 

26 U.S.C. 6306(g) (‘‘The provisions of the [FDCPA] 

shall apply to any qualified tax collection contract, 

except to the extent superseded by section 6304, 

section 7602(c), or by any other provision of this 

title.’’). 

179The Higher Education Act defines ‘‘default’’ as 

‘‘the failure of a borrower . . . to make an 

installment payment when due, or to meet other 

terms of the promissory note, the Act, or regulations 

as applicable, if the Secretary or guaranty agency 

finds it reasonable to conclude that the borrower 

and endorser, if any, no longer intend to honor the 

obligation to repay, provided that this failure 

persists for—(1) 270 days for a loan repayable in 

monthly installments; or (2) 330 days for a loan 

repayable in less frequent installments.’’ 34 CFR 

682.200(b). 

180 In order for the contractual framework and 

processes to achieve the desired result of a creditor 

passing the previously used itemization date to the 

current debt collector, creditors would have to 

structure contracts to require the previous debt 

collectors to pass back to the creditors the 

previously used itemization dates so that the 

creditors, in turn, can pass them on to the current 

debt collectors. Developing and implementing such 

contractual provisions and processes across the 

debt collection industry would likely impose 

potentially significant costs. 

abide by the FDCPA.178 This commenter 

stated that the proposed reference dates 

might not accommodate tax debt 

because, in some instances, it will be 

the case that no previous statement was 

provided, no prior payment was made, 

and there was no transaction per se 

between the consumer and the 

government creditor. 

According to another commenter, an 

additional reference date for student 

loan debt is necessary because debt 

collectors collecting Federal student 

loans do not receive any of the proposed 

reference dates at the time of placement. 

Some commenters suggested that the 

Bureau permit debt collectors to use the 

date of default as defined by the Higher 

Education Act of 1965; commenters 

argued that this date is a widely used 

reference date in the student loan 

market.179 By contrast, an FTC 

commissioner urged the Bureau not to 

use the Higher Education Act’s 

definition of default and instead to use 

the date a student loan borrower 

becomes 90 days past due. 

In addition, an industry commenter 

recommended that § 1006.34(b)(3) 

incorporate: (1) The date a creditor 

places a debt with the debt collector, or 

(2) the date the debt collector provides 

validation information to the consumer. 

Another industry commenter suggested 

that § 1006.34(b)(3) incorporate the date 

of a previously obtained court judgment. 

The Bureau determines that 

§ 1006.34(b)(3)—in conjunction with the 

five reference dates described in 

§ 1006.34(b)(3)(i) through (v)—provides 

adequate flexibility for debts in all 

product markets, including for debts in 

bankruptcy. A debt collector may 

choose which of the five reference dates 

to use based on the facts and 

circumstances surrounding the history 

of the debt—e.g., whether a creditor 

provided statements, whether the 

consumer made payments—and the 

information available to the debt 

collector. 

With respect to which reference date 

a debt collector should use to itemize a 

tax obligation a consumer owes to a 

government, the date the tax was 

assessed may be a transaction date for 

tax debt, as discussed in the section-bysection analysis of § 1006.34(b)(3)(iv). In 

addition, a date on which the 

government provided a written invoice 

or tax bill may constitute a last 

statement date for tax debt under 

§ 1006.34(b)(3)(i). 

The Bureau determines that a 

reference date specific to student loan 

debt is unnecessary and unwarranted 

because the reference dates in 

§ 1006.34(b)(3) are sufficient. For 

virtually any student loan debt, there 

will be a last statement date as 

described in § 1006.34(b)(3)(i), a last 

payment date as described in 

§ 1006.34(b)(3)(ii), or a transaction date 

as described in § 1006.34(b)(3)(iv). For 

many student loan debts, all three 

reference dates will exist. 

The Bureau also declines to 

incorporate into § 1006.34(b)(3) the date 

of placement or the date the debt 

collector provides the validation notice. 

From a consumer’s perspective, these 

dates do not correspond to notable 

events in a debt’s history that the 

consumer may recall or be able to verify. 

As noted above, however, in response to 

feedback, the Bureau is adding a new 

reference date called the ‘‘judgment 

date,’’ which is the date of a final court 

judgment that determines the amount of 

the debt owed by the consumer. The 

judgment date is discussed in the 

section-by-section analysis of final 

§ 1006.34(b)(3)(v). 

With respect to the Bureau’s request 

for comment about whether a 

subsequent debt collector should be 

permitted to use a different itemization 

date than a prior debt collector used for 

the same debt, industry and industry 

trade group commenters generally 

agreed that requiring debt collectors to 

use the same reference date as a prior 

collector would be burdensome and 

impractical. These commenters stated 

that debt collectors would be unable to 

ensure compliance with such a 

requirement because a creditor might 

not disclose the reference date that a 

prior debt collector used. By contrast, an 

academic and a consumer advocate 

commenter stated that a debt collector 

should be required to use the same 

itemization date the prior debt collector 

used because a consumer may not be 

able to assess the amount owed if the 

subsequent debt collector uses a 

different reference date. 

The final rule permits a debt collector 

to use a different itemization date than 

a prior debt collector used for the same 

debt. The availability of account 

information, including about a prior 

debt collector’s activities, to a 

subsequent debt collector depends on 

the creditor or debt buyer who places 

the debt with the subsequent debt 

collector. If the creditor or debt buyer 

does not provide the previously used 

itemization date, the subsequent debt 

collector may be unable to determine 

that date, and therefore fail to comply 

with a requirement to use it. It is 

conceivable that, were the rule to 

require use of the same itemization date 

previously used, debt collectors and 

creditors could begin to structure their 

contracts and processes to enable 

creditors and debt collectors to transfer 

a previously used itemization date. 

However, establishing such contracts 

and processes would likely impose costs 

on creditors and debt collectors,180 and 

those costs would likely be passed on to 

consumers. Further, the Bureau finds 

that the costs are not warranted because 

permitting a subsequent debt collector 

to use a different itemization date will 

maintain protections for consumers, as 

long as the debt collector uses one of the 

five itemization dates specified in the 

rule. As stated above, the Bureau finds 

that the five itemization dates are all 

dates that should result in reasonably 

meaningful and recognizable debt 

amounts for consumers. Accordingly, 

the Bureau is adopting new comment 

34(b)(3)–2 to clarify that, when selecting 

an itemization date pursuant to 

§ 1006.34(b)(3), a debt collector may use 

a different reference date than a prior 

debt collector who attempted to collect 

the debt. 

For the reasons set forth above, the 

Bureau is finalizing § 1006.34(b)(3) and 

its related commentary with minor 

wording changes and to include a new 

reference date, the judgment date, in 

§ 1006.34(b)(3)(v). In addition, the 

Bureau is adopting new comment 

34(b)(3)–2 to explain that a debt 

collector may use a different reference 

date than a prior debt collector. The 

Bureau is finalizing § 1006.34(b)(3) and 

§ 1006.34(b)(3)(i) through (v), discussed 

below, pursuant to its authority under 

FDCPA section 814(d) to prescribe rules 

with respect to the collection of debts by 

debt collectors and pursuant to its 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
5794 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

181This is likely to be true even if the consumer 

has received a duplicative statement as the last 

statement. In that scenario, under 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(vii), which requires a debt collector 

to disclose the amount of the debt on the 

itemization date, the debt amount that the debt 

collector discloses to the consumer must be the debt 

amount as of that last statement date. 

182 65 FR 36903 (June 12, 2000); Off. of the 

Comptroller of the Currency, Bulletin 2000–20, 

Uniform Retail Credit Classification and Account 

Management Policy (June 20, 2000). 

183An individual commenter requested 

clarification whether, for medical debt, the date of 

charge off is the date a creditor places the account 

for collection. The Bureau is not aware that such 

a definition is commonly used. 

authority under Dodd-Frank Act section 

1032(a) to prescribe rules to ensure that 

the features of consumer financial 

products and services are disclosed to 

consumers fully, accurately, and 

effectively. 

34(b)(3)(i) 

The Bureau proposed in 

§ 1006.34(b)(3)(i) to permit debt 

collectors to use as the itemization date 

the date of the last periodic statement or 

written account statement or invoice 

provided to the consumer. Proposed 

comment 34(b)(3)(i)–1 explained that a 

statement provided by a creditor or a 

third party acting on the creditor’s 

behalf, including a creditor’s service 

provider, may constitute the last 

statement provided to the consumer for 

purposes of § 1006.34(b)(3)(i). 

Commenters disagreed about whether 

the Bureau should adopt the last 

statement date as a permissible 

reference date. Several industry and 

industry trade group commenters 

supported the proposal, stating that, for 

some debts, the last statement date is 

readily available to debt collectors and 

recognizable to consumers. Some 

commenters stated that, even when 

creditors do not initially provide 

periodic statements to debt collectors, 

such statements are available upon 

request. However, some consumer 

advocate commenters stated that the last 

statement date may not be meaningful to 

some consumers and may not help them 

recognize a debt. For example, a 

commenter stated that a creditor may 

send duplicates of the same periodic 

statement or invoice to a consumer 

multiple times, even when the balance 

is changing due to interest or fees. In 

this scenario, the commenter said, the 

last statement a consumer received 

would not reflect the actual amount 

owed and would not be helpful to the 

consumer. 

At least two commenters stated that a 

validation notice provided by a prior 

debt collector should not constitute a 

last statement for purposes of 

§ 1006.34(b)(3)(i). According to a 

consumer advocate commenter, the date 

of a prior validation notice will not be 

meaningful to consumers and, 

consequently, an itemization as of that 

date will not help consumers recognize 

an alleged debt. An industry trade group 

commenter advised against relying on a 

validation notice provided by a prior 

debt collector because creditors 

generally do not provide previously sent 

validation notices to subsequent debt 

collectors. 

The Bureau determines that the last 

statement date may be used as a 

reference date. Many creditors or third 

parties acting on a creditor’s behalf 

routinely provide consumers with 

account statements, such as periodic 

statements or invoices. If a consumer 

has received an account statement from 

a creditor, the consumer either may 

recognize the date that they last 

received a statement or may be able to 

verify that date in their records.181

Further, last statement information is 

often readily available to debt collectors, 

as debt collectors frequently receive, or 

have the ability to request, last 

statement information or records from 

creditors. 

The Bureau determines that only a 

last statement or invoice provided to a 

consumer by a creditor, as opposed to 

a statement, such as a validation notice, 

provided by a debt collector, should 

serve as a basis for a last statement date 

as defined in § 1006.34(b)(3)(i) because 

consumers may be more likely to recall 

or be able to verify a statement sent by 

a creditor than by a debt collector. This 

may be true even if a creditor issues a 

statement after the debt has gone into 

collection. Under § 1006.34(b)(3)(i), 

such a new statement may serve as the 

last statement for purposes of the 

itemization date. 

For these reasons, the Bureau is 

finalizing § 1006.34(b)(3)(i) and its 

related commentary with revisions to 

provide that only a statement or invoice 

provided by a creditor qualifies as a last 

statement for purposes of 

§ 1006.34(b)(3)(i). Specifically, the 

Bureau is revising § 1006.34(b)(3)(i) to 

state that the last statement date is the 

date of the last periodic statement or 

written account statement or invoice 

provided to the consumer by a creditor. 

The Bureau also is revising comment 

34(b)(3)(i)–1 to provide that a statement 

or invoice provided by a debt collector 

is not a last statement for purposes of 

§ 1006.34(b)(3)(i), unless the debt 

collector is also a creditor. 

34(b)(3)(ii) 

The Bureau proposed in 

§ 1006.34(b)(3)(ii) to permit debt 

collectors to use the date that the debt 

was charged off as the itemization date. 

An industry trade group and an 

industry commenter supported the use 

of the charge-off date, particularly for 

debts associated with open-end credit, 

such as credit cards. The commenters 

stated that charge off is a regulated 

Federal standard for consumer credit 182

and would be a reliable reference date 

for itemization-related disclosures in 

some circumstances. An industry trade 

group commenter stated that creditors 

frequently provide debt collectors 

account information as of the charge-off 

date. Commenters stated that consumers 

may recognize the amount due as of the 

charge-off date because some creditors 

provide charge-off statements that 

reflect the charge-off balance and, they 

said, consumers have the ability to 

review these charge-off statements. 

Other commenters objected to 

including the charge-off date as a 

permissible reference date. An industry 

commenter stated that not all creditors 

maintain account information as of the 

charge-off date or communicate that 

information to debt collectors at 

placement. Consumer advocates and at 

least two industry trade group 

commenters stated that, although the 

charge-off date may be widely used for 

some financial products, it may not 

resonate with consumers or help them 

recognize a debt because consumers 

might not know the charge-off date.183

The Bureau determines that the 

charge-off date may be used as a 

reference date. Creditors frequently 

provide account information as of the 

charge-off date for various types of 

debts, including credit card debt, to debt 

collectors. The Bureau acknowledges 

that not all creditors maintain account 

information as of the charge-off date or 

provide such information to debt 

collectors, but the charge-off date is only 

one of five reference dates specified in 

the final rule. Further, account 

information at charge off is readily 

available to a sufficiently large number 

of debt collectors—including collectors 

of credit card debt—to justify its 

adoption as a reference date. In 

addition, while consumers might not 

know the specific charge-off date, they 

may, in fact, recognize account 

information as of approximately the 

charge-off date because charge off often 

occurs at around the time the creditor 

provided a last account statement. 

Further, as noted by commenters, some 

creditors may provide consumers with 

charge-off statements that reflect the 

balance as of the charge-off date. 

Accordingly, the Bureau is finalizing 

§ 1006.34(b)(3)(ii) as proposed. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 5795 

184See the discussion of tax debts in the 

introductory section-by-section analysis of 

§ 1006.34(b)(3). 

34(b)(3)(iii) 

The Bureau proposed in 

§ 1006.34(b)(3)(iii) to permit debt 

collectors to use the date the last 

payment was applied to the debt as the 

itemization date. 

Industry and consumer advocate 

commenters generally supported 

proposed § 1006.34(b)(3)(iii). These 

commenters agreed that account 

information as of the last payment date 

is readily available to debt collectors 

and recognizable to consumers. 

According to one consumer advocate, a 

consumer may have a general idea of 

when a bill was last paid, especially if 

the consumer’s delinquency was related 

to a significant life event, such as a job 

loss, a divorce, or an illness. 

Accordingly, the Bureau determines that 

the last payment date as defined in 

§ 1006.34(b)(3)(iii) is an appropriate 

reference date. 

Commenters asked the Bureau to 

clarify whether a third-party payment 

could serve as the basis for the last 

payment date. For example, several 

trade group commenters stated that, if a 

consumer’s car is repossessed, the sale 

of the collateral may be applied to the 

consumer’s balance after receipt of the 

consumer’s last payment. Another 

commenter raised the possibility of 

third-party payments and insurance 

adjustments in the medical debt context. 

A group of consumer advocates 

recommended that only a payment from 

a consumer to a creditor should serve as 

the basis for a last payment date. 

According to this commenter, a last 

consumer payment to a prior debt 

collector may not be significant or 

recognizable to a consumer. 

The Bureau determines that thirdparty payments may serve as the basis 

for the last payment date under 

§ 1006.34(b)(3)(iii). The Bureau finds 

that the date of a third-party payment on 

the debt, such as a payment from an 

auto repossession agent or an insurance 

company, may be meaningful to a 

consumer because such payments may 

be accompanied by a notice to the 

consumer, and therefore the consumer 

could recognize or verify with records 

the date of such payments. 

The Bureau also determines that a 

consumer’s payment to a prior debt 

collector may serve as the last payment 

date. The Bureau finds that consumers 

are at least as likely to recognize or be 

able to verify with records the status of 

the debt as of the consumer’s last 

payment to a prior debt collector as 

consumers are able to recognize or 

verify an earlier (perhaps much earlier) 

payment to the creditor, particularly if 

the debt has been outstanding for a long 

time. 

For these reasons, the Bureau is 

finalizing § 1006.34(b)(3)(iii) as 

proposed to provide that the last 

payment date is the date the last 

payment was applied to the debt. The 

Bureau also is adopting new comment 

34(b)(3)(iii)–1, which clarifies that a 

third-party payment applied to the debt, 

such as a payment from an auto 

repossession agent or an insurance 

company, can be a last payment for 

purposes of § 1006.34(b)(3)(iii). 

34(b)(3)(iv) 

The Bureau proposed in 

§ 1006.34(b)(3)(iv) to permit debt 

collectors to use as the itemization date 

the date of the transaction that gave rise 

to the debt. Proposed comment 

34(b)(3)(iv)–1 explained that the 

transaction date is the date that a 

creditor provided, or made available, a 

good or service to a consumer, and it 

included examples of transaction dates. 

The comment also explained that, if a 

debt has more than one potential 

transaction date, a debt collector may 

use any such date as the transaction 

date but must use whichever transaction 

date it selects consistently. 

A number of commenters, including 

consumer advocates, industry trade 

groups, and at least one industry 

commenter, supported including the 

transaction date in the itemization date 

definition. According to several 

commenters, consumers likely would 

recognize the transaction date as 

defined by proposed § 1006.34(b)(3)(iv). 

At least one commenter stated that 

creditors provide account information 

as of the transaction date for some debt 

types. 

With respect to proposed comment 

34(b)(3)(iv)–1, a consumer advocate 

commenter stated that, if a debt has 

more than one potential transaction 

date, the debt collector should not be 

permitted to choose which date to use 

as the transaction date for purposes of 

§ 1006.34(b)(3)(iv). The commenter 

urged the Bureau to develop a 

prescriptive standard for identifying the 

appropriate transaction date for 

scenarios where multiple transaction 

dates exist. 

Several commenters also stated that 

determining the transaction date may be 

problematic in some circumstances. For 

example, a consumer advocate 

commenter explained that, while 

determining the transaction date is 

straightforward with one-time 

transactions, identifying the transaction 

date may be more difficult with respect 

to contracts for ongoing services, such 

as gym memberships, cellular telephone 

contracts, or lawn care service contracts. 

In addition, an industry commenter 

stated that medical providers may 

combine multiple dates of service into 

one account or use family billing that 

combines separate bills for family 

members into one account. The 

commenter suggested that, if an account 

in collection reflects services on 

multiple dates or for multiple 

individuals, identifying a transaction 

date may be difficult for the debt 

collector. 

The Bureau finds that, for some debts, 

creditors may provide debt collectors 

with account information related to the 

transaction date. In addition, consumers 

may recognize the amount of a debt on 

the transaction date, which may be 

reflected on a copy of a contract or a bill 

provided by a creditor. For this reason, 

the Bureau is finalizing 

§ 1006.34(b)(3)(iv) as proposed to 

provide that the transaction date, which 

is the date of the transaction that gave 

rise to the debt, can be the itemization 

date for purposes of § 1006.34(b)(3). 

As commenters noted, various dates 

may serve as potential transaction dates 

under § 1006.34(b)(3)(iv). For example, 

potential transaction dates may include 

the date a service or good was provided 

to a consumer or the date that a 

consumer signed a contract for a service 

or good. In the case of a consumer’s tax 

debt, the date a government assessed the 

tax may be a transaction date for 

purposes of § 1006.34(b)(3)(iv).184

Nevertheless, the Bureau declines to 

adopt a prescriptive standard for 

identifying the only transaction date 

debt collectors may use. Both the 

contract date and the service date are 

significant dates that may resonate with 

a consumer. Because the consumer may 

recognize the amount of the debt on 

those dates, the Bureau finds that either 

date may serve as the transaction date. 

Further, the Bureau determines that 

developing a more prescriptive standard 

that would apply to all debt types is not 

feasible. For this reason, the Bureau is 

finalizing comment 34(b)(3)(iv)–1, with 

minor changes for clarity, to provide 

that, if a debt has more than one 

transaction date, a debt collector may 

use any such date as the transaction 

date, but the debt collector must use 

whichever date the debt collector selects 

consistently, as described in comment 

34(b)(3)–1. Comment 34(b)(3)(iv)–1 also 

addresses concerns regarding 

identifying the transaction date for 

medical debt that includes services on 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
5796 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

185Because of differences between various debt 

types and the particular facts and circumstances of 

any given transaction, § 1006.34(b)(3)(iv) provides 

debt collectors flexibility when selecting a 

transaction date. However, if the total amount of a 

debt in collection includes amounts incurred on 

different dates of service, the Bureau believes that, 

even though § 1006.34(b)(3)(iv) does not require it, 

debt collectors generally will select the last date of 

service as the transaction date. This date may be 

most recognizable to consumers. Further, disclosing 

itemization-related information as of the last date, 

as opposed to an earlier date, likely would be easier 

for a debt collector. 

186See 84 FR 23274, 23337 (May 21, 2019). 

187 15 U.S.C. 1692g(b). 

188 84 FR 23274, 23337–38 (May 21, 2019). 

189United States Postal Service (USPS) delivery 

times for Standard Mail, commonly referred to as 

bulk mail, are typically longer than delivery times 

for first-class mail. For example, based on the USPS 

Originating Service Standards, bulk mail originated 

in Washington, DC takes six days to reach New 

York City, seven days to reach Denver, and nine 

days to reach Seattle. By contrast, first-class mail 

from Washington, DC reaches New York City in two 

days and Denver and Seattle in three days. See U.S. 

Postal Serv., Service Standards Maps, https://

postalpro.usps.com/ppro-tools/service-standardsmaps (last visited Nov. 16, 2020). 

multiple dates or for multiple 

individuals.185

The Bureau recognizes that the 

transaction date may be difficult to 

determine in some circumstances. 

However, under the framework in 

§ 1006.34(b)(3) for determining the 

itemization date, the transaction date is 

one of five reference dates from which 

a debt collector may choose. Section 

1006.34(b)(3) does not require a debt 

collector to use the transaction date as 

the reference date for itemizationrelated disclosures. If a debt collector 

cannot determine the transaction date, 

the debt collector may use another 

reference date. 

34(b)(3)(v) 

As discussed above, the proposed 

definition of itemization date included 

four reference dates. In response to the 

proposed definition, an industry 

commenter suggested that the Bureau 

add a fifth date—the date of a court 

judgment. The Bureau has determined 

to adopt this recommendation. As a 

general matter, debt collectors will 

know if a court judgment against a 

consumer exists and consumers are 

likely to recognize the date of a court 

judgment against them or be able to 

verify the date with records. Further, the 

amount of the debt as of the date of a 

court judgment is verifiable as it will 

have been memorialized in court 

records. Accordingly, the Bureau is 

finalizing § 1006.34(b)(3)(v) to permit 

debt collectors to use as the itemization 

date the judgment date, which is the 

date of a final court judgment that 

determines the amount of the debt owed 

by the consumer. 

34(b)(4) Validation Notice 

FDCPA section 809(a) provides, in 

relevant part, that, within five days after 

the initial communication with a 

consumer in connection with the 

collection of any debt, a debt collector 

shall send the consumer a written notice 

containing specified information (i.e., 

validation information), unless that 

information is contained in the initial 

communication or the consumer has 

paid the debt. Debt collectors and others 

commonly refer to the written notice 

required by FDCPA section 809(a) as a 

‘‘validation notice’’ or a ‘‘g notice.’’ The 

Bureau proposed in § 1006.34(b)(4) to 

define validation notice to mean a 

written or electronic notice that 

provides the validation information 

described in § 1006.34(c).186 The Bureau 

received no comments regarding 

proposed § 1006.34(b)(4) and is 

finalizing it with a minor wording 

change for consistency with final 

§ 1006.34(c). 

34(b)(5) Validation Period 

FDCPA section 809(b) contains 

certain requirements that a debt 

collector must satisfy if a consumer 

disputes a debt or requests the name 

and address of the original creditor.187

If a consumer disputes a debt in writing 

within 30 days of receiving the 

validation information, a debt collector 

must stop collection of the debt until 

the debt collector obtains verification of 

the debt or a copy of a judgment against 

the consumer and mails it to the 

consumer. Similarly, if a consumer 

requests the name and address of the 

original creditor in writing within 30 

days of receiving the validation 

information, the debt collector must 

cease collection of the debt until the 

debt collector obtains and mails such 

information to the consumer. FDCPA 

section 809(b) also prohibits a debt 

collector, during the 30-day period for 

written disputes and original-creditor 

information requests, from engaging in 

collection activities and 

communications that overshadow, or 

are inconsistent with, the disclosure of 

the consumer’s rights to dispute the 

debt and request original-creditor 

information, which are sometimes 

referred to as ‘‘verification rights.’’ 

As described in the section-by-section 

analysis of § 1006.34(c)(3)(i) through 

(iii), the Bureau proposed to require 

debt collectors to disclose to a consumer 

the date certain on which the 

consumer’s verification rights under 

FDCPA section 809(b) expire. To 

facilitate compliance with that proposed 

requirement, proposed § 1006.34(b)(5) 

defined the term validation period to 

mean the period starting on the date that 

a debt collector provides the validation 

information described in § 1006.34(c) 

and ending 30 days after the consumer 

receives or is assumed to receive the 

validation information.188 To clarify 

how to calculate the end of the 

validation period—including how debt 

collectors may disclose a period that 

provides consumers additional time 

beyond the required 30 days to exercise 

their validation rights—proposed 

§ 1006.34(b)(5) provided that a debt 

collector may assume that a consumer 

receives the validation information on 

any day that is at least five days 

(excluding legal public holidays, 

Saturdays, and Sundays) after the debt 

collector provides it. Proposed comment 

34(b)(5)–1 clarified that, if a debt 

collector sends an initial validation 

notice that was not received and then 

sends a subsequent validation notice, 

the validation period ends 30 days after 

the consumer receives or is assumed to 

receive the subsequent validation 

notice. 

For the reasons discussed below, the 

Bureau is finalizing proposed 

§ 1006.34(b)(5) and proposed comment 

34(b)(5)–1 (which is renumbered as 

comment 34(b)(5)–2) with minor 

wording changes for clarity and 

consistency with other provisions of 

Regulation F. The Bureau is adopting 

new comment 34(b)(5)–1 to illustrate 

how a debt collector may calculate the 

end of the validation period before 

sending the validation notice. 

A number of commenters, including 

industry commenters, supported 

proposed § 1006.34(b)(5). According to 

several commenters, the proposed 

definition is consistent with current 

industry practices. For example, with 

respect to the proposed five-day 

delivery timing assumption, industry 

commenters stated that debt collectors 

generally assume that a consumer 

receives a validation notice five to eight 

days after mailing. Consumer advocate 

commenters objected to the proposed 

definition, stating that debt collectors 

should be obligated to honor consumer 

verification requests at any time, not 

only during the validation period. 

Some commenters recommended 

lengthening the proposed five-day 

delivery timing assumption. A 

consumer advocate commenter and an 

industry trade group commenter 

suggested that the validation period 

definition should assume that the 

consumer receives the validation notice 

seven days after the debt collector mails 

it to account for delays or bulk mail 

delivery.189 Another trade group 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 5797 

190Although the FDCPA and this implementing 

regulation do not require a debt collector to provide 

verification after the validation period expires, a 

debt collector nevertheless may choose to do so. 

The Bureau has received feedback from debt 

collectors and at least one industry trade group that 

many debt collectors respond to disputes with 

verification, and to original-creditor-information 

requests, after the validation period has expired. 

191See U.S. Postal Serv., Service Standards Maps, 

https://postalpro.usps.com/ppro-tools/servicestandards-maps (last visited Dec. 1, 2020). 

192FDCPA section 809(a)(3) requires the 

validation notice to include ‘‘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.’’ 15 

U.S.C. 1692g(a)(3) (emphasis added). 

193 85 FR 76734, 76833–34, 76892 (Nov. 30, 

2020). 

commenter recommended a fixed tenday assumption that omits 

consideration of weekends and 

holidays. 

Other commenters recommended 

shortening the delivery timing 

assumption. For example, an industry 

trade group commenter recommended 

that the Bureau eliminate the 

assumption entirely and clarify that the 

validation period commences upon 

mailing of a validation notice. Other 

industry commenters urged the Bureau 

to shorten the assumption for nearinstantaneous communication methods, 

such as electronic or oral delivery. In 

contrast, at least two industry trade 

groups commenters and a consumer 

advocate commenter recommended a 

uniform validation period across 

delivery methods. According to an 

industry trade group commenter, if the 

validation period is not the same for all 

delivery methods, consumers may be 

confused if they receive validation 

notices through different delivery 

methods with different due dates. 

After considering this feedback, the 

Bureau determines that a validation 

period definition will facilitate debt 

collectors’ compliance with the 

requirement in § 1006.34(c)(3) to 

disclose to a consumer the date certain 

on which the consumer’s FDCPA 

section 809(b) verification rights expire. 

The Bureau declines, as requested by 

consumer advocate commenters, to 

require a debt collector to comply with 

a verification request that a consumer 

submits after the 30-day period 

provided by the statute has expired. 

FDCPA section 809(b) establishes a 30- 

day period for consumers to exercise 

their verification rights.190

The Bureau also declines to modify 

the length of the five-day delivery 

timing assumption. The Bureau 

proposed § 1006.34(b)(5) on the basis 

that a consumer typically receives a 

validation notice no more than five days 

(excluding legal public holidays, 

Saturdays, and Sundays) after the debt 

collector provides the notice. Based on 

its market monitoring activities, the 

Bureau understands that debt collectors 

typically send consumer 

communications by first-class mail, 

which generally is delivered in three 

business days or less.191 The Bureau is 

unaware that debt collectors typically 

use bulk mail to deliver validation 

notices, and commenters offered no 

evidence otherwise. For these reasons, 

the Bureau declines to extend the fiveday delivery timing assumption. 

The Bureau also declines to shorten 

the validation period’s five-day delivery 

timing assumption. The FDCPA’s 30- 

day validation period begins to run 

when the consumer receives the 

validation information.192 If the 30-day 

clock began to run upon the debt 

collector’s mailing of the validation 

notice, as some commenters suggested, 

the consumer would be deprived of the 

full 30-day period provided by the 

FDCPA to respond to the notice. 

Further, the Bureau declines to shorten 

the length of the validation period for 

validation information provided by 

communication methods such as 

electronic delivery. A delivery timing 

assumption that varied by delivery 

method could pose compliance 

challenges and incentivize use of one 

communication method over another. 

Therefore, as proposed, the five-day 

delivery timing assumption applies 

uniformly to all validation information 

delivery methods. 

A group of consumer advocates asked 

the Bureau to define the validation 

period based solely on when the 

consumer is assumed to receive the 

validation information. In other words, 

this commenter requested that the rule 

not permit the date that a consumer 

actually received the validation notice 

to serve as the basis of the validation 

period. According to this commenter, 

relying solely on the date that the 

consumer is assumed to receive the 

information would prevent confusion if 

the date the consumer received the 

notice and the date the debt collector 

assumed the consumer received it are 

different. 

The Bureau declines to adopt this 

suggestion. The FDCPA’s 30-day 

validation period begins to run when 

the consumer receives the validation 

information. Nevertheless, the Bureau 

determines that, at least in certain 

contexts, the date that the consumer is 

assumed to receive the validation notice 

is the only date information that a debt 

collector will have at the time the 

validation information is generated. 

Specifically, a debt collector who sends 

a written or electronic validation notice 

will not know, at the time the notice is 

generated, the date on which the 

consumer will receive the notice and, 

therefore, must be able to use the date 

of assumed receipt to calculate the 

validation period end date. The Bureau 

is adding new comment 34(b)(5)–1 to 

clarify that, in such circumstances, debt 

collectors may rely on the date of 

assumed receipt, even if they learn after 

sending the notice that the consumer 

received the validation information on a 

different date. 

Several industry and industry trade 

group commenters expressed concern 

about the use of the term ‘‘legal public 

holiday’’ in proposed § 1006.34(b)(5). 

According to these commenters, legal 

public holidays may include State and 

local holidays that the debt collector is 

not aware of and cannot reasonably 

ascertain. In response to these concerns, 

and consistent with § 1006.22(c)(1) in 

the November 2020 Final Rule,193 the 

Bureau is revising § 1006.34(b)(5) to 

provide that a debt collector may 

assume that a consumer receives the 

validation information on any date that 

is at least five days (excluding legal 

public holidays identified in 5 U.S.C. 

6103(a), Saturdays, and Sundays) after 

the debt collector provides it. 

Several industry commenters asked 

the Bureau to clarify whether a debt 

collector must receive a consumer’s 

verification request before the validation 

period end date, or whether the 

consumer need only send the request by 

the validation period end date for the 

request to be effective. The Bureau 

determines that a consumer’s 

verification request—whether an 

original-creditor information request or 

a dispute—is effective if the consumer 

sends or submits the request within the 

30-day period established in 

§ 1006.34(b)(5), even if the debt 

collector does not receive the request 

until after the 30-day period. In 

specifying requirements for debt 

collectors’ responses to consumers’ 

verification requests, § 1006.38(c) and 

(d)(2) of the Bureau’s November 2020 

Final Rule implemented FDCPA section 

809(b) by providing that, upon receipt of 

an original-creditor information request 

(§ 1006.38(c)) or a dispute 

(§ 1006.38(d)(2)) ‘‘submitted by the 

consumer in writing within the 

validation period, a debt collector must 

cease collection of the debt . . . .’’ 

(emphasis added). The Bureau 

determines that a consumer’s originalVerDate Sep<11>2014 20:52 Jan 17, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JAR8.SGM 19JAR8

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
5798 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

194See 15 U.S.C. 1692e(11). 

195See, e.g., Dorsey v. Morgan, 760 F. Supp. 509 

(D. Md. 1991). 

196See 84 FR 23274, 23322–23, 23402 (May 21, 

2019). 

197See 85 FR 76734, 76830–31, 76891–92 (Nov. 

30, 2020). 

198The model validation notice includes the 

disclosure required by § 1006.18(e)(1). As explained 

in the section-by-section analysis of § 1006.34(d)(2), 

new comment 34(d)(2)(i)–1 clarifies that a debt 

collector who uses the model notice to provide a 

validation notice as described in 

§ 1006.34(a)(1)(i)(B) may replace the disclosure 

required by § 1006.18(e)(1) with the disclosure 

required by § 1006.18(e)(2) without losing the safe 

harbor provided by use of the model notice. 

creditor information request or dispute 

has been ‘‘submitted by the consumer’’ 

for purposes of § 1006.38(c) and (d)(2) if 

the consumer sends or submits the 

request within the 30-day period 

established in § 1006.34(b)(5), even if 

the debt collector does not receive the 

request until after the 30-day period. 

For the reasons discussed above, the 

Bureau is adopting § 1006.34(b)(5) to 

provide that validation period means 

the period starting on the date that a 

debt collector provides the validation 

information and ending 30 days after 

the consumer receives or is assumed to 

receive it. Section 1006.34(b)(5) also 

specifies that a debt collector may 

assume that a consumer receives the 

validation information on any date that 

is at least five days (excluding legal 

public holidays identified in 5 U.S.C. 

6103(a) (i.e., federally recognized public 

holidays), Saturdays, and Sundays) after 

the debt collector provides it. 

Proposed comment 34(b)(5)–1 

clarified that, if a debt collector sends a 

subsequent validation notice to a 

consumer because the consumer did not 

receive the original validation notice 

and the consumer has not otherwise 

received the validation information, the 

debt collector must calculate the end of 

the validation period based on the date 

the consumer receives or is assumed to 

receive the subsequent validation 

notice. 

At least two industry trade group 

commenters stated that proposed 

comment 34(b)(5)–1 was consistent with 

current industry practice. According to 

these commenters, if a validation notice 

is returned as undeliverable, debt 

collectors typically send a new 

validation notice and provide a new 

period for consumers to exercise their 

verification rights. A law firm 

commenter asked the Bureau to provide 

additional guidance on a debt collector’s 

duties if a validation notice is returned 

as undeliverable after the validation 

period has expired. 

The Bureau concludes based on 

feedback received and its own marketmonitoring, supervision, and 

enforcement experience that proposed 

comment 34(b)(5)–1 is consistent with 

existing industry practice and therefore 

is adopting it largely as proposed but 

renumbered as comment 34(b)(5)–2. If a 

validation notice is returned as 

undeliverable after the validation period 

has expired and the debt collector sends 

a subsequent notice, then, as stated in 

the comment, the debt collector must 

calculate the end of the validation 

period based on the date the consumer 

receives or is assumed to receive the 

subsequent validation notice. 

34(c) Validation Information 

Proposed § 1006.34(c) set forth the 

validation information that proposed 

§ 1006.34(a)(1) would have required 

debt collectors to disclose. The 

validation information consisted of four 

general categories: Information to help 

consumers identify debts (including the 

information specifically referenced in 

FDCPA section 809(a)); information 

about consumers’ protections in debt 

collection; information to facilitate 

consumers’ ability to exercise their 

rights with respect to debt collection; 

and certain other statutorily required 

information. Each of those categories is 

addressed separately in the section-bysection analysis of § 1006.34(c)(1) 

through (4). 

34(c)(1) Debt Collector Communication 

Disclosure 

FDCPA section 807(11) requires a 

debt collector to disclose in its initial 

written communication with a 

consumer—and, if the initial 

communication is oral, in that oral 

communication as well—that the debt 

collector is attempting to collect a debt 

and that any information obtained will 

be used for that purpose.194 A debt 

collector must also disclose in each 

subsequent communication that the 

communication is from a debt collector. 

If a debt collector provides validation 

information, the debt collector engages 

in a debt collection communication and 

must make an appropriate FDCPA 

section 807(11) disclosure.195

The Bureau proposed to implement 

the FDCPA section 807(11) disclosures 

in § 1006.18(e).196 In turn, the Bureau 

proposed in § 1006.34(c)(1) that the 

§ 1006.18(e) disclosure is required 

validation information. The Bureau 

finalized § 1006.18(e) in the November 

2020 Final Rule.197 Section 

1006.18(e)(1) requires a debt collector to 

disclose in its initial communication 

that the debt collector is attempting to 

collect a debt and that any information 

obtained will be used for that purpose. 

Section 1006.18(e)(2) requires a debt 

collector to disclose in each subsequent 

communication that the communication 

is from a debt collector. 

At least one industry trade group 

supported proposed § 1006.34(c)(1)’s 

cross-reference to the FDCPA section 

807(11) requirement. A consumer 

advocate commenter asked the Bureau 

to clarify what version of the FDCPA 

section 807(11) disclosure should 

appear on the validation notice: The 

longer, initial disclosure described in 

§ 1006.18(e)(1) or the shorter, 

subsequent disclosure described in 

§ 1006.18(e)(2). 

The Bureau is adopting new comment 

34(c)(1)–1 to clarify that a debt collector 

who provides the validation notice 

required by § 1006.34(a)(1)(i)(A)—i.e., a 

debt collector who provides the 

validation notice in the initial 

communication—complies with 

§ 1006.34(c)(1) by providing the 

disclosure described in § 1006.18(e)(1). 

The disclosure described in 

§ 1006.18(e)(1) is broader than, and 

incorporates the content of, the 

disclosure described in § 1006.18(e)(2). 

Accordingly, new comment 34(c)(1)–1 

also clarifies that a debt collector who 

provides the validation notice required 

by § 1006.34(a)(1)(i)(B)—i.e., a debt 

collector who provides the validation 

notice within five days of the initial 

communication—complies with 

§ 1006.34(c)(1) by providing either the 

disclosure required by § 1006.18(e)(1) or 

the disclosure required by 

§ 1006.18(e)(2).198 The Bureau 

determines that this clarification will 

facilitate compliance, encourage use of 

the model validation notice, and protect 

consumers. 

The consumer advocate commenter 

also recommended that the Bureau 

require every validation notice to 

include a Spanish translation of the 

FDCPA section 807(11) disclosure to 

assist Spanish-speaking consumers. The 

Bureau declines to do so. Mandating 

that every debt collector provide a 

Spanish translation of the disclosure is 

unnecessary for the majority of 

consumers, who are not Spanish 

speakers. Further, a mandatory 

translation could undermine the 

effectiveness of the other validation 

information disclosures. Moreover, the 

November 2020 Final Rule contained a 

targeted language access intervention on 

this topic. Pursuant to § 1006.18(e)(4) in 

that rule, debt collectors will be 

required to make the FDCPA section 

807(11) disclosure in the same language 

or languages used for the rest of the 

communication in which the 

disclosures are conveyed. Thus, if a debt 

collector provides a consumer a 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 5799 

199 84 FR 23274, 23338–42, 23404 (May 21, 2019). 

Proposed § 1006.34(c)(5) set forth a special rule for 

information about the debt for certain residential 

mortgage debt. 

200Certain information that Bureau qualitative 

testing indicates helps consumers to recognize a 

debt—including a debt’s original account number or 

an itemization of interest and fees—may not 

consistently appear on validation notices. See FMG 

Cognitive Report, supra note 27, at 8–11. 201Even assuming one commenter’s claim that 

only one-half of 1 percent of debts lack a 

contractual basis or are miscalculated, this error 

rate would impact hundreds of thousands of 

consumers annually. As the proposal noted, 49 

million consumers are contacted by debt collectors 

every year. See 84 FR 23274, 23382 n.656 (May 21, 

2019). If one-half of 1 percent of these consumers 

received validation notices for debts they did not 

owe, 245,000 consumers could be impacted. 

202The most common debt collection complaint 

received by the Bureau continues to be about 

attempts to collect a debt that the consumer reports 

is not owed. See 2020 FDCPA Annual Report, supra 

note 12, at 14. Consumers may report that a debt 

is not owed for a variety of reasons including, but 

not limited to, that the debt is being collected in 

error or that the consumer does not recognize the 

debt. 

validation notice in Spanish pursuant to 

§ 1006.34(e), the debt collector must 

include on that notice a Spanish 

translation of the FDCPA section 

807(11) disclosure. 

Accordingly, the Bureau is finalizing 

§ 1006.34(c)(1) as proposed and is 

finalizing new comment 34(c)(1)–1 as 

described above. 

34(c)(2) Information About the Debt 

Proposed § 1006.34(c)(2) specified 

that certain information about the debt 

and the parties related to the debt was 

required validation information.199 The 

section-by-section analysis of proposed 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(i) through (x) discussed 

the specific items of information, which 

were designed to help consumers 

recognize debts and included existing 

disclosures. The Bureau addresses 

comments related to specific disclosures 

in the section-by-section analysis of 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(i) through (x). In this 

section-by-section analysis, the Bureau 

addresses comments related to 

§ 1006.34(c)(2) more generally. 

Some commenters supported 

proposed § 1006.34(c)(2). A consumer 

advocate and a municipal government 

commenter stated that the proposed 

validation information would help 

consumers determine whether they owe 

a debt. A group of State Attorneys 

General stated that consumers today do 

not consistently receive the information 

they need to identify debts. According 

to these commenters, consumers 

routinely submit complaints that they 

do not recognize the debts or creditors 

disclosed on validation notices. An 

industry trade group stated that it would 

be feasible for debt collectors to disclose 

the proposed information because debt 

buyers routinely obtain such 

information at purchase. 

Other commenters objected to 

proposed § 1006.34(c)(2) and suggested 

that consumers do not need information 

beyond what the FDCPA expressly 

requires. An industry trade group stated, 

without providing verifiable evidence, 

that most debts are valid and asserted 

that less than one-half of 1 percent of 

debts lack a contractual basis or are 

miscalculated. According to this 

commenter, the small number of debts 

that are problematic can be resolved by 

consumers invoking their FDCPA 

verification rights. 

Other commenters who objected to 

proposed § 1006.34(c)(2) cited industry 

burden. For example, one industry 

commenter stated that requiring debt 

collectors to disclose the proposed 

information about the debt and parties 

related to the debt would increase costs 

for debt collectors as well as for 

creditors. Another industry commenter 

suggested that proposed § 1006.34(c)(2) 

was not feasible because debt collectors 

rely on creditors for account 

information and records. According to 

this commenter, if creditors did not 

provide the information, debt collectors 

would be unable to comply with 

§ 1006.34(c)(2). 

Some commenters stated that the 

information proposed § 1006.34(c)(2) 

would require might confuse consumers 

and questioned whether it was 

supported by the Bureau’s consumer 

testing. 

Some commenters recommended that 

the Bureau revise proposed 

§ 1006.34(c)(2) to require additional 

validation information. Federal 

government agency staff, a group of 

State Attorneys General, and a 

government commenter suggested that 

the name of the original creditor and the 

date of the original transaction should 

be required validation information. A 

group of State Attorneys General 

suggested that the Bureau require debt 

collectors to provide information about 

the debt as of the charge-off date. Two 

associations representing State 

regulatory agencies recommended that 

the Bureau require disclosure of a debt 

collector’s State license or registration 

number, such as the Nationwide MultiState Licensing System identification. 

According to these commenters, 

requiring debt collectors to disclose 

license or registration information 

would assist regulators examining for 

compliance with State debt collection 

laws. In addition, a consumer advocate, 

an industry trade group, and an industry 

commenter recommended that, for 

medical debt, validation information 

should include the facility name 

associated with the debt. According to 

these commenters, a consumer may be 

more likely to recognize a facility where 

treatment was provided than the name 

of the physician or healthcare provider 

to whom the consumer owes the debt. 

After considering the feedback, the 

Bureau has determined to finalize 

§ 1006.34(c)(2). The Bureau determines 

that validation notices in use today 

frequently lack sufficient information 

about the debt and the parties related to 

the debt, and this lack of information 

undermines the ability of consumers to 

determine whether they owe an alleged 

debt. This conclusion is consistent with 

feedback from Federal and State 

government commenters, including the 

FTC and a group of State Attorneys 

General. The Bureau’s testing also 

supports this conclusion.200

The Bureau determines that requiring 

debt collectors to disclose the 

information about the debt and parties 

related to the debt in § 1006.34(c)(2) is 

necessary. Industry commenters did not 

support their claims about the relative 

infrequency of problematic debts with 

verifiable evidence.201 In addition, a 

group of State Attorneys General stated 

that consumers routinely complain that 

they do not recognize debts being 

collected, and the Bureau’s complaint 

statistics indicate similar concerns 

about debts among consumers.202 Thus, 

the Bureau is finalizing § 1006.34(c)(2) 

to require information about the debt 

and parties related to the debt. 

The Bureau also determines that 

§ 1006.34(c)(2) will not impose undue 

industry burden. As discussed in part 

VII, while § 1006.34(c)(2) may increase 

some costs for debt collectors, as well as 

cause some indirect costs for creditors, 

the Bureau does not expect these costs 

to be substantial. The Bureau disagrees 

that a significant number of debt 

collectors will be unable to comply with 

§ 1006.34(c)(2). The Bureau 

acknowledges that debt collectors 

depend on creditors to provide account 

information and that creditors will not 

be required by the final rule to provide 

the information that § 1006.34(c)(2) will 

require. Notwithstanding this fact, the 

Bureau has received feedback that many 

creditors today make available much of 

the information mandated by 

§ 1006.34(c)(2). To the extent that 

creditors do not already provide debt 

collectors with this information, the 

Bureau determines that creditors will be 

incentivized to do so after 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)’s effective date because 

the debt collectors they hire or sell debts 

to will be unable to legally collect 

without it. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
5800 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

203See the section-by-section analysis of 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(vii) and (viii). 

204 15 U.S.C. 1692g(b). 

205 84 FR 23274, 23339, 23404 (May 21, 2019). 

206The Bureau also notes that nothing in 

Regulation F prevents a debt collector from using 

a different mailing address in communications that 

do not contain the validation information. For 

example, if a debt collector accepts payments at a 

different address, the payment address may be 

included in a separate communication seeking 

payment. Additionally, as noted at the outset of the 

section-by-section analysis of § 1006.34, the Bureau 

is not finalizing the proposed requirement that all 

validation notices be substantially similar to the 

Bureau’s model validation notice. Therefore, a debt 

collector may include a separate payment address 

on a validation notice, but a debt collector who 

does so will not receive safe harbors pursuant to 

§§ 1006.34(d)(2) and 1006.38(b)(2) and must 

otherwise comply with the FDCPA and Regulation 

F. 

The Bureau determines that the 

information required by § 1006.34(c)(2) 

will not confuse consumers. As 

discussed in part III.C, the Bureau has 

validated the model validation notice 

and the validation information 

contained therein through four rounds 

of consumer testing. 

The Bureau declines the 

recommendation to add certain 

disclosures to § 1006.34(c)(2). First, the 

Bureau declines to require the name of 

the original creditor and the date of the 

original transaction. Requiring this 

additional information on validation 

notices may overwhelm consumers, may 

be repetitive, or may otherwise not add 

to consumer understanding because the 

validation information already includes 

items such as the debt collector’s name 

(§ 1006.34(c)(2)(i)), the name of the 

creditor to whom the debt was owed on 

the itemization date 

(§ 1006.34(c)(2)(iii)), and the name of 

the creditor to whom debt is currently 

owed (§ 1006.34(c)(2)(v)). 

The Bureau also declines to tie 

information disclosure requirements to 

the date that a debt was charged off 

because charge off is not relevant to all 

debt types. However, as discussed in the 

section-by-section analysis of 

§ 1006.34(b)(3)(ii), a debt collector may 

use the charge-off date as the 

itemization date, in which case 

consumers will receive information 

about the amount of the date as of the 

charge-off date, as well as information 

about interest, fees, payments, and 

credits since that date.203

The Bureau also declines to require a 

debt collector to disclose a State license 

or registration number. If a debt 

collector is specifically required by 

applicable law to disclose such 

information, a debt collector may do so 

as an optional disclosure under final 

§ 1006.34(d)(3)(iv)(A). 

The Bureau does agree that a facility 

name associated with a debt may be 

helpful to consumers in the medical 

debt context. The Bureau is not 

modifying § 1006.34(c)(2) to require this 

information, but final 

§ 1006.34(d)(3)(vii) permits debt 

collectors to include facility name as an 

optional disclosure. 

Accordingly, as noted above, the 

Bureau is finalizing § 1006.34(c)(2) to 

require debt collectors to provide 

certain information about the debt and 

the parties related to the debt. Except 

with respect to final § 1006.34(c)(2)(iii), 

the Bureau is finalizing § 1006.34(c)(2) 

pursuant to its authority under FDCPA 

section 814(d) to prescribe rules with 

respect to the collection of debts by debt 

collectors and, as described more fully 

below, its authority to implement and 

interpret FDCPA section 809. In 

addition, except with respect to final 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(v) and (ix), the Bureau is 

finalizing § 1006.34(c)(2) pursuant to its 

authority under section 1032(a) of the 

Dodd-Frank Act, on the basis that the 

validation information describes the 

debt, which is a feature of debt 

collection. 

34(c)(2)(i) 

FDCPA section 809(b) provides that a 

consumer may notify a debt collector in 

writing, within 30 days after receipt of 

the information required by FDCPA 

section 809(a), that the consumer is 

exercising certain verification rights, 

including the right to dispute the 

debt.204 FDCPA section 809(a)(3) 

through (5), in turn, requires debt 

collectors to disclose how consumers 

may exercise their verification rights. 

The proposal stated that to notify a debt 

collector in writing that the consumer is 

exercising the consumer’s verification 

rights, the consumer must have the debt 

collector’s name and address.205

Proposed § 1006.34(c)(2)(i) therefore 

provided that the debt collector’s name 

and mailing address are required 

validation information. 

Industry and industry trade group 

commenters recommended various 

revisions to proposed § 1006.34(c)(2)(i). 

First, some industry trade group 

commenters suggested that the Bureau 

permit a debt collector to disclose a 

trade name or doing-business-as name 

(DBA), in lieu of the debt collector’s 

legal name. According to these 

commenters, because a debt collector 

may not use its legal name when 

communicating with consumers, a 

consumer may be more likely to 

recognize the debt collector’s trade 

name or DBA. 

Next, one industry trade group 

commenter recommended that the 

Bureau permit a debt collector to 

disclose a vendor’s mailing address 

because some debt collectors do not 

receive mail from consumers at their 

office locations and instead use letter 

vendors. 

Finally, some industry and industry 

trade group commenters recommended 

that the Bureau permit debt collectors to 

disclose multiple addresses. Some of 

these commenters stated that debt 

collectors may use separate addresses 

for payments and other correspondence, 

including disputes. For example, an 

industry trade group stated that some 

clients of debt collectors, including the 

Department of Education, do not permit 

debt collectors to receive payments at 

their office locations and instead require 

debt collectors to direct payments to a 

‘‘lockbox,’’ which is a post office box 

administered by a third party for the 

receipt of payments. 

A consumer advocate asked the 

Bureau to modify proposed 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(i) to require debt 

collectors to also disclose a telephone 

number, an email address, and any 

other method the debt collector uses for 

consumer communications. 

After considering the feedback, the 

Bureau is adopting § 1006.34(c)(2)(i) 

with a revision for clarity and is also 

adopting two new comments to 

incorporate certain suggestions made by 

commenters. 

As noted, some commenters suggested 

that debt collectors who use multiple 

mailing addresses be permitted to 

include more than one mailing address 

as validation information. The Bureau 

declines to affirmatively permit the use 

of more than one mailing address as 

validation information. As discussed in 

the proposal, the purpose of validation 

information is to facilitate a consumer’s 

exercise of their rights in debt 

collection, namely, the right to dispute 

the debt or to request original-creditor 

information. Accordingly, the mailing 

address included in the validation 

information must be an address at 

which the debt collector accepts 

disputes and original-creditor 

information requests. The Bureau is 

revising § 1006.34(c)(2)(i) to 

affirmatively state this requirement. If a 

debt collector only accepts payments at 

a different address than the address at 

which it accepts disputes and originalcreditor information requests, the 

Bureau notes that the debt collector 

need not include payment disclosures 

with the validation information; they 

are optional disclosures under 

§ 1006.34(d)(3)(iii).206 Moreover, if a 

debt collector omits the optional 

payment disclosures, the validation 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 5801 

207See 15 U.S.C. 1692e(3). 208 84 FR 23274, 23339 (May 21, 2019). 

209Proposed § 1006.34(c)(2)(iii) generally 

provided that the merchant brand, if any, associated 

with a credit card debt was required validation 

information. The Bureau is finalizing merchant 

brand information as an optional disclosure. See the 

section-by-section analysis of § 1006.34(d)(3)(vii). 

The Bureau therefore is finalizing proposed 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(iv) through (x) as § 1006.34(c)(2)(iii) 

through (ix). 

210See 15 U.S.C. 1692g(a)(2). See the section-bysection analysis of § 1006.34(c)(2)(v). 

211 84 FR 23274, 23404 (May 21, 2019). 

notice will continue to contain contact 

information for the debt collector, 

including, at the debt collector’s option, 

the debt collector’s telephone number 

pursuant to § 1006.34(d)(3)(i), should 

the consumer wish to reach out for 

payment information or to make a 

payment. 

The Bureau is also adopting new 

comment 34(c)(2)(i)–1 to clarify that a 

debt collector may disclose the debt 

collector’s trade name or DBA in lieu of 

the debt collector’s legal name. The 

Bureau observes that, in some cases, a 

debt collector’s trade name or DBA may 

be more recognizable to consumers than 

the debt collector’s legal name. The 

Bureau therefore determines that a debt 

collector may use its trade name or DBA 

when communicating with consumers. 

However, when disclosing a trade name 

or DBA, the debt collector may not do 

so in a manner that violates the FDCPA 

section 807 prohibition on false or 

misleading representations. For 

example, a debt collector may violate 

the FDCPA and this final rule if the debt 

collector discloses a trade name or DBA 

that falsely represents or implies that 

the debt collector is an attorney, when 

that is not the case.207

Second, the Bureau is adopting new 

comment 34(c)(2)(i)–2 to clarify that a 

debt collector may disclose a vendor’s 

mailing address, if that is an address at 

which the debt collector accepts 

disputes and requests for originalcreditor information. As one commenter 

observed, some debt collectors may use 

a vendor to receive mail from 

consumers. The Bureau is finalizing 

comment 34(c)(2)(i)–2 to accommodate 

this business practice. 

The Bureau declines to adopt the 

recommendation of some commenters to 

require debt collectors to disclose other 

contact methods, including a telephone 

number or an email address. The 

FDCPA does not require debt collectors 

to communicate by telephone or email. 

However, as noted, § 1006.34(d)(3)(i) 

permits a debt collector to disclose the 

debt collector’s telephone number. 

Likewise, § 1006.34(d)(3)(v)(A), permits 

a debt collector to disclose the debt 

collector’s website and email address. 

34(c)(2)(ii) 

FDCPA section 809(a) requires debt 

collectors to disclose information about 

the debt that helps consumers identify 

the debt and facilitates resolution of the 

debt. The proposal stated that, like the 

information FDCPA section 809(a) 

expressly requires, the consumer’s name 

and address is essential information 

about the debt that may help a 

consumer determine whether the 

consumer owes a debt and is the 

intended recipient of a validation 

notice.208 The Bureau therefore 

proposed § 1006.34(c)(2)(ii) to provide 

that the consumer’s name and mailing 

address is required validation 

information. As discussed below, 

proposed comment 34(c)(2)(ii)–1 

clarified the meaning of the term 

‘‘consumer’s name.’’ 

A consumer advocate and an industry 

trade group expressed overall support 

for the proposed provision. The 

consumer advocate stated that consumer 

name information would help a 

consumer identify an alleged debt. The 

consumer advocate also stated that 

complete name information—such as a 

first name, middle name, last name, and 

suffix—would help consumers 

determine whether a debt collector is 

seeking a different consumer with a 

similar name. According to the industry 

trade group, it would be unreasonable 

for a debt collector to omit known name 

information. For the reasons discussed 

in the proposal, the Bureau is finalizing 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(ii) as proposed. 

Proposed comment 34(c)(2)(ii)–1 

clarified that the consumer’s name 

should reflect what the debt collector 

reasonably determines is the most 

complete version of the name 

information about which the debt 

collector has knowledge, whether 

obtained from the creditor or another 

source. Proposed comment 34(c)(2)(ii)– 

1 further explained that a debt collector 

would not be able to omit name 

information in a manner that would 

create a false, misleading, or confusing 

impression about the consumer’s 

identity and provided an example. 

Some commenters raised concerns 

about proposed comment 34(c)(2)(ii)–1. 

A number of industry and industry 

trade group commenters objected to the 

statement that debt collectors would be 

required to determine the most 

complete version of the name about 

which the debt collector has knowledge, 

whether obtained from the creditor or 

another source. These commenters 

stated that the reference to ‘‘another 

source’’ was ambiguous and would 

create litigation risk and compel debt 

collectors to conduct open-ended 

research about a consumer’s name. 

Several commenters urged the Bureau to 

omit the reference to ‘‘another source.’’ 

The Bureau is finalizing comment 

34(c)(2)–1 with revisions in response to 

feedback and for clarity. First, the 

Bureau is deleting the phrase ‘‘whether 

obtained from the creditor or another 

source.’’ This phrase is unnecessary as 

it does not alter the fundamental 

expectation that a debt collector will 

disclose the most complete and accurate 

name about which the debt collector has 

knowledge. In addition, the Bureau 

determines that the reference to 

‘‘another source’’ is ambiguous and may 

create unjustified litigation risk and 

industry burden. 

Second, the Bureau is revising the 

comment to clarify that a debt collector 

must reasonably determine ‘‘the most 

complete and accurate version’’ of a 

consumer’s name. The Bureau intended 

that a debt collector would be required 

to disclose ‘‘accurate’’ consumer name 

information, but proposed comment 

34(c)(2)–1 only referred to ‘‘the most 

complete version’’ of the consumer’s 

name. Finally, the Bureau has 

elaborated on the example of a debt 

collector omitting a consumer’s name 

information. 

34(c)(2)(iii) 209

FDCPA section 809(a)(2), which 

requires debt collectors to disclose to 

consumers the name of the creditor to 

whom the debt is owed, typically is 

understood to refer to the current 

creditor.210 As the proposal stated, if the 

original creditor (or the creditor as of 

the itemization date) and the current 

creditor are the same, a consumer is 

more likely to recognize the creditor’s 

name. If they are different, however, a 

consumer may be less likely to 

recognize the current creditor than the 

name of the creditor as of the 

itemization date. Proposed 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(iv) provided that, if a 

debt collector is collecting a consumer 

financial product or service debt (as that 

term was defined in proposed 

§ 1006.2(f)), the name of the creditor to 

whom the debt was owed on the 

itemization date is required validation 

information.211 For the reasons 

discussed below, the Bureau is 

finalizing proposed § 1006.34(c)(2)(iv) 

with minor wording changes and 

renumbered as § 1006.34(c)(2)(iii), and 

is adopting new comment 34(c)(2)(iii)– 

1 to clarify that a debt collector may 

disclose the trade name or DBA of the 

creditor to whom the debt was owed on 

the itemization date. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
5802 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

212S. Rep. No. 382, supra note 57, at 4. 

213 84 FR 23274, 23340 (May 21, 2019). 

214See 15 U.S.C. 1692g(a)(2). 

215 84 FR 23274, 23341 (May 21, 2019). 

216 During one round of cognitive testing, 

participants were shown disclosure language that 

included a list of prior creditors. Confusion was 

observed when participants tried to explain the 

difference between prior and current creditors. The 

unclear relationship between creditors was 

highlighted when participants attempted to identify 

the creditor that currently owned the debt. See FMG 

Cognitive Report, supra note 27, at 3–4. 

An industry trade group commenter 

expressed support for requiring debt 

collectors to disclose the creditor to 

whom the debt was owed on the 

itemization date but asked the Bureau to 

clarify that a debt collector may disclose 

this creditor’s trade name or DBA, as 

opposed to its legal name, which a 

consumer may not recognize. 

A consumer advocate objected to the 

proposal because a consumer may not 

recognize the creditor to whom the debt 

was owed on the itemization date. 

According to the commenter, in some 

cases, the itemization date may have 

occurred years after the debt was 

incurred. And, particularly if the debt 

was transferred before the itemization 

date, the consumer may not recognize 

the creditor as of that date. As an 

alternative, the commenter suggested 

that a debt collector be required to 

disclose the name of the original 

creditor. 

As discussed in the section-by-section 

analysis of § 1006.34(c)(2)(i), an entity’s 

trade name or DBA may be more 

recognizable to consumers than an 

entity’s legal name. It may be 

appropriate for a debt collector to 

disclose a creditor’s trade name or DBA, 

in lieu of the creditor’s legal name, 

when communicating with consumers. 

Thus, the Bureau is adopting new 

comment 34(c)(2)(iii)–1 to clarify that a 

debt collector may disclose as validation 

information the trade name or DBA of 

the creditor to whom the debt was owed 

on the itemization date. 

The Bureau declines to require a debt 

collector to disclose the name of the 

original creditor as validation 

information under § 1006.34(c). FDCPA 

section 809(a)(5) and (b) require a debt 

collector to provide the name and 

address of the original creditor in 

response to a consumer request. While 

the Bureau acknowledges that, in some 

cases, a consumer may not recognize the 

creditor to whom the debt was owed on 

the itemization date, this information 

will still benefit some consumers. For 

an older debt or a debt that has been 

transferred, consumers may be more 

likely to recognize the creditor as of the 

itemization date than the current 

creditor. 

Accordingly, the Bureau is finalizing 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(iii) to provide that, if the 

debt collector is collecting debt related 

to a consumer financial product or 

service as defined in § 1006.2(f), the 

name of the creditor to whom the debt 

was owed on the itemization date is 

required validation information. In 

addition, the Bureau is finalizing 

comment 34(c)(2)(iii)–1 to clarify that a 

debt collector may disclose the trade 

name or DBA of the creditor to whom 

the debt was owed on the itemization 

date. 

34(c)(2)(iv) 

The purpose of FDCPA section 809 is 

to ‘‘eliminate the recurring problem of 

debt collectors dunning the wrong 

person or attempting to collect debts 

which the consumer has already 

paid.’’ 212 Consistent with the FDCPA’s 

purpose, FDCPA section 809(a) requires 

debt collectors to disclose to consumers 

certain information, such as the amount 

of the debt, to help consumers identify 

debts. According to the proposal, an 

account number associated with a debt 

on the itemization date may be integral 

information that a consumer uses to 

identify the debt.213 The Bureau 

proposed § 1006.34(c)(2)(v) to provide 

that the account number, if any, 

associated with the debt on the 

itemization date, or a truncated version 

of that number, is required validation 

information. Proposed comment 

34(c)(2)(v)–1 explained that a debt 

collector may truncate an account 

number provided that the account 

number remains recognizable. For the 

reasons discussed below, the Bureau is 

adopting proposed § 1006.34(c)(2)(v), 

renumbered as § 1006.34(c)(2)(iv), and 

its related commentary with minor 

wording changes. 

Industry commenters, a consumer 

advocate, and a group of State Attorneys 

General, expressed overall support for 

proposed § 1006.34(c)(2)(v). However, 

one industry commenter recommended 

that the Bureau exempt debt collectors 

collecting residential mortgage debt 

from the requirement to disclose an 

account number. According to the 

commenter, the account number for a 

residential mortgage that has had a 

servicing transfer may not be the current 

account number, which might confuse 

consumers. 

The Bureau concludes that an account 

number associated with a debt on the 

itemization date may help some 

consumers recognize the debt. The 

Bureau declines to adopt the 

recommendation to exempt debt 

collectors collecting residential 

mortgage debt from disclosing an 

account number. As discussed in the 

section-by-section analysis of 

§ 1006.34(b)(3), the Bureau has 

determined that the reference dates that 

a debt collector may use to determine 

the itemization date may be meaningful 

to consumers because they correspond 

to a notable event in the debt’s history 

that consumers may recall or be able to 

verify with records. By extension, the 

Bureau determines that an account 

number associated with a debt as of one 

of those dates will also likely resonate 

with a consumer, even if it is not the 

current account number. 

Accordingly, the Bureau is finalizing 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(iv) and its related 

commentary largely as proposed, with 

only minor wording changes to the 

commentary for clarity. No substantive 

change is intended. 

34(c)(2)(v) 

FDCPA section 809(a)(2) requires debt 

collectors to disclose to consumers the 

name of the creditor to whom the debt 

is owed.214 By using the present tense 

‘‘is owed,’’ the statute appears to refer 

to the creditor to whom the debt is owed 

when the debt collector makes the 

disclosure.215 The Bureau proposed 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(vi) to provide that the 

name of the current creditor is required 

validation information. For the reasons 

discussed below, the Bureau is 

finalizing the proposal, renumbered as 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(v), and is adopting new 

comment 34(c)(2)(v)–1 to clarify that a 

debt collector may disclose the trade 

name or DBA of the creditor to whom 

the debt is currently owed, instead of its 

legal name. 

The Bureau received no comments 

specifically addressing proposed 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(vi) and is finalizing it as 

proposed but renumbered as 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(v). An industry trade 

group commenter recommended that 

the Bureau permit debt collectors to 

disclose, along with the required 

validation information, all current and 

past creditors associated with the debt. 

According to the commenter, some 

creditors, such as healthcare and 

financial services providers, may have 

multiple sub-entities with different 

corporate names. This commenter 

suggested that disclosing more names of 

creditors will increase the likelihood 

that a consumer will recognize one of 

them. 

The Bureau declines to adopt this 

recommendation. Disclosing all current 

and past creditors along with the 

validation information could 

overwhelm and confuse consumers.216

Thus, as discussed in the section-bysection analysis of § 1006.34(c), the 

Bureau is requiring debt collectors to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 5803 

217See 15 U.S.C. 1692g(a)(1). 

218 84 FR 23274, 23341 (May 21, 2019). 

219As discussed in the section-by-section analysis 

of § 1006.34(b)(3), the Bureau defines itemization 

date to mean one of five reference dates for which 

a debt collector can ascertain the amount of the 

debt. 

220 84 FR 23274, 23341 (May 21, 2019). As 

proposed, the Bureau is finalizing 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(ix) (renumbered from proposed 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(x)) separately to provide that the 

current amount of the debt also is required 

validation information. 

disclose as validation information only 

two creditors: The creditor to whom the 

debt was owed on the itemization date 

(§ 1006.34(c)(2)(iii)) and the creditor to 

whom the debt is currently owed 

(§ 1006.34(c)(2)(v)). Nothing in the final 

rule prohibits a debt collector from 

including the name of another creditor 

on a validation notice, but a debt 

collector who does so will not receive 

the § 1006.34(d)(2) safe harbor and will 

risk not complying with the 

requirements of § 1006.34, including the 

§ 1006.34(b)(1) clear and conspicuous 

standard. 

As discussed in the section-by-section 

analysis of § 1006.34(c)(2)(i) and (iii), 

the Bureau is finalizing new comments 

34(c)(2)(i)–1 and 34(c)(2)(iii)–1 to clarify 

that a debt collector may disclose an 

entity’s trade name or DBA, instead of 

its legal name. The Bureau concludes 

that it is also appropriate to permit a 

debt collector to disclose the trade name 

or DBA of a current creditor. Thus, the 

Bureau is adopting new comment 

34(c)(2)(v)–1 to clarify that a debt 

collector may disclose the trade name or 

a DBA of the creditor to whom the debt 

is currently owed, instead of its legal 

name. 

34(c)(2)(vi) 

FDCPA section 809(a)(1) requires debt 

collectors to disclose to consumers the 

amount of the debt.217 In 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(viii), the Bureau 

proposed to interpret FDCPA section 

809(a)(1), and to use its authority under 

Dodd-Frank Act section 1032(a), to 

provide that the amount of the debt on 

the itemization date is required 

validation information.218 Consistent 

with proposed § 1006.34(c)(2)(viii), the 

Bureau proposed § 1006.34(c)(2)(vii) to 

provide that the itemization date, as 

defined in § 1006.34(b)(3), also is 

required validation information. For the 

reasons discussed below, the Bureau is 

finalizing § 1006.34(c)(2)(vii) as 

proposed but renumbered as 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(vi). 

Several commenters, including an 

industry commenter, an industry trade 

group commenter, and a group of 

consumer advocates, stated that the 

itemization date may not be meaningful 

to consumers or help them recognize 

debts, if disclosed without an 

explanation of its relevance. These 

commenters, along with Federal 

government agency staff, recommended 

requiring debt collectors to disclose 

with the itemization date a statement 

explaining which reference date the 

debt collector used to determine that 

date.219

The Bureau declines to adopt this 

recommendation. As discussed in the 

section-by-section analysis of 

§ 1006.34(b)(3), the Bureau determines 

that the reference dates that a debt 

collector may use to determine the 

itemization date have a significant 

likelihood of being meaningful to 

consumers because they correspond to 

notable events in a debt’s history that 

consumers may recall or be able to 

verify with records. Because each of the 

reference dates may be meaningful to 

consumers, the Bureau determines that 

no additional disclosure explaining 

their relevance is necessary. Moreover, 

the Bureau determines that an 

additional disclosure explaining the 

reference date may confuse or 

overwhelm some consumers. While a 

debt collector likely could describe 

some reference dates (e.g., a last 

statement date) in a straightforward 

manner, other reference dates (e.g., the 

charge-off date and the transaction date) 

do not lend themselves to a succinct 

explanation. That is because some 

reference dates reflect financial 

concepts that are inherently complex 

(i.e., charge off) or that could vary by 

debt type and the facts and 

circumstances surrounding a particular 

debt (i.e., transaction dates). For such 

reference dates, a statement explaining 

their relevance could distract or confuse 

consumers, thereby undermining the 

efficacy of the other validation 

information. 

34(c)(2)(vii) 

As noted, FDCPA section 809(a)(1) 

requires debt collectors to disclose to 

consumers the amount of the debt. As 

discussed in the proposal, the phrase 

‘‘the amount of the debt’’ is ambiguous; 

it does not specify which debt amount 

is being referred to, even though the 

debt amount may change over time. As 

also discussed in the proposal, 

consumers may recognize the amount of 

the debt as of the itemization date (as 

the Bureau proposed to define that term 

in § 1006.34(b)(3)). Because the amount 

of the debt on the itemization date may 

help a consumer recognize a debt and 

determine whether the amount of a debt 

is accurate, the Bureau proposed to 

interpret FDCPA section 809(a)(1), and 

to use its authority under Dodd-Frank 

Act section 1032(a), to provide in 

proposed § 1006.34(c)(2)(viii) that the 

amount of the debt on the itemization 

date is required validation 

information.220 Proposed comment 

34(c)(2)(viii)–1 explained that this 

amount includes any fees, interest, or 

other charges owed as of the itemization 

date. 

An industry commenter questioned 

whether proposed § 1006.34(c)(2)(viii) 

would significantly improve consumer 

understanding. According to the 

commenter, if a debt collector 

determines the itemization date based 

on the last statement date pursuant to 

§ 1006.34(b)(3)(i), and if the debt is 

placed for collection shortly after the 

last statement was provided, the current 

amount of the debt (which the Bureau 

proposed as a separate item of required 

validation information) and the amount 

of the debt on the itemization date 

would be approximately the same. The 

commenter stated that, in this scenario, 

disclosing the amount of the debt on the 

itemization date would not benefit the 

consumer. 

The Bureau acknowledges that, for a 

given debt, the amount owed on the 

itemization date and the current amount 

of the debt may be similar or even the 

same. However, as discussed below in 

the section-by-section analysis of final 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(viii), even in these cases, 

the itemization of the debt will still be 

required, and, as clarified in final 

comment 34(c)(2)(viii)–1, the 

itemization (if the amounts are the 

same) will show $0 in interest, fees, 

payments, and credits. As such, it 

should be clear to the consumer why the 

two amounts are the same. In many 

other cases, these amounts will differ, 

sometimes substantially. In these cases, 

the amount of the debt on the 

itemization date will help consumers 

recognize or evaluate the debt. 

For these reasons, the Bureau is 

finalizing § 1006.34(c)(2)(viii) and its 

related commentary as proposed but 

renumbered as § 1006.34(c)(2)(vii). 

34(c)(2)(viii) 

As noted, FDCPA section 809(a)(1) 

requires a debt collector to disclose to 

consumers the amount of the debt. As 

discussed, the Bureau proposed to 

implement and interpret FDCPA section 

809(a)(1) to provide that debt collectors 

must disclose to consumers both the 

amount of the debt on the itemization 

date and the current amount of the debt 

(i.e., the amount of the debt on the date 

that the validation information is 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
5804 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

221 84 FR 23274, 23341 (May 21, 2019). 

222See Receivables Mgmt. Ass’n Int’l, Receivables 

Management Certification Program, at 41–45 (Mar. 

1, 2020), https://rmaintl.org/RMCP (last visited Dec. 

9, 2020). 

223One industry trade group estimated that an 

itemization requirement would cost $600 million in 

professional fees to conduct legal analyses of 

HIPAA compliance for medical debt, $30 million 

for one-time system reprogramming for debt 

collectors, and $3 billion for one-time system 

reprogramming for creditors. The proposal allegedly 

would also result in billions of dollars in ongoing 

support costs and uncompensated medical care 

because, according to the commenter, the proposed 

requirement, if adopted, would increase the risks 

that hospitals might be unable to use debt 

collectors. 

224Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 1322(b)(5), a bankruptcy 

court may change the underlying terms of a debt, 

which is referred to as a ‘‘cramdown.’’ Pursuant to 

provided).221 In conjunction with the 

amount of the debt on the itemization 

date and the current amount of the debt, 

the Bureau proposed § 1006.34(c)(2)(ix) 

to provide that an itemization of the 

current amount of the debt, in a tabular 

format reflecting interest, fees, 

payments, and credits since the 

itemization date, is required validation 

information. Proposed comment 

34(c)(2)(ix)–1 clarified how debt 

collectors could disclose that no 

interest, fees, payments, or credits were 

assessed or applied to a debt. 

For the reasons discussed below, the 

Bureau is finalizing the proposal, 

renumbered as § 1006.34(c)(2)(viii), with 

revisions to permit debt collectors to 

disclose the itemization on a separate 

page provided in the same 

communication with a validation 

notice, if the debt collector includes on 

the validation notice, where the 

itemization would have appeared, a 

statement referring to that separate page. 

The Bureau also is finalizing comment 

34(c)(2)(ix)–1 with a substantive 

modification and renumbered as 

comment 34(c)(2)(viii)–1, and is 

adopting new comments 34(c)(2)(viii)–2 

through–4 to clarify other aspects of 

final § 1006.34(c)(2)(viii). 

Commenters offered differing 

opinions regarding proposed 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(ix). A group of State 

Attorneys General, Federal government 

agency staff, consumer advocate 

commenters, some industry trade group 

commenters, and at least one industry 

commenter supported the proposed 

provision. These commenters generally 

agreed that an itemization of the debt 

would help consumers recognize an 

alleged debt and understand how the 

debt had evolved over time due to 

interest, fees, payments, and credits. 

Further, the Bureau received feedback 

that the proposal was consistent with 

some industry practice. For instance, a 

commenter noted an industry 

certification standard that, during the 

sales of certain debt types, requires debt 

buyers to obtain or provide the unpaid 

balance due on the account, with a 

breakdown of the post-charge-off 

balance, interest, fees, payments, and 

credits or adjustments.222

The majority of industry and industry 

trade group commenters objected to 

proposed § 1006.34(c)(2)(ix). Some such 

commenters stated that the proposed 

itemization requirement would be 

burdensome. According to several 

industry commenters, debt collectors 

would either have to manually access 

itemization information in creditor files 

or implement costly information 

technology solutions to comply with the 

proposed requirement. Some industry 

commenters, industry trade groups, and 

the SBA argued that the proposed 

requirement would impose burdens on 

creditors. Commenters stated that some 

creditors may not maintain all of the 

itemization information that the 

proposal would require or do not 

typically provide itemization 

information at placement and that to do 

so would involve significant expense. 

Some commenters speculated that, to 

avoid such costs, creditors might refer 

fewer accounts for collection or file 

more collections lawsuits against 

consumers. The SBA, an industry trade 

group, and industry commenters argued 

that compliance costs could be onerous 

for smaller creditors and debt collectors. 

For the most part, commenters offered 

qualitative assessments of industry 

burden, but one industry trade group 

did estimate that proposed 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(ix) would impose 

billions of dollars in compliance costs 

on industry.223

Some commenters stated that 

proposed § 1006.34(c)(2)(ix) is 

unnecessary or unhelpful. Multiple 

industry commenters asserted that an 

itemization is superfluous because 

consumers can exercise their FDCPA 

section 809 verification rights to receive 

more account information if desired. 

With respect to medical debt, an 

industry trade group stated that 

proposed § 1006.34(c)(2)(ix) is 

unnecessary because the Internal 

Revenue Service (IRS) requires nonprofit hospitals to send letters with 

itemized information to consumers, and 

health insurance companies routinely 

mail to responsible parties ‘‘Explanation 

of Benefits’’ documents that provide 

details about coverage, payments, and 

co-pays. Some commenters expressed 

concern that proposed 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(ix) could increase legal 

risk for debt collectors if the itemization 

information confused consumers. At 

least one industry commenter stated 

that the Bureau’s consumer testing did 

not support proposed § 1006.34(c)(2)(ix) 

because the testing did not involve 

actual consumers assessing debts in a 

real-world setting. 

A few industry commenters objected 

to proposed § 1006.34(c)(2)(ix) because 

the FDCPA does not expressly require 

an itemization of the current amount of 

the debt. 

Some industry and industry trade 

group commenters objected to proposed 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(ix) because the 

itemization that appears on the model 

validation notice is formatted for a 

single debt. According to commenters, 

the proposal would not accommodate 

debt collectors who combine multiple 

debts in a single validation notice. 

Several commenters stated that not 

permitting debt collectors to include 

multiple debts in one validation notice 

would dramatically increase the volume 

of mail sent to consumers and would 

require consumers to exercise their 

verification rights for each individual 

debt in the event that a consumer has 

a global dispute. Industry and industry 

trade group commenters stated that the 

inability to combine multiple debts 

would be particularly challenging for 

medical debt collectors. According to 

some commenters, healthcare providers 

routinely combine multiple debts, in 

part because they utilize family billing, 

which involves combining the separate 

bills for family members of a primary 

insured party. Commenters stated that 

itemizations for medical debt may be 

further complicated by the fact that 

healthcare providers typically do not 

maintain a rolling total of charges for a 

general service and instead individually 

bill for each good or service provided. 

At least one trade group stated that 

student loan debt presents comparable 

itemization-related challenges because 

student loan debt may be provided 

through multiple disbursements with 

separate account numbers. 

An industry trade group suggested 

that proposed § 1006.34(c)(2)(ix) would 

not accommodate debts in bankruptcy. 

According to the commenter, the 

proposal did not have the specificity 

necessary to account for how the 

Bankruptcy Code permits a debtor to 

cure pre-bankruptcy defaults over the 

term of the bankruptcy plan while 

maintaining regular post-bankruptcy 

payments. In addition, the commenter 

argued, the proposal would not 

accommodate the nuances that arise in 

the context of certain bankruptcy 

scenarios, such as a cramdown plan or 

a lien strip.224


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 5805 

11 U.S.C. 1322(c)(2), a secured claim can be 

converted to an unsecured claim, which is referred 

to as a ‘‘lien strip.’’ 225Public Law 104–191, 110 Stat. 1936 (1996). 226 45 CFR part 160 and part 164 subparts A and 

E. 

227 In addition, an industry trade group suggested 

that debt collectors should not be required to 

comply with the itemization requirement for precharge-off debts, particularly if periodic statements 

continue to be provided. The Bureau notes that, in 

many cases, a person collecting a debt that was not 

in default at the time it was obtained by such 

person will not be a debt collector subject to the 

FDCPA or Regulation F. See FDCPA section 

803(6)(F)(iii), 15 U.S.C. 1692a(6)(F)(iii). 

228See 23 NYCRR 1.2(b)(2). 

229FMG Summary Report, supra note 29. 

230For example, as noted in the section-bysection analysis of § 1006.34(b)(3)(i), a creditor or a 

third-party servicer acting on the creditor’s behalf 

may issue a statement even after the debt has gone 

into collection. In that case, under 

§ 1006.34(b)(3)(i), that new statement may serve as 

the last statement for purposes of the itemization 

date. 

231An industry trade group cited an article to 

suggest that collection lawsuits nearly doubled in 

New York City since 2015 because of New York 

State’s debt collection rules, which mandate an 

itemization. See Yuka Hayashi, Debt Collectors 

Wage a Comeback, Wall Street Journal (July 5, 

2019). The Bureau notes that the article did not cite 

a connection between higher rates of lawsuits and 

the itemization requirement. Instead, the article 

discussed the phenomenon of increasing lawsuits 

nationwide, including in States like Texas, which 

had not recently introduced a significant debt 

collection rule. 

232See Receivables Mgmt. Ass’n Int’l, Receivables 

Management Certification Program, at 41–45 (Mar. 

1, 2020), https://rmaintl.org/RMCP (last visited Dec. 

9, 2020). 

233See 23 NYCRR 1.2(b) (requiring debt collectors 

to provide an itemized accounting of the debt 

within five days after the initial communication 

with a consumer in connection with the collection 

of certain types of charged-off debt, such as credit 

card debt). 

With regard to medical debt, industry 

commenters, an industry trade group, 

and the SBA stated that healthcare 

providers might violate the Health 

Insurance Portability and 

Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) 225

Privacy Rule if they provided the 

proposed itemization.226 According to 

these commenters, proposed 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(ix) would require debt 

collectors to disclose more information 

than the minimum necessary for 

treatment of the patient, payment of the 

bill, or healthcare operations, in 

violation of HIPAA. 

Commenters recommended various 

modifications to proposed 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(ix). Industry and 

industry trade group commenters 

suggested that debt collectors should 

not need to comply with proposed 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(ix) if interest and fees are 

not charged on an account.227 An 

industry commenter stated that debt 

collectors should be permitted to 

indicate ‘‘U’’ for ‘‘unknown’’ or 

‘‘unavailable’’ in fields for which a 

creditor did not provide the relevant 

information. 

Several commenters asked the Bureau 

to clarify the proposal. An industry 

commenter asked how a debt collector 

could disclose third-party payments or 

insurance adjustments, particularly in 

the context of medical debt. An industry 

trade group sought additional guidance 

about how to disclose balance increases 

that are not caused by interest or fees, 

such as a balance increase caused by a 

returned payment. Noting the existence 

of validation notice itemization 

requirements imposed by other 

applicable law, such as New York State 

regulations, two industry trade groups 

requested guidance about how a debt 

collector should simultaneously comply 

with those requirements and proposed 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(ix).228

With respect to the Bureau’s request 

for comment about whether the 

proposed itemization should be more 

detailed—for example, by reflecting 

each fee charged and each payment 

received—or whether certain 

itemization categories should be 

combined as proposed, industry 

commenters suggested that the Bureau 

not deviate from the proposal. For 

instance, a commenter stated that, in the 

context of medical debts, listing all 

payments and credits individually 

could result in multiple additional 

pages because of the number of thirdparty payments. In contrast, citing the 

Bureau’s consumer testing, an academic 

commenter argued that the itemization 

should be more detailed because 

consumers prefer to see penalties and 

fees broken down into individual 

charges.229

After considering these comments, 

and for the reasons discussed below, the 

Bureau is adopting the proposed 

requirement, renumbered as 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(viii), with revisions to 

provide that validation information 

includes an itemization of the current 

amount of the debt reflecting interest, 

fees, payments, and credits since the 

itemization date. Final 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(viii) further provides 

that a debt collector may disclose the 

itemization on a separate page provided 

in the same communication with a 

validation notice, if the debt collector 

includes on the validation notice, where 

the itemization would have appeared, a 

statement referring to that separate page. 

The Bureau determines that an 

itemization of the debt will help a 

significant number of consumers 

recognize whether they owe a debt and 

evaluate whether the debt is accurate, 

because the itemization will disclose 

how the amount may have changed over 

time due, for example, to interest, fees, 

payments, and credits that have been 

assessed or applied to the debt. 

The Bureau determines that 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(viii) will not create 

undue industry burden in light of 

modifications made in response to 

comments.230 The Bureau acknowledges 

that complying with the itemization 

requirement may result in some 

additional costs to debt collectors, 

particularly if they do not currently 

provide itemization information at 

placement or on validation notices, as 

well as in some indirect costs to 

creditors. However, the Bureau 

concludes that these costs will not 

substantially impact companies’ 

business operations because the final 

rule provides sufficient flexibility to 

debt collectors to tailor the itemization 

to specific business practices and types 

of debt. Accordingly, the Bureau does 

not conclude, as some commenters 

suggested, that the itemization 

requirement will result in creditors 

referring significantly fewer accounts for 

collections or filing more lawsuits 

against consumers.231

Although several commenters stated 

that the required itemization 

information may not be available for 

every debt, the Bureau notes that the 

itemization of the debt is based on the 

type of routine account information that 

debt collectors typically provide in 

response to consumer verification 

requests and that, as such, debt 

collectors should be able to obtain such 

information to comply with the final 

rule. While some debt collectors do not 

currently provide this itemized 

information at the outset of collection 

communications, providing such 

itemization information to consumers 

already is considered a best practice in 

some segments of the debt buying 

industry, including for credit card debt 

and student loan debt.232 Further, debt 

collectors are already required to 

disclose an itemization for some types 

of debt in at least one jurisdiction, New 

York State.233

In addition, as discussed in the 

section-by-section analysis of 

§ 1006.34(b)(3), the final rule’s 

itemization date definition permits debt 

collectors to select an itemization date 

that is feasible for the type of debt in 

collection and the information debt 

collectors receive. And 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(viii) requires itemization 

of fees, interest, and credits only 

subsequent to the selected itemization 

date. Thus, for example, if a debt 

collector selects the last statement date 

as the itemization date under 

§ 1006.34(b)(3), and if the creditor has 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
5806 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

234See 84 FR 23274, 23341 (May 21, 2019); FMG 

Usability Report, supra note 28, at 16–19. 

235Under § 1006.34(d)(2)(ii), a debt collector who 

otherwise uses the model validation notice or a 

substantially similar form, but who provides the 

itemization of the current amount of the debt on 

separate page, receives a safe harbor for compliance 

with the information and form requirements of 

§ 1006.34(c) and (d)(1) except with respect to the 

itemization that appears on the separate page. 

236For example, when delivering a validation 

notice by mail, a debt collector may include the 

separate itemization in the same envelope as the 

validation notice. Similarly, when delivering a 

validation notice electronically, a debt collector 

may include the separate itemization in the same 

email as the validation notice. 

237Section 1006.34(d)(2)(iii) establishes that a 

debt collector who uses the model validation notice 

and who provides an itemization on a separate page 

receives a safe harbor for compliance with the 

information and form requirements of § 1006.34(c) 

and (d)(1), except with respect to the disclosures 

that appear on the separate page. 

238Relatedly, as discussed in the section-bysection analysis of § 1006.34(c)(2)(ix), the Bureau is 

adopting new comment 34(c)(2)(ix)–2 to clarify that 

a debt collector who combines multiple debts on a 

single validation notice complies with 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(ix)’s requirement to disclose the 

‘‘current amount of the debt’’ by disclosing on the 

validation notice a single, cumulative figure that is 

the sum of the current amount of all the debts. 

239See 45 CFR 164.512(a)(1) (‘‘A covered entity 

may use or disclose protected health information to 

the extent that such use or disclosure is required 

by law and the use or disclosure complies with and 

is limited to the relevant requirements of such 

law.’’); see also U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human 

Servs., Does the HIPAA Privacy Rule prevent health 

plans and providers from using debt collection 

agencies? Does the Privacy Rule conflict with the 

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act?, https://

www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/faq/268/doesthe-hipaa-privacy-rule-prevent-health-careproviders-from-using-debt-collection-agencies/ 

index.html (last visited Dec. 1, 2020) (noting that 

the HIPAA Privacy Rule permits healthcare 

providers to provide the minimum necessary 

patient information to debt collectors for the 

purpose of receiving payment). 

recently issued a statement to the 

consumer, the debt collector need only 

obtain and provide to the consumer an 

itemization with fees, interest, and 

credits subsequent to that last statement 

date. And, as discussed in the sectionby-section analysis of § 1006.34(d)(2), a 

debt collector may provide the 

itemization on a separate page and 

retain the safe harbor for the rest of the 

validation notice. For all of these 

reasons, the Bureau concludes that the 

final rule will not impose undue 

burdens on debt collectors and will 

provide consumers with useful 

information. The Bureau will monitor 

whether the itemization date definition, 

including the last statement date 

definition, meets these goals. 

The Bureau disagrees that 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(viii) is unnecessary or 

unhelpful. The verification rights 

afforded by FDCPA section 809 are an 

important statutory protection; however, 

they do not serve the same purpose or 

provide an adequate substitute to the 

itemization of the debt that 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(viii) will require. The 

Bureau disagrees that an itemization of 

the current amount of the debt is 

unnecessary for medical debt, as some 

commenters argued. Although some 

non-profit hospitals or insurance 

companies may provide itemization 

information to some consumers, 

commenters did not suggest, and the 

Bureau is not aware of other evidence 

indicating, that all consumers with 

medical debt receive itemization 

information such that 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(viii) would be 

unnecessary. The Bureau also disagrees 

with comments that an itemization will 

confuse consumers. As the proposal 

noted, the Bureau’s qualitative 

consumer testing indicates that an 

itemization improves consumer 

understanding about the debt.234

The Bureau also disagrees that the 

FDCPA’s not expressly requiring an 

itemization is a sufficient reason for the 

Bureau not to require it by rule. The 

Bureau proposed and is finalizing the 

itemization requirement pursuant to its 

authority to interpret FDCPA section 

809(a), as well as pursuant to its 

authority under Dodd-Frank Act section 

1032(a) to prescribe rules to ensure that 

the features of debt collection are fully, 

accurately, and effectively disclosed to 

consumers. 

The Bureau is revising 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(viii) to permit debt 

collectors to disclose the itemization on 

a separate page.235 The itemization that 

appears on the model validation notice 

may not accommodate all debt types in 

every instance. Some debt collectors 

may have legitimate reasons to combine 

multiple debts on a single validation 

notice. This may be the case with 

respect to medical debt (for instance, 

owing to healthcare provider billing 

practices) and student loan debt 

(because consumers may receive loans 

through multiple disbursements with 

separate account numbers). As finalized, 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(viii) states that a debt 

collector may disclose the itemization 

on a separate page provided in the same 

communication with a validation 

notice, if the debt collector includes on 

the validation notice, where the 

itemization would have appeared, a 

statement referring to that separate 

page.236 New comment 34(c)(2)(viii)–3 

clarifies that a debt collector may 

comply with the requirement to refer to 

the separate page by, for example, 

including on the validation notice the 

statement, ‘‘See the enclosed separate 

page for an itemization of the debt,’’ 

situated next to the information about 

the current amount of the debt required 

by § 1006.34(c)(2)(ix).237

The Bureau is making an additional 

change to § 1006.34(c)(2)(viii). As 

finalized, § 1006.34(c)(2)(viii) omits the 

proposed language that an itemization 

must be ‘‘in a tabular format.’’ The 

Bureau determined that it is 

unnecessary and unwarranted to 

mandate the use of a tabular format 

because, if the itemization information 

is provided on a separate page or orally, 

using a tabular format may be 

impractical or infeasible and, if the 

itemization information is provided on 

a validation notice, debt collectors 

likely will use the tabular format shown 

on the model notice such that they may 

receive a safe harbor for compliance 

with the information and form 

requirements of § 1006.34(c) and (d)(1). 

To accommodate debt collectors who 

wish to combine multiple debts on a 

single validation notice, the Bureau is 

adopting new comment 34(c)(2)(viii)–4 

to clarify that a debt collector who 

combines multiple debts on a single 

validation notice complies with 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(viii) by disclosing either 

a single, cumulative itemization on the 

validation notice or a separate 

itemization of each debt on a separate 

page or pages provided in the same 

communication as the validation 

notice.238

The Bureau concludes that the 

itemization requirement will not cause 

healthcare providers or debt collectors 

to violate the HIPAA Privacy Rule. HHS 

staff has advised the Bureau that the 

HIPAA Privacy Rule generally permits 

covered entities to disclose protected 

health information required by 

applicable law.239 Because disclosure of 

itemization information will be 

necessary to comply with 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(viii), this guidance 

indicates that the HIPAA Privacy Rule 

will permit its disclosure. 

The Bureau declines to modify 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(viii) as commenters 

otherwise recommended. An 

itemization, even if no interest and fees 

have been assessed or charged on an 

account, remains relevant information 

about the debt. Further, complying with 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(viii) if no interest and 

fees have been assessed or charged is 

relatively straightforward, and comment 

34(c)(2)(viii)–1 clarifies how debt 

collectors may do so. 

However, the Bureau is finalizing 

proposed comment 34(c)(2)(viii)–1 with 

a modification to delete language stating 

that debt collectors may indicate ‘‘N/A’’ 

in a required field when no interest, 

fees, payments, or creditors have been 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 5807 

240See 23 NYCRR 1.2(b)(2). 

241 84 FR 23274, 23342, 23415 (May 21, 2019). 

242See Avila v. Riexinger & Assocs., LLC, 817 

F.3d 72, 76 (2d Cir. 2016) (holding that 15 U.S.C. 

1692e requires debt collectors to disclose if the 

amount of a debt may increase due to interest and 

fees). 

243A trade group commenter recommended the 

following dynamic balance disclosure: ‘‘As of the 

date of this letter, the balance due on the account 

is <current>. Because interest, fees, and/or other 

charges may change the total owed from day to day, 

the amount due on the day you pay may be greater. 

If you pay the amount shown above, an adjustment 

may be necessary after we receive your payment, in 

which event you may be informed of any other 

amount due.’’ 

244The Bureau understands that, for some reverse 

mortgages, including Home Equity Conversion 

Mortgages insured by the FHA, when the reverse 

mortgage is due and payable, the amount due from 

the borrower may not be the amount of outstanding 

debt because these reverse mortgages are nonrecourse loans and a borrower will never owe more 

than a portion of the appraised value of the home. 

See 24 CFR 206.125. 

assessed or applied to the account 

because different consumers may 

interpret ‘‘N/A’’ differently. For 

example, some consumers might 

understand it as indicating ‘‘not 

available,’’ and others might construe it 

as meaning ‘‘not applicable.’’ To 

eliminate this potential ambiguity, the 

Bureau is revising comment 

34(c)(2)(viii)–1 to provide that a debt 

collector may indicate that the value of 

a required field is ‘‘0,’’ ‘‘none,’’ or may 

state that no interest, fees, payments, or 

credits have been assessed or applied to 

the debt. The Bureau also is revising the 

comment to clarify, as was intended in 

the proposal, that a debt collector may 

not leave a required field blank. 

The Bureau declines the 

recommendation that debt collectors be 

permitted to indicate ‘‘U’’ for 

‘‘unknown’’ or ‘‘unavailable’’ in the 

itemization if a creditor did not provide 

the relevant information. Allowing debt 

collectors to omit specific itemization 

information in this manner could 

incentivize debt collectors to avoid 

receiving it, thereby undermining the 

effectiveness of § 1006.34(c)(2)(viii). 

Debt collectors sought clarification as 

to how they should comply with 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(viii) in various scenarios. 

Depending on the facts and 

circumstances, a third-party payment or 

insurance adjustment may be disclosed 

as a ‘‘payment’’ or a ‘‘credit’’ in the 

itemization. Also depending on the facts 

and circumstances, a payment that is 

returned may be omitted from the 

itemization provided that the payment 

and the return offset each other, and 

provided that the amount of the debt 

owed on the itemization date pursuant 

to § 1006.34(c)(2)(vii) and the current 

amount of the debt pursuant to 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(ix) are accurately 

disclosed. 

Regarding § 1006.34(c)(2)(viii)’s 

interaction with itemization 

requirements in other applicable law, 

the Bureau is finalizing new comment 

34(c)(2)(viii)–2, which states that, if a 

debt collector is required by other 

applicable law to provide an itemization 

of the current amount of the debt with 

the validation information, the debt 

collector may comply with 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(viii) by disclosing the 

itemization required by other applicable 

law in lieu of the itemization described 

in § 1006.34(c)(2)(viii), if the itemization 

required by other applicable law is 

substantially similar to the itemization 

that appears on the model validation 

notice. The Bureau is aware of only one 

jurisdiction that requires debt collectors 

to provide an itemization with the 

validation information, and that 

itemization is substantially similar to 

the itemization required by 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(viii).240 Further, 

consumers likely would not benefit— 

and, in fact, may be disadvantaged—by 

receiving multiple itemizations with the 

validation information. For instance, 

although a debt collector could include 

both the itemization required by 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(viii) on the front of a 

validation notice, and, on the reverse, 

an itemization specifically required by 

other applicable law (as an optional 

disclosure pursuant to 

§ 1006.34(d)(3)(iv)), a consumer would 

be unlikely to benefit from receiving 

two itemizations. In addition, 

permitting debt collectors to 

simultaneously satisfy the Bureau’s 

itemization requirement and a 

substantially similar requirement under 

other applicable law with one 

itemization avoids burdening debt 

collectors with the costs of creating 

redundant disclosures. 

The Bureau determines that the 

itemization of the current amount of the 

debt should not be more detailed (e.g., 

it should not include a detailed list of 

all payments). The itemization that 

appears on the model validation notice 

has been validated through four rounds 

of consumer testing and is effective, and 

the Bureau agrees with commenters who 

observed that a detailed disclosure of, 

for example, all payments could be 

overwhelming and not logistically 

feasible. 

For all of these reasons, the Bureau is 

finalizing proposed § 1006.34(c)(2)(ix), 

renumbered as § 1006.34(c)(2)(viii), to 

provide that required validation 

information includes an itemization of 

the current amount of the debt reflecting 

interest, fees, payments, and credits 

since the itemization date. Final 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(viii) also provides that a 

debt collector may disclose the 

itemization on a separate page provided 

in the same communication with a 

validation notice if the debt collector 

includes on the validation notice, where 

the itemization would have appeared, a 

statement referring to that separate page. 

The Bureau is finalizing comment 

34(c)(2)(ix)–1 with revisions and 

renumbered as comment 34(c)(2)(viii)–1 

and is adding comments 34(c)(2)(viii)–2 

through –4 to clarify various aspects of 

final § 1006.34(c)(2)(viii), as discussed 

above. The Bureau is finalizing 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(viii) and its related 

commentary pursuant to its authority to 

interpret FDCPA section 809(a), as well 

as its authority under Dodd-Frank Act 

section 1032(a). 

34(c)(2)(ix) 

FDCPA section 809(a)(1) requires debt 

collectors to disclose to consumers the 

amount of the debt. Proposed 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(x) provided that the 

current amount of the debt is required 

validation information.241 Proposed 

comment 34(c)(2)(x)–1 explained that, 

for residential mortgage debt subject to 

Regulation Z, 12 CFR 1026.41, a debt 

collector could comply with 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(x) by including in the 

validation notice the total balance of the 

outstanding mortgage, including 

principal, interest, fees, and other 

charges. 

Some commenters raised concerns 

about how proposed § 1006.34(c)(2)(x) 

would disclose the current amount of 

the debt. Industry and industry trade 

group commenters stated that, if interest 

and fees are increasing, the current 

amount of the debt that appears on a 

validation notice may no longer be 

accurate by the time the consumer 

receives the notice. Some commenters 

stated that some State laws and court 

decisions require debt collectors to 

disclose if the current amount of the 

debt may change due to interest and 

fees.242 To address these concerns, 

industry and industry trade group 

commenters suggested that the Bureau 

should either develop a stand-alone 

increasing-interest-and-fee disclosure or 

structure § 1006.34(c)(2)(x) to permit 

debt collectors to disclose that the 

itemized current amount of the debt 

may increase or decrease.243

An industry trade group stated that 

disclosing the current amount of the 

debt as proposed would present 

challenges for some reverse mortgage 

debt because that amount might differ 

from the amount disclosed in monthly 

statements.244 The commenter 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
5808 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

245 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq. 

246See 12 CFR 1026.41(e)(1). 

247The regulation provides: ‘‘The mortgagee shall 

provide to the borrower a monthly statement 

regarding the activity of the mortgage for each 

month, as well as for the calendar year. The 

statement shall summarize the total principal 

amount which has been paid to the borrower under 

the mortgage during that calendar year, the MIP 

paid to the Commissioner and charged to the 

borrower, the total amount of deferred interest 

added to the outstanding loan balance, the total 

outstanding loan balance, and the current principal 

limit. The mortgagee shall include an accounting of 

all payments for property charges. The statement 

shall be provided to the borrower monthly until the 

mortgage is paid in full by the borrower. The 

mortgagee shall provide the borrower with a new 

payment plan every time it recalculates monthly 

payments or the payment option is changed. The 

statements shall be in a format acceptable to the 

Commissioner.’’ See 24 CFR 206.203(a). 

248 12 CFR 1026.41(d)(8)(vi) requires a periodic 

statement to include, if the consumer is more than 

45 days delinquent, the total payment amount 

needed to bring the account current. 

249See 85 FR 12672 (Mar. 3, 2020). 

250 Id. at 12685, 12696. 

recommended that, to avoid potential 

confusion in the context of reverse 

mortgage debt, a debt collector should 

be permitted to provide the last monthly 

account statement in lieu of disclosing 

the current amount of the debt. 

A group of consumer advocates 

recommended that, for residential 

mortgage debt, the Bureau should 

require debt collectors to disclose the 

current amount of the total unpaid 

balance owed as well as the arrearage 

owed. According to this commenter, the 

arrearage owed is important information 

because, in many jurisdictions, 

homeowners in default can pay the 

arrearage to stop a foreclosure and 

reinstate a mortgage. 

After considering these comments, the 

Bureau is finalizing § 1006.34(c)(2)(x) as 

proposed but renumbered as 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(ix). In addition, the 

Bureau is finalizing comment 

34(c)(2)(x)–1 as proposed and is 

adopting new comment 34(c)(2)(ix)–2 to 

clarify how a debt collector who 

combines multiple debts on a single 

validation notice complies with 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(ix). 

With respect to interest and fee 

accrual when disclosing the current 

amount of the debt, the Bureau declines 

to incorporate an increasing-interest-orfee disclosure or to structure the current 

amount of the debt as a dynamic 

balance in § 1006.34(c)(2)(ix). The 

Bureau notes, however, that comment 

34(c)(2)(ix)–1 (proposed as comment 

34(c)(2)(x)–1) clarifies that the current 

amount of the debt is the amount of the 

debt as of the date that the validation 

information is provided. Therefore, a 

debt collector satisfies the requirement 

in § 1006.34(c)(2)(ix) without providing 

a dynamic balance or increasinginterest-or-fee disclosure. Additionally, 

as discussed in the section-by-section 

analysis of § 1006.34(d)(3)(iv), the final 

rule affirmatively permits debt 

collectors to include along with the 

required validation information other 

disclosures specifically required by 

applicable law. As such, debt collectors 

may include a disclosure pursuant to a 

judicial decision or order that the 

current amount of the debt may increase 

or vary due to interest, fees, or other 

charges. This modification addresses the 

challenges debt collectors face related to 

interest and fee accrual in disclosing the 

current amount of the debt. 

The Bureau declines to permit debt 

collectors collecting reverse mortgage 

debt to include a last monthly account 

statement in place of disclosing the 

current amount of the debt. Unlike the 

special rule for certain residential 

mortgage debt discussed in the sectionby-section analysis of § 1006.34(c)(5), 

reverse mortgages are not generally 

subject to a separate disclosure 

requirement, such as 12 CFR 

1026.41(b)’s periodic statement 

requirement, that is functionally 

equivalent to, or as useful to consumers 

as, certain disclosures required by 

§ 1006.34(c)(2). Reverse mortgages 

generally are exempt from providing 

periodic statements under the Truth in 

Lending Act (TILA) 245 and its 

implementing Regulation Z.246 While 

reverse mortgages may be subject to a 

monthly statement requirement that 

would require entities to disclose the 

‘‘total outstanding loan balance,’’ this 

regulatory requirement is not as 

prescriptive as the Bureau’s periodic 

statement requirement for other 

residential mortgage debt.247 Thus, the 

Bureau determines that a last monthly 

statement for a reverse mortgage debt is 

not an adequate substitute for 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(ix). 

The Bureau declines to require debt 

collectors to separately disclose an 

arrearage owed for residential mortgage 

debt. Because the Bureau did not 

propose this disclosure, it lacks the 

benefit of public comment and 

concludes that additional information, 

including through public comment, 

would be advisable before adopting any 

such interpretation. However, the 

Bureau notes that a debt collector who 

utilizes the special rule for certain 

residential mortgage debt described in 

§ 1006.34(c)(5) to comply with 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(vi) through (viii) will 

provide a periodic statement that may 

disclose such information.248 Although 

a mortgage servicer is not required to 

use the special rule for certain 

residential mortgage debt, a mortgage 

servicer who does so and who otherwise 

uses the model validation notice or a 

substantially similar form receives a safe 

harbor for compliance pursuant to 

§ 1006.34(d)(2)(ii). The Bureau therefore 

expects that, in many circumstances, a 

debt collector who is also a mortgage 

servicer that is required to provide 

periodic statements under Regulation Z, 

12 CFR 1026.41 will disclose arrearage 

information. 

As noted in the section-by-section 

analysis of § 1006.34(c)(2)(viii), industry 

commenters requested further guidance 

about how to combine multiple debts on 

a single validation notice. The Bureau is 

adopting new comment 34(c)(2)(ix)–2 to 

clarify that a debt collector who 

combines multiple debts on a single 

validation notice complies with 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(ix) by disclosing on the 

validation notice a single, cumulative 

figure that is the sum of the current 

amount of all the debts. 

Proposed Provision Not Finalized 

As discussed in the section-by-section 

analysis of § 1006.26(c), in the February 

2020 proposal, the Bureau proposed to 

require debt collectors collecting timebarred debt to include time-barred debt 

and revival disclosures on the 

validation notice.249 Proposed 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(xi) provided that 

validation information included those 

disclosures, as applicable, if the debt 

collector determined after a reasonable 

investigation that such disclosures were 

required by § 1006.26(c).250 For the 

reasons discussed in the section-bysection analysis of § 1006.26(c), the 

Bureau is not finalizing the proposed 

time-barred debt disclosure 

requirements and, accordingly, the 

Bureau is not finalizing proposed 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(xi). However, as 

discussed in the section-by-section 

analysis of § 1006.34(d)(3)(iv)(B), any 

disclosures relating to time-barred debt 

that are specifically required by 

applicable law or that provide safe 

harbors under applicable law are 

optional disclosures that the final rule 

affirmatively permits debt collectors to 

include on the validation notice. 

34(c)(3) Information About Consumer 

Protections 

The disclosures in FDCPA section 

809(a) help consumers to determine if a 

particular debt is theirs and to facilitate 

action in response to the receipt of 

validation information. However, as the 

proposal stated, debt collectors typically 

disclose only the information that 

FDCPA section 809(a) specifically 

references and provide the FDCPA 

section 809 information using statutory 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 5809 

251 84 FR 23274, 23342 (May 21, 2019). 

252See 15 U.S.C. 1692g(a)(4) and (5). 

253 In the November 2020 Final Rule, the Bureau 

finalized § 1006.6(c)(1) to implement FDCPA 

section 805(c) and to provide that, ‘‘if a consumer 

notifies a debt collector in writing that the 

consumer refuses to pay a debt or that the consumer 

wants the debt collector to cease further 

communication with the consumer, the debt 

collector must not communicate or attempt to 

communicate further with the consumer with 

respect to such debt.’’ 85 FR 76734, 78889 (Nov. 30, 

2020). 

254See 15 U.S.C. 1681j(a); 12 CFR 1022.136. 

255 84 FR 23274, 23342 (May 21, 2019). 

256For example, when Congress established the 

cease communication right pursuant to FDCPA 

section 805(c), Congress did not require its 

disclosure pursuant to FDCPA section 809. The 

Bureau concludes that was intentional. Thus, the 

Bureau declines to include the cease 

communication right as validation information that 

debt collectors must disclose. 

257Section 1006.34(c)(3)(iv) requires debt 

collectors to include the disclosure if they are 

collecting debt related to a consumer financial 

product or service, as defined in § 1006.2(f). 

Otherwise, debt collectors can optionally include 

the disclosure under § 1006.34(d)(3)(viii). 

258See 15 U.S.C. 1692g(a)(4). 

259 84 FR 23274, 23343, 23404 (May 21, 2019). 

260The discussion under the ‘‘Model Validation 

Notice’’ heading in the section-by-section analysis 

of § 1006.34(d)(2) provides details about how the 

statement required by § 1006.34(c)(3)(i) is disclosed 

on the model validation notice. 

language, rather than plain language 

that consumers can more easily 

comprehend.251 To address these 

concerns, proposed § 1006.34(c)(3) 

provided that certain information about 

a consumer’s rights with respect to debt 

collection is required validation 

information. This information, which is 

discussed in the section-by-section 

analysis of § 1006.34(c)(3)(i) through (vi) 

below, included disclosures specifically 

referenced in FDCPA section 809(a)(4) 

and (5), as well as additional disclosures 

intended to help consumers understand 

their debt collection rights.252

Commenters generally supported 

requiring debt collectors to disclose 

information about a consumer’s rights 

with respect to debt collection. Federal 

government agency staff and a consumer 

advocate commenter stated that 

proposed § 1006.34(c)(3) would improve 

consumers’ understanding of their rights 

in debt collection. Some industry and 

industry trade group commenters 

supported using plain language 

disclosures to explain consumer 

protections in debt collection. 

Some commenters recommended that 

the Bureau require additional 

disclosures about consumers’ rights 

with respect to debt collection. Federal 

government agency staff, a group of 28 

State Attorneys General, and a number 

of consumer advocate commenters 

recommended that debt collectors be 

required to disclose the FDCPA section 

805(c) cease communication right.253 A 

State regulatory agency recommended 

that the Bureau require debt collectors 

to disclose that a consumer’s failure to 

act or to dispute a debt may have credit 

reporting implications. This commenter 

also recommended that § 1006.34(c)(3) 

require debt collectors to disclose how 

consumers may obtain an annual credit 

report, which consumers are entitled to 

under the FCRA and its implementing 

Regulation V.254

The Bureau determines, as discussed 

in the proposal, that consumers will 

benefit from receiving additional 

information about their rights in debt 

collection and from plain language 

disclosures rather than disclosures that 

parrot the FDCPA’s statutory text.255

The Bureau therefore is adopting 

§ 1006.34(c)(3). Specifically, as 

discussed further in the section-bysection analysis below, the Bureau is 

adopting § 1006.34(c)(3)(i) through (v) 

and its related commentary with minor 

modifications, but is not finalizing 

proposed § 1006.34(c)(3)(vi), which 

addressed the opt-out notice required by 

§ 1006.6(e) for electronic 

communications or attempts to 

communicate. 

The Bureau declines to require 

additional disclosures about consumer 

protections in debt collection, as some 

commenters suggested. In particular, the 

Bureau concludes that, although 

consumers may benefit from 

understanding the rights the 

commenters discussed, those rights are 

not sufficiently related to the purposes 

of FDCPA section 809—i.e., helping 

consumers to determine if a debt is 

theirs and to facilitate action in 

response to the receipt of validation 

information—to require debt collectors 

to include them as validation 

information.256 In addition, as discussed 

in the section-by-section analysis of 

§ 1006.34(c)(3)(iv), the final rule 

generally requires debt collectors to 

include a statement that informs 

consumers that additional information 

regarding consumer protections in debt 

collection is available on the Bureau’s 

website, with a link to the 

information.257 The Bureau’s website 

will disclose more information about 

consumer protections in debt collection, 

including about the cease 

communication right. 

The Bureau is finalizing 

§ 1006.34(c)(3)(i) through (iii) and (v) 

pursuant to its authority under FDCPA 

section 814(d) to prescribe rules with 

respect to the collection of debts by debt 

collectors and, as described more fully 

below, its authority to implement and 

interpret FDCPA section 809. The 

Bureau also is finalizing § 1006.34(c)(3) 

pursuant to its authority under section 

1032(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act, on the 

basis that a consumer’s rights are a 

feature of debt collection. 

34(c)(3)(i) 

FDCPA section 809(a)(4) requires debt 

collectors to disclose to consumers their 

right under FDCPA section 809(b) to 

dispute the validity of the debt within 

30 days after receipt of the validation 

information (i.e., during the validation 

period).258 If a consumer disputes a debt 

in accordance with FDCPA section 

809(b), a debt collector must cease 

collecting the debt until the debt 

collector provides verification to the 

consumer; this is sometimes referred to 

as the collections pause. FDCPA section 

809(a)(4) does not expressly indicate 

that a debt collector must disclose to 

consumers that a dispute triggers 

FDCPA section 809(b)’s collections 

pause, or whether a debt collector must 

disclose the end date of the validation 

period. 

The Bureau proposed 

§ 1006.34(c)(3)(i) to provide that 

validation information includes a 

statement that specifies the end date of 

the validation period and states that, if 

the consumer notifies the debt collector 

in writing before the end of the 

validation period that the debt, or any 

portion of the debt, is disputed, the debt 

collector must cease collection of the 

debt until the debt collector sends the 

consumer either the verification of the 

debt or a copy of a judgment.259

The Bureau received a variety of 

comments in response to proposed 

§ 1006.34(c)(3)(i)’s incorporation of the 

validation period end date.260 On the 

one hand, an industry trade group and 

a group of consumer advocate 

commenters supported the inclusion, 

asserting the validation period end date 

would provide certainty to consumers 

about the timeframe within which to 

exercise their verification rights. 

However, other commenters opposed 

the inclusion because, if delivery of a 

validation notice is delayed and the 

consumer receives the notice later than 

the debt collector presumed, the 

validation period end date would be 

inaccurate. Commenters suggested this 

could pose legal risk to debt collectors. 

To address this concern, an industry 

commenter recommended that the 

Bureau modify proposed 

§ 1006.34(c)(3)(i) to replace the 

validation period end date with a 

generic statement that a consumer may 

request verification within 30 days after 

receiving the validation notice. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
5810 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

261 Jeff Sovern & Kate Walton, Are Validation 

Notices Valid? An Empirical Evaluation of 

Consumer Understanding of Debt Collection 

Validation Notices, 70 SMU L. Rev. 63, 128 (2017) 

(‘‘Our study indicated that more than a third of the 

respondents believed that if they failed to meet the 

thirty-day deadline, they would either have to pay 

a debt they did not owe or would not be able to 

argue in court that they didn’t owe the debt.’’). 

262See November 2020 Qualitative Testing 

Report, supra note 34, at 13. Similarly, the Bureau’s 

prior testing suggested that ‘‘[o]verall, participants’ 

comments suggest that they understood the 

difference between writing before the specified date 

[and] writing after that date.’’ FMG Usability 

Report, supra note 28, at 56. 

263 Id. 

264 Id. at 13–14. 

265FMG Cognitive Report, supra note 27, at 30; 

see also FMG Summary Report, supra note 29, at 

25. 

Some commenters, including 

consumer advocate commenters and an 

industry trade group, stated that 

disclosing the validation period end 

date might leave consumers with the 

false impression that they could not 

raise concerns about a debt after the 

validation period expires. A group of 

academic commenters argued that a 

study suggested that a significant 

number of consumers believed that, if 

they did not dispute a debt during the 

validation period, they would be unable 

to assert later that they did not owe the 

debt.261 Similarly, an industry 

commenter stated that disclosing the 

validation period end date might 

dissuade consumers from making 

verification requests after that date even 

though debt collectors sometimes honor 

such requests. To address this potential 

misunderstanding, some commenters 

recommended that the final rule require 

debt collectors to inform consumers that 

they can raise concerns about a debt 

after the validation period end date. 

Commenters also addressed the 

Bureau’s proposal to require debt 

collectors to disclose FDCPA section 

809(b)’s collections pause. Federal 

government agency staff and a group of 

consumer advocate commenters 

supported the collections pause 

disclosure. However, industry 

commenters stated that the disclosure 

would be burdensome because it would 

encourage consumers to dispute the 

debt for the purpose of delaying or 

avoiding debt collection. According to 

an industry commenter, consumers do 

not need to be informed about FDCPA 

section 809(b)’s collections pause 

because debt collectors are aware of it 

and observe it. 

The Bureau determines that 

consumers will benefit from 

§ 1006.34(c)(3)(i)’s disclosure of the 

validation period end date. As 

discussed in the proposal, the validation 

period end date is an integral feature of 

consumers’ dispute right. Among other 

things, the validation period end date 

will provide certainty to consumers 

about the timeframe provided by the 

FDCPA to exercise their verification 

rights. 

The Bureau disagrees that a validation 

period end date that is inaccurate 

because a validation notice was delayed 

will present significant legal risk to debt 

collectors. Final § 1006.34(b)(5) and 

comment 34(b)(5)–1 provide that, for 

purposes of determining the end of the 

validation period, a debt collector who 

provides the validation information in 

writing or electronically may assume 

that a consumer receives the validation 

information on any date that is at least 

five business days after the debt 

collector provides it. If a debt collector 

calculates the validation period end 

date in accordance with this 

presumption, the debt collector will not 

violate the FDCPA or its implementing 

Regulation F, even if, as final comment 

34(b)(5)–1 clarifies, the consumer 

receives the validation notice later than 

the debt collector assumed. Further, the 

Bureau determines that a generic 

statement that a consumer may request 

verification within 30 days after 

receiving the validation notice is not an 

adequate substitute for disclosing the 

validation period end date. Such a 

generic statement could leave many 

consumers unsure about when the 

validation period ends. For example, 

consumers might receive a validation 

notice in the mail but not open it 

immediately, or they might open it and 

return to it later without keeping track 

of how much time has passed. In these 

and similar scenarios, consumers would 

not be able to determine the validation 

period end date. 

Regarding commenters’ suggestion 

that the Bureau require debt collectors 

to inform consumers that they can raise 

concerns about a debt after the 

validation period end date, the Bureau 

concludes that it is not necessary to 

require such a disclosure. FDCPA 

section 809(a) requires specific 

consumer disclosures, including 

statements about the consumer’s rights 

within 30 days of receipt of the notice, 

but does not require any additional 

statement addressing consumer actions 

after the expiration of that period. The 

Bureau determines that a specific end 

date will not increase consumer 

confusion more than general language 

such as ‘‘within 30 days.’’ The Bureau’s 

testing shows that, while some 

confusion does occur, about 40 percent 

of participants said they could still 

dispute the debt after the validation 

period end date.262 Of the remaining 60 

percent of participants, about 40 percent 

were unclear what would happen if they 

wrote to dispute the debt, and only 

about 20 percent specifically said that 

they could not write to dispute the 

debt.263 When asked whether the debt 

collector would be required to send 

information saying they owe the debt if 

they wrote to dispute after the 

validation period end date, a small 

majority of consumers assumed that the 

debt collector would be required to do 

so.264 Thus, although consumers may 

not be certain of the effect of writing to 

dispute the debt after the validation 

period end date, the Bureau’s testing 

indicates that a sizeable majority of 

consumers would not be inhibited about 

raising general concerns about the debt 

after the validation notice end date. As 

discussed above, the final rule’s 

enhanced and plain-language 

disclosures should improve overall 

consumer understanding and empower 

consumers to respond, should they 

choose, to debt collectors. The Bureau 

therefore declines to require as part of 

the validation information an explicit 

statement informing consumers that 

they may continue to raise concerns 

about the debt after the validation 

period end date. 

The Bureau also determines that 

§ 1006.34(c)(3)(i) should not omit the 

collections pause disclosure. As the 

proposal noted, consumer testing 

indicates that knowing about the 

collections pause was important to 

consumers and would encourage them 

to exercise their dispute right if they 

questioned a debt’s validity.265 Debt 

collectors have not provided evidence to 

support the premise that a significant 

number of consumers exercise their 

FDCPA section 809 verification rights 

solely to evade or delay paying debts 

that they owe. Absent such evidence, 

the Bureau declines to conclude that 

consumers will exercise their rights for 

such purposes. Further, regardless of 

whether debt collectors are aware of and 

comply with FDCPA section 809(b)’s 

collections pause requirement, the 

Bureau concludes that consumers will 

benefit from this disclosure because it 

will provide them with more complete 

information about the actions that debt 

collectors must take if consumers notify 

them that the debt is disputed. 

For all of these reasons, the Bureau is 

finalizing § 1006.34(c)(3)(i) as proposed, 

with minor wording changes to clarify 

the content of the required disclosure, 

including by specifying that the 

consumer must notify the debt collector 

in writing ‘‘on or before’’ the end of the 

validation period, as opposed to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 5811 

266The model validation notice uses the term 

‘‘by’’ instead of ‘‘on or before’’ for plain language 

purposes. 

267See 15 U.S.C. 1692g(a)(5). 

268 84 FR 23274, 23343, 23404 (May 21, 2019). 

269See the ‘‘Model Validation Notice’’ discussion 

in the section-by-section analysis of § 1006.34(d)(2) 

for additional details about how the statement 

required by § 1006.34(c)(3)(ii) is disclosed on the 

model validation notice. 

270As an alternative to complying with 

§ 1006.34(c)(3)(ii), an industry trade group 

commenter recommended that debt collectors be 

permitted to proactively disclose the originalcreditor information that a consumer would receive 

in response to an FDCPA section 809(b) request. 

This comment is addressed in the section-bysection analysis of § 1006.38. 

271See the section-by-section analysis of 

§ 1006.38(c)(2). 

272The model validation notice uses the term 

‘‘by’’ instead of ‘‘on or before’’ for plain language 

purposes. 

273 15 U.S.C. 1692g(a)(3). 

274 84 FR 23274, 23343–44, 23404 (May 21, 2019). 

275Compare Clark v. Absolute Collection Serv., 

Inc., 741 F.3d 487, 490 (4th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) 

(holding that oral disputes trigger certain FDCPA 

protections, including under FDCPA section 

809(a)(3)), Hooks v. Forman, Holt, Eliades & Ravin, 

LLC, 717 F.3d 282, 286 (2d Cir. 2013) (same), and 

Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin. Inc., 430 F.3d 1078, 

1082 (9th Cir. 2005) (same), with Graziano v. 

Harrison, 950 F.2d 107, 112 (3d Cir. 1991) (‘‘[A] 

dispute, to be effective, must be in writing.’’). 

276FDCPA section 810 is implemented by 

§ 1006.30(c). See 85 FR 76734, 76843 (Nov. 30, 

2020); see also Camacho, 430 F.3d at 1081–82 

(holding that oral disputes trigger certain FDCPA 

protections, including under FDCPA sections 807(8) 

and 810). 

277After the proposal was published, the circuit 

split was resolved. In Riccio v. Sentry Credit, Inc., 

the Third Circuit sitting en banc overruled its prior 

decision and determined that FDCPA section 

809(a)(3) does not require a dispute to be in writing. 

Riccio v. Sentry Credit, Inc., 954 F.3d 582, 594 (3d 

Cir. 2020) (en banc) (‘‘In short, we conclude that 

debt collection notices sent under § 1692g need not 

require that disputes be expressed in writing. In 

doing so, we overrule Graziano’s contrary 

holding.’’). 

‘‘before’’ the end of the validation 

period, as proposed.266

34(c)(3)(ii) 

FDCPA section 809(a)(5) requires debt 

collectors to disclose to consumers their 

right under FDCPA section 809(b) to 

request, within 30 days after receipt of 

the validation information, the name 

and address of the original creditor, if 

different from the current creditor.267

FDCPA section 809(a)(5) does not 

expressly indicate that a debt collector 

must disclose to consumers that an 

original-creditor information request 

invokes FDCPA section 809(b)’s 

collections pause, or whether a debt 

collector must disclose the end date of 

the validation period. The Bureau 

proposed § 1006.34(c)(3)(ii) to provide 

that validation information includes a 

statement that specifies the end date of 

the validation period and states that, if 

the consumer requests in writing before 

the end of the validation period the 

name and address of the original 

creditor, the debt collector must cease 

collection of the debt until the debt 

collector sends the consumer the name 

and address of the original creditor, if 

different from the current creditor.268

Some industry and industry trade 

group commenters recommended that 

the Bureau not finalize proposed 

§ 1006.34(c)(3)(ii).269 Some commenters 

stated that the validation information 

need not include a statement informing 

consumers of their right to request 

original-creditor information because, 

under the Bureau’s rule, the validation 

information will include the creditor as 

of the itemization date and, according to 

the commenters, that creditor and the 

original creditor often will be the same. 

Relatedly, some commenters suggested 

that, because the validation information 

will include the names of the 

itemization-date creditor and the 

current creditor, debt collectors should 

be permitted to omit the statement 

informing consumers of their right to 

request original-creditor information if 

the original creditor is the same as 

either of those creditors.270

Some commenters recommended that 

the Bureau modify proposed 

§ 1006.34(c)(3)(ii) to omit the validation 

period end date and the collections 

pause disclosures. These comments 

were substantially similar to comments 

discussed in the section-by-section 

analysis of § 1006.34(c)(3)(i). 

After considering the feedback, the 

Bureau has determined to finalize 

§ 1006.34(c)(3)(ii). FDCPA section 

809(a)(5) expressly requires debt 

collectors to include in the validation 

information a statement that, upon the 

consumer’s written request within 30 

days after receipt of the validation 

information, the debt collector will 

provide the consumer with the name 

and address of the original creditor, if 

different from the current creditor. The 

Bureau proposed § 1006.34(c)(3)(ii) to 

implement that requirement and to 

clarify the content of the disclosures for 

debt collectors. The Bureau did not 

propose an exception to this disclosure 

requirement if the original creditor and 

the current creditor are the same and 

therefore does not have information 

regarding the costs or benefits of 

finalizing such an exception. To the 

extent that commenters were concerned 

about the burden of responding to 

original-creditor information requests 

when the original creditor and the 

current creditor are the same, the 

Bureau is finalizing a special rule for 

that scenario in § 1006.38(c)(2).271 For 

these reasons, the Bureau is finalizing 

§ 1006.34(c)(3)(ii) as proposed, with 

minor wording changes to clarify the 

content of the required disclosure, 

including by specifying that the 

consumer must notify the debt collector 

in writing ‘‘on or before’’ the end date 

of the validation period, as opposed to 

‘‘before’’ the end of the validation 

period, as proposed.272

The Bureau declines to omit the 

validation period end date and the 

collections pause disclosures from 

§ 1006.34(c)(3)(ii) for the same reasons 

discussed in the section-by-section 

analysis of § 1006.34(c)(3)(i). 

34(c)(3)(iii) 

FDCPA section 809(a)(3) requires a 

debt collector to disclose to a consumer 

that, unless the consumer disputes the 

validity of the debt within 30 days of 

receipt of the validation information, 

the debt collector will assume the debt 

to be valid.273 The Bureau proposed 

§ 1006.34(c)(3)(iii) to provide that 

validation information includes a 

statement that specifies the end date of 

the validation period and states that, 

unless the consumer contacts the debt 

collector to dispute the validity of the 

debt, or any portion of the debt, before 

the end of the validation period, the 

debt collector will assume that the debt 

is valid.274

At the time of the proposal, courts in 

various jurisdictions had reached 

different conclusions about whether 

FDCPA section 809(a)(3) requires debt 

collectors to recognize oral disputes 

about the validity of a debt.275 These 

differing decisions principally arose 

from the fact that, whereas FDCPA 

section 809(a)(4) and (5) explicitly state 

that a consumer must notify a debt 

collector in writing, FDCPA section 

809(a)(3) does not refer to a writing 

requirement. In the absence of an 

express writing requirement in FDCPA 

section 809(a)(3), the majority of circuit 

courts that considered the issue had 

determined that a consumer’s oral 

dispute triggers certain FDCPA 

protections, including, for example, 

FDCPA section 810’s payment 

application requirement.276 Consistent 

with this majority position, and 

pursuant to its authority to implement 

and interpret FDCPA section 809(a)(3) 

as well as its authority under DoddFrank Act section 1032(a), the Bureau 

proposed to interpret FDCPA section 

809(a)(3) to allow oral disputes.277

Industry commenters, industry trade 

group commenters, and a group of 

academic commenters supported the 

Bureau’s proposed interpretation that 

FDCPA section 809(a)(3) permits 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
5812 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

278See part III.C. 

279See the ‘‘Model Validation Notice’’ discussion 

in the section-by-section analysis of § 1006.34(d)(2) 

for additional details about how the statement 

required by § 1006.34(c)(3)(iii) is disclosed on the 

model validation notice. 

280The model validation notice uses the term 

‘‘by’’ instead of ‘‘on or before’’ for plain language 

purposes. 

281For additional detail about information that 

the Bureau considered including in the reference 

document, see appendix G of the Small Business 

Review Panel Outline, supra note 39. 

282Also, in response to proposed 

§ 1006.34(d)(4)(ii), a consumer advocate commenter 

recommended that the Bureau permit debt 

collectors to embed a hyperlink that directs 

consumers to the Bureau’s website address 

described in proposed § 1006.34(c)(3)(iv). As 

discussed in the section-by-section analysis of 

§ 1006.34(d)(4)(ii), the Bureau is adopting this 

recommendation to permit debt collectors to 

include a hyperlink without losing the safe harbor 

in § 1006.34(d)(2). 

283For example, a Pew Research Center study in 

2019 found that 90 percent of U.S. adults use the 

internet. See Pew Research Ctr., Internet/Broadband 

Fact Sheet, https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/ 

fact-sheet/internet-broadband/#who-uses-theinternet (last visited Dec. 1, 2020). 

consumers to dispute the validity of a 

debt orally or in writing. 

Several industry and industry trade 

group commenters expressed concerns 

about how proposed § 1006.34(c)(3)(iii) 

was disclosed on the proposed model 

validation notice, perceiving a tension 

between the regulatory text and the 

proposed model notice text. 

Specifically, whereas the proposed 

model validation notice stated that a 

consumer may ‘‘call or write’’ to dispute 

all or part of the debt, proposed 

§ 1006.34(c)(3)(iii) did not specify the 

manner in which a consumer must 

contact the debt collector and instead 

used the general term ‘‘contact.’’ 

As proposed, the Bureau determines 

that FDCPA section 809(a)(3) permits 

both oral and written disputes. The 

Bureau agrees with every circuit court 

that has addressed this issue and 

interprets the absence of a reference to 

a writing requirement in FDCPA section 

809(a)(3) to mean that a writing is not 

required. Further, commenters overall 

supported this interpretation. 

The Bureau declines to modify how 

§ 1006.34(c)(3)(iii) is phrased on the 

model validation notice. The Bureau 

developed the phrase ‘‘call or write’’ for 

comprehension purposes. The model 

notice’s language is intended to be plain 

language and consumer-friendly and 

was validated through multiple rounds 

of qualitative and quantitative consumer 

testing.278 Regulatory text and the 

model notice language reflecting that 

regulatory text need not be identical in 

every case. For instance, if consumers 

may not understand a requirement as 

described in regulatory text, it is 

appropriate to express that requirement 

in plain language in consumer 

disclosures.279

For these reasons, the Bureau is 

finalizing § 1006.34(c)(3)(iii) as 

proposed, with minor wording changes 

to clarify the content of the required 

disclosure, including by specifying that 

the consumer must notify the debt 

collector in writing ‘‘on or before’’ the 

end of the validation period, rather than 

‘‘before’’ the end of the validation 

period, as proposed.280

34(c)(3)(iv) 

Dodd-Frank Act section 1032(a) 

permits the Bureau to prescribe rules to 

ensure that the features of any consumer 

financial product or service, both 

initially and over the term of the 

product or service, are fully, accurately, 

and effectively disclosed to consumers 

in a manner that permits consumers to 

understand the costs, benefits, and risks 

associated with the product or service, 

in light of the facts and circumstances. 

To enhance consumer understanding of 

protections available during the debt 

collection process, and pursuant to its 

authority under Dodd-Frank Act section 

1032(a), the Bureau proposed 

§ 1006.34(c)(3)(iv) to provide that, if a 

debt collector is collecting a consumer 

financial product or service debt, as 

defined in § 1006.2(f), then validation 

information includes a statement that 

informs the consumer that additional 

information regarding consumer rights 

in debt collection is available on the 

Bureau’s website at https://

www.consumerfinance.gov. 

Commenters generally agreed that 

consumers would benefit from 

information about additional 

protections available to consumers 

experiencing debt collection. However, 

commenters disagreed about the best 

way to provide that information. 

A large number of consumer advocate 

and academic commenters 

recommended that, rather than a 

statement that additional information is 

available on the Bureau’s website, the 

Bureau should require debt collectors to 

provide consumers, along with the 

validation notice, a reference document 

describing consumer protections in debt 

collection, similar to the document that 

the Bureau developed prior to the 

SBREFA process.281 Commenters stated 

that a reference document would be 

more useful to consumers than a 

statement appearing on a validation 

notice. Further, some such commenters 

stated that proposed § 1006.34(c)(3)(iv) 

would not help consumers without 

internet access who are unable to visit 

the Bureau’s website. 

Consumer advocate commenters and a 

group of academics also stated that, if 

the Bureau does not require a reference 

document, the Bureau should revise 

proposed § 1006.34(c)(3)(iv) to require 

debt collectors to include a web address 

that directs consumers to a Bureau page 

dedicated to consumer protections in 

debt collection, instead of to the 

Bureau’s general website landing 

page.282 Other commenters stated that 

requiring consumers to click on a 

hyperlink if the validation notice is 

delivered electronically would create 

procedural hurdles that reduce 

consumer follow through and would 

pose security risks to consumers. 

At least one industry trade group 

commenter disagreed and supported 

proposed § 1006.34(c)(3)(iv) on the 

grounds that including a reference 

document with the validation notice 

would overwhelm consumers. 

For the reasons discussed below, the 

Bureau is finalizing § 1006.34(c)(3)(iv) 

as proposed with a revision in response 

to feedback. 

The Bureau declines to require debt 

collectors to provide consumers a 

reference document describing 

consumer protections in debt collection. 

Because the Bureau did not propose 

such a requirement, the Bureau did not 

receive robust feedback in response to 

the proposal about what such a required 

form should look like and how a 

requirement to provide it might operate. 

Further, the Bureau expects that most 

consumers will receive the disclosure 

referring to the Bureau’s website and 

will be able to access the website; most 

consumers use the internet and have 

experience navigating to websites.283

The Bureau determines that 

consumers would benefit from being 

directed to a page dedicated to 

consumer protections in debt collection 

instead of the Bureau’s website landing 

page. Accordingly, the Bureau is 

modifying § 1006.34(c)(3)(iv) to 

specifically reference the web page 

www.cfpb.gov/debt-collection instead of 

the Bureau’s general landing page. The 

Bureau is also making a conforming 

change to how the statement described 

in § 1006.34(c)(3)(iv) is disclosed on the 

model validation notice. 

The Bureau determines that 

consumers will not face significant 

security risks when accessing the 

Bureau’s website. The vast majority of 

validation notices today are delivered 

by mail, so an active hyperlink is not 

possible. In the case of electronic 

communications, the Bureau recognizes 

that active hyperlinks can present 

security concerns to consumers, 

including, among other things, phishing 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 5813 

284See, e.g., Fed. Trade Comm’n, How to 

Recognize and Avoid Phishing Scams (May 2019), 

https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/howrecognize-and-avoid-phishing-scams (last visited 

Dec. 1, 2020). 

285Proposed § 1006.34(c)(4) set forth required 

consumer-response information. Proposed 

§ 1006.34(d)(3)(iii)(B) and (vi)(B) set forth certain 

other consumer-response information related to 

payment requests and requests for Spanishlanguage validation notices. 

286See the section-by-section analysis of 

§ 1006.38 and comment 38–1. 

287On the model validation notice, this phrase 

appears as ‘‘We accept such requests 

electronically.’’ This wording deviates from the 

regulatory text due to space considerations and the 

context of surrounding disclosures. 

risks.284 But the Bureau is not requiring 

debt collectors to include an active 

hyperlink to the Bureau’s website in 

validation notices. In other words, even 

if the validation information is provided 

electronically, § 1006.34(c)(3)(iv) only 

requires that the text ‘‘www.cfpb.gov/ 

debt-collection’’ be displayed in the 

information. As discussed in the 

section-by-section analysis of 

§ 1006.34(d)(4)(ii), a debt collector is 

permitted, but not required, to include 

an active hyperlink to the Bureau’s 

website. This is because hyperlinks are 

a common feature of electronic 

commercial communications. A 

validation notice that includes a 

hyperlink to the Bureau’s website may 

be safe and convenient for a consumer. 

This would particularly be the case if 

the debt collector had prior contact with 

the consumer and the consumer 

recognizes that the validation notice 

was sent by a familiar source. If a 

consumer is unfamiliar with the debt 

collector or otherwise has concerns 

about clicking on an active hyperlink, 

the consumer could choose, rather than 

clicking on the hyperlink, to navigate 

independently to the Bureau’s website 

to obtain more information about 

consumer protections in debt collection. 

Accordingly, the Bureau is finalizing 

§ 1006.34(c)(3)(iv) to provide that, if a 

debt collector is collecting debt related 

to a consumer financial product or 

service as defined in § 1006.2(f), 

validation information includes a 

statement that informs the consumer 

that additional information regarding 

consumer protections in debt collection 

is available on the Bureau’s website at 

www.cfpb.gov/debt-collection. 

34(c)(3)(v) 

Proposed § 1006.34(c)(4) provided 

that validation information includes 

information that a consumer can use to 

take certain actions, including disputing 

a debt or requesting original-creditor 

information.285 As discussed in the 

section-by-section analysis of 

§ 1006.34(c)(3)(i) and (ii), FDCPA 

section 809(b) provides that consumers 

must notify a debt collector ‘‘in writing’’ 

to dispute a debt or request originalcreditor information. Under § 1006.38, 

this writing requirement is satisfied if a 

consumer provides a dispute or request 

for original-creditor information to the 

debt collector using a medium of 

electronic communication through 

which a debt collector accepts 

electronic communications from 

consumers, such as an email address or 

a website portal.286 Thus, debt 

collectors are required to give legal 

effect to consumer disputes or requests 

for original-creditor information 

submitted electronically only if a debt 

collector chooses to accept electronic 

communications from consumers. The 

Bureau proposed § 1006.34(c)(3)(v) to 

provide that validation information 

includes a statement explaining how a 

consumer can take the actions described 

in proposed § 1006.34(c)(4) and (d)(3), 

as applicable, electronically, if the debt 

collector sends a validation notice 

electronically. 

Proposed comment 34(c)(3)(v)–1 

explained that a debt collector may 

provide the information described in 

§ 1006.34(c)(3)(v) by including the 

statements, ‘‘We accept disputes 

electronically,’’ using that phrase or a 

substantially similar phrase, followed 

by an email address or website portal 

that a consumer can use to take the 

action described in § 1006.34(c)(4)(i), 

and ‘‘We accept original-creditor 

information requests electronically,’’ 

using that phrase or a substantially 

similar phrase, followed by an email 

address or website portal that a 

consumer can use to take the action 

described in § 1006.34(c)(4)(ii).287

Proposed comment 34(c)(3)(v)–1 also 

clarified that, if a debt collector accepts 

electronic communications from 

consumers through more than one 

medium, such as by email and through 

a website portal, the debt collector is 

only required to provide information 

regarding one of these media but may 

provide information about additional 

media. 

An industry commenter and an 

industry trade group commenter 

supported proposed § 1006.34(c)(3)(v) 

because it would inform consumers 

about alternative methods to contact 

debt collectors and would increase the 

likelihood that consumers would engage 

with debt collectors. However, another 

industry commenter objected to the 

proposal because, the commenter 

argued, allowing consumers to exercise 

verification rights electronically would 

encourage consumers to submit 

verification requests for the purpose of 

delaying or avoiding paying a debt. 

The Bureau determines that requiring 

debt collectors who provide validation 

notices electronically to include 

statements on the validation notice 

explaining how consumers can dispute 

the debt or request original-creditor 

information electronically will benefit 

consumers by facilitating their ability to 

exercise those verification rights 

electronically. The Bureau agrees that 

such disclosures will increase the 

likelihood of engagement between 

consumers and debt collectors but does 

not agree that they will encourage 

consumers to submit disputes or 

original-creditor-information requests to 

delay or avoid paying the debt. As 

discussed in the section-by-section 

analysis of § 1006.34(c)(3)(i), 

commenters have not provided evidence 

demonstrating that a significant number 

of consumers exercise their verification 

rights with the principal purpose of 

avoiding paying debts that they owe. 

Absent such evidence, the Bureau 

declines to conclude that consumers 

will exercise verification rights for this 

purpose. 

Accordingly, the Bureau is finalizing 

§ 1006.34(c)(3)(v) and its related 

commentary largely as proposed, except 

that the final rule does not require debt 

collectors who provide validation 

notices electronically to include 

statements stating how consumers can 

take the actions described in 

§ 1006.34(d)(3) (i.e., responding to a 

payment prompt (§ 1006.34(d)(3)(iii)) or 

requesting a Spanish-language 

translation (§ 1006.34(d)(3)(vi))) 

electronically. 

The Bureau notes that 

§ 1006.34(d)(3)(vi)(A) affirmatively 

permits a debt collector to include 

supplemental information in Spanish 

specifying how a consumer may request 

a Spanish-language validation notice, 

and such information could include 

how the consumer may do so 

electronically. In addition, as discussed 

at the outset of the section-by-section 

analysis of § 1006.34, the Bureau is not 

finalizing the proposed requirement that 

all validation notices must be 

substantially similar to the model 

validation notice in order to avoid 

violating the rule. Therefore, under the 

final rule, a debt collector who chooses 

to include either or both of the optional 

payment disclosures in 

§ 1006.34(d)(3)(iii) is not prohibited by 

Regulation F from including a statement 

about how the consumer can make a 

payment electronically (although 

including such a statement will take the 

debt collector out of the safe harbor in 

§ 1006.34(d)(2)). The Bureau is 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
5814 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

288As finalized in the November 2020 Final Rule, 

§ 1006.6(e) requires a debt collector who 

communicates or attempts to communicate with a 

consumer electronically in connection with the 

collection of a debt using a specific email address, 

telephone number for text messages, or other 

electronic-medium address to include in such 

communication or attempt to communicate a clear 

and conspicuous statement describing a reasonable 

and simple method by which the consumer can opt 

out of further electronic communications or 

attempts to communicate by the debt collector to 

that address or telephone number. See 85 FR 76734, 

76890 (Nov. 30, 2020). 

289 84 FR 23275, 23404 (May 21, 2019). 

290As discussed in the section-by-section analysis 

of § 1006.34(d)(3), proposed § 1006.34(d)(3)(iii)(B) 

and (vi)(B) provided that a debt collector also could 

include a payment disclosure and Spanish-language 

validation notice request disclosure as consumerresponse information. 

finalizing § 1006.34(c)(3)(v) pursuant to 

its authority to interpret FDCPA section 

809(a) and (b), as well as its authority 

under Dodd-Frank Act section 1032(a). 

34(c)(3)(vi) 

The Bureau proposed 

§ 1006.34(c)(3)(vi) to provide that, for a 

validation notice delivered in the body 

of an email pursuant to procedures set 

forth in the proposal, validation 

information includes the opt-out 

statement required by § 1006.6(e).288

Proposed comment 34(c)(3)(vi)–1 

clarified certain details, including that 

the requirement would not apply in the 

case of validation notices delivered by 

hyperlink and that electronic delivery of 

a validation notice is not rendered 

ineffective if a consumer opts out of 

future electronic communications 

pursuant to § 1006.6(e). 

Although no commenters objected to 

proposed § 1006.34(c)(3)(vi), the Bureau 

is not finalizing it. The Bureau has 

determined that it is not necessary to 

require debt collectors to include the 

§ 1006.6(e) opt-out instructions on 

validation notices sent electronically 

because § 1006.6(e) itself already 

requires those instructions in every 

electronic communication or 

communication attempt, which will 

includes every electronic 

communication transmitting a 

validation notice. Thus, 

§ 1006.34(c)(3)(vi) would be redundant. 

A debt collector who sends a 

validation notice electronically may 

provide the § 1006.6(e) disclosure in the 

electronic communication outside of the 

validation notice. A debt collector who 

provides the model validation notice 

electronically will not lose the safe 

harbor described in § 1006.34(d)(2) by 

including the § 1006.6(e) disclosure in 

the electronic communication outside 

the model notice. Accordingly, the 

Bureau determines that the § 1006.6(e) 

opt-out disclosure is not necessary to 

include as validation information. 

Although the Bureau is not finalizing 

proposed § 1006.34(c)(3)(vi), the Bureau 

reaffirms the clarification in proposed 

comment 34(c)(3)(vi)–1 that electronic 

delivery of a validation notice is not 

rendered ineffective merely because a 

consumer opts out of future electronic 

communications pursuant to the 

instructions in § 1006.6(e). 

34(c)(4) Consumer-Response 

Information 

FDCPA section 809(b) contains 

certain requirements that a debt 

collector must satisfy if a consumer 

exercises the consumer’s right to 

dispute the validity of the debt or 

request the name and address of the 

original creditor. If a consumer disputes 

a debt in writing within 30 days of 

receiving the validation information, a 

debt collector must stop collection of 

the debt until the debt collector obtains 

verification of the debt or a copy of a 

judgment against the consumer and 

mails it to the consumer. Similarly, if a 

consumer requests the name and 

address of the original creditor in 

writing within 30 days of receiving the 

validation information, FDCPA section 

809(b) requires the debt collector to 

cease collection of the debt until the 

debt collector obtains and mails such 

information to the consumer. FDCPA 

section 809(b) also prohibits a debt 

collector, during the 30-day period 

consumers have to dispute a debt or 

request information about the original 

creditor, from engaging in collection 

activities and communications that 

overshadow, or are inconsistent with, 

the disclosure of the right to dispute the 

debt or request original-creditor 

information, which the Bureau 

collectively refers to as ‘‘verification 

rights.’’ 

The Bureau proposed § 1006.34(c)(4) 

to require a consumer-response 

information section to help consumers 

exercise their FDCPA section 809(b) 

verification rights.289 Specifically, 

proposed § 1006.34(c)(4) provided that 

required validation information 

includes certain consumer-response 

information situated next to prompts 

that consumers could use to indicate 

that they want to take action or make a 

request. The proposed information, 

which is discussed in the section-bysection analysis of § 1006.34(c)(4)(i) 

through (iii), included statements 

describing certain actions that a 

consumer could take, including 

submitting a dispute, identifying the 

reason for the dispute, providing 

additional detail about the dispute, and 

requesting original-creditor 

information.290 Proposed § 1006.34(c)(4) 

provided that the consumer-response 

information section must be segregated 

from the validation information 

described in § 1006.34(c)(1) through (3) 

and from any optional information 

included pursuant to proposed 

§ 1006.34(d)(3)(i), (ii), (iv), or (v) and, if 

the validation information is provided 

in writing or electronically, located at 

the bottom of the notice and under the 

headings, ‘‘How do you want to 

respond?’’ and ‘‘Check all that apply:’’. 

As shown on the proposed model 

validation notice, the consumerresponse information section appeared 

as a tear-off portion of the form. 

Proposed comment 34(c)(4)–1 clarified 

that, if the validation information is 

provided in writing or electronically, a 

prompt described in § 1006.34(c)(4) may 

be formatted as a checkbox, as shown on 

the model validation notice. 

A group of academic commenters 

expressed general support for proposed 

§ 1006.34(c)(4). However, some industry 

commenters objected to the proposed 

consumer-response information section. 

According to a depository institution, 

the proposed consumer- response 

information formatted as a tear-off is an 

obsolete approach because physical 

mail is increasingly less relevant as 

consumers prefer electronic 

communications. An industry 

commenter stated that the proposed 

consumer-response information section 

would encourage consumers to 

communicate through mail, which is 

more expensive and time-intensive than 

other communication methods, such as 

email. 

Several commenters raised concerns 

about proposed § 1006.34(c)(4)’s use of 

the heading ‘‘How do you want to 

respond?’’ A group of State Attorneys 

General and at least one industry 

commenter stated that consumers may 

incorrectly infer from this phrase that 

they must use the consumer-response 

information section to respond to a debt 

collector. Some commenters suggested 

that this phrase created the false 

impression that consumers must engage 

with the debt collector, even if they 

prefer not to. To address this concern, 

consumer advocate commenters and a 

group of State Attorneys General 

recommended that the consumerresponse information section include 

‘‘Do Nothing’’ as a response option. 

Some industry trade group 

commenters objected to proposed 

§ 1006.34(c)(4) being formatted for use 

with a return envelope. According to 

these commenters, some debt collectors 

do not include return envelopes with 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 5815 

291See 85 FR 76734, 76852 (Nov. 30, 2020). 

292According to the CFPB Debt Collection 

Consumer Survey, 71 percent of consumers 

preferred to be contacted by a debt collector by 

mail. Only 12 percent of consumers preferred email. 

Bureau of Consumer Fin. Prot., Consumer 

Experience with Debt Collection: Findings from 

CFPB’s Survey of Consumer Views on Debt, at 29– 

30 (Jan. 12, 2017), http://files.consumerfinance.gov/ 

f/documents/201701_cfpb_Debt-Collection-SurveyReport.pdf (CFPB Debt Collection Consumer 

Survey). 

293 ‘‘The ‘You Have Rights’ and ‘How do you want 

to respond to this notice?’ sections had a 

comparatively low number of fixations (i.e., a 

testing participant’s eyes resting on a piece of 

information) compared to other parts of the notice. 

These two sections were often discussed during the 

interview as being important so the fewer number 

of fixations suggests that this information might 

have been easy to read and comprehend. 

Participants also commented that these sections 

only needed to be scanned, further suggesting that 

fewer fixations on this section might have been due 

to ease of processing the information rather than a 

disinterest in the information. See FMG Usability 

Report, supra note 28, at 7. 

294See id. at 83–84. 

295When asked about whether they were legally 

required respond to the model validation notice, 

approximately 90 percent of participants reported 

that they were not. See November 2020 Qualitative 

Testing Report, supra note 34, at 11. 

296 During testing, participants generally 

understood that they could dispute the debt by 

telephone, electronically, or writing with or without 

the ‘‘tear-off.’’ See id. at 15. 

297 15 U.S.C. 1692g(a)(4). 

298 84 FR 23274, 23404–05 (May 21, 2019). 

299As finalized, § 1006.34(c)(3)(i) provides that 

validation information includes the date the debt 

collector will consider the end date of the 

validation period and a statement that, if the 

consumer notifies the debt collector in writing on 

or before that date that the debt, or any portion of 

the debt, is disputed, the debt collector must cease 

collection of the debt, or the disputed portion of the 

debt, until the debt collector sends the consumer 

either the verification of the debt or a copy of a 

judgment. 

300See, e.g., Rosenau v. Unifund Corp., 539 F.3d 

218, 221 (3d Cir. 2008) (‘‘We use the ‘least 

sophisticated debtor’ standard in order to effectuate 

the basic purpose of the FDCPA: to protect all 

consumers, the gullible as well as the shrewd.’’) 

(citations and some internal quotation marks 

omitted); Clomon v. Jackson, 988 F.2d 1314, 1319 

(2d Cir. 1993) (‘‘To serve the purposes of the 

consumer-protection laws, courts have attempted to 

articulate a standard for evaluating deceptiveness 

Continued 

validation notices and instituting such a 

practice would entail significant costs. 

However, a consumer group commenter 

disagreed and stated that the Bureau 

should require debt collectors to include 

a return envelope with prepaid postage 

to facilitate use of the proposed 

consumer-response information section. 

After considering comments, the 

Bureau is adopting § 1006.34(c)(4) with 

minor wording changes to conform to 

changes in § 1006.34(d). 

The Bureau acknowledges that 

electronic communications are 

increasingly prevalent in society at 

large; however, most debt collectors do 

not presently communicate with 

consumers electronically, particularly to 

provide validation notices.291 Further, 

many consumers still prefer to 

communicate with debt collectors via 

mail instead of email or other electronic 

media.292 Given communication 

practices in the debt collection industry 

and consumer preferences, the Bureau 

determines that formatting the model 

validation notice consumer-response 

information section as a tear-off so that 

a consumer can return that portion of 

the form by mail if the consumer so 

chooses will benefit both debt collectors 

and consumers. Thus, if debt collectors 

opt not to format the consumer-response 

information section as a tear-off, the 

§ 1006.34(d)(2) safe harbor will not 

apply to their validation notices. 

The Bureau concludes that the 

heading ‘‘How do you want to 

respond?’’ likely will not lead 

consumers to believe that they must 

respond to the debt collector or use the 

consumer-response information section 

to do so. Consumer testing indicated 

that consumers paid relatively little 

attention to this heading.293 Further, 

consumers generally grasped the 

consequences of not responding to a 

validation notice.294 These findings 

suggest that the heading will not induce 

otherwise unwilling consumers to 

engage with debt collectors. This 

conclusion is bolstered by findings from 

the Bureau’s most recent qualitative 

consumer testing. The Bureau’s 

consumer testing suggests that 

consumers understand that they have 

the option of not engaging with a debt 

collector in response to a validation 

notice.295 This testing also indicates that 

consumers understand that, if they 

choose to communicate with a debt 

collector, they do not have to use the 

consumer-response information section 

to do so.296 The Bureau therefore 

determines that it is unnecessary to 

include a ‘‘Do Nothing’’ response 

option, as some commenters suggested. 

The consumer-response information 

section should be formatted for use with 

a return envelope. The fact that the 

consumer-response information 

established by § 1006.34(c)(4) is 

formatted on the model validation 

notice for use with a return envelope 

does not require debt collectors to 

include return envelopes with 

validation notices, even if they use the 

model notice. 

Accordingly, the Bureau is finalizing 

§ 1006.34(c)(4) with minor wording 

changes to conform to changes in 

§ 1006.34(d). The Bureau also is 

finalizing § 1006.34(c)(4)(i) through (iii) 

and their related commentary with 

certain modifications that are discussed 

in the section-by-section analysis below. 

The Bureau is finalizing 

§ 1006.34(c)(4) pursuant to its authority 

under FDCPA section 814(d) to 

prescribe rules with respect to the 

collection of debts by debt collectors 

and, as described more fully below, its 

authority to implement and interpret 

FDCPA section 809. The Bureau is also 

finalizing § 1006.34(c)(4) pursuant to its 

authority under section 1032(a) of the 

Dodd-Frank Act, on the basis that the 

information in § 1006.34(c)(4)(i) through 

(iii) informs consumers how to exercise 

their rights under FDCPA section 809(b) 

and therefore is a feature of debt 

collection. Requiring disclosure of 

consumer-response information will 

help to ensure that the features of debt 

collection are fully, accurately, and 

effectively disclosed to consumers, such 

that consumers may better understand 

the costs, benefits and risks associated 

with debt collection. 

34(c)(4)(i) Dispute Prompts 

FDCPA section 809(a)(4) requires a 

debt collector to disclose to consumers 

their right under FDCPA section 809(b) 

to dispute the validity of the debt within 

30 days after receipt of the validation 

notice.297 Proposed § 1006.34(c)(4)(i) 

provided that consumer-response 

information includes statements, 

situated next to prompts, that the 

consumer can use to dispute the validity 

of a debt and to specify a reason for that 

dispute.298 Proposed § 1006.34(c)(4)(i), 

which was designed to work in tandem 

with § 1006.34(c)(3)(i),299 provided that 

consumer-response information 

includes the following four statements, 

listed in the following order, using the 

following phrasing or substantially 

similar phrasing, each next to a prompt: 

‘‘I want to dispute the debt because I 

think:’’; ‘‘This is not my debt.’’; ‘‘The 

amount is wrong.’’; and ‘‘Other: (please 

describe on reverse or attach additional 

information).’’ 

A group of academic commenters and 

some consumer advocate commenters 

supported the dispute prompts 

described in proposed § 1006.34(c)(4)(i). 

The academic commenters stated that 

the prompts would facilitate consumer 

disputes because consumers are 

accustomed to using forms with 

prompts, such as drop-down menus in 

online transactions. According to these 

commenters, the Bureau should 

facilitate consumer disputes given the 

low consumer literacy levels in the 

United States—particularly among 

consumers with limited English 

proficiency (LEP consumers)—and the 

FDCPA’s least-sophisticated-consumer 

standard.300 These commenters stated 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
5816 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

that does not rely on assumptions about the 

‘average’ or ‘normal’ consumer. This effort is 

grounded, quite sensibly, in the assumption that 

consumers of below-average sophistication or 

intelligence are especially vulnerable to fraudulent 

schemes. The least-sophisticated-consumer 

standard protects these consumers in a variety of 

ways.’’). 

301 During one round of testing, approximately 50 

percent of participants stated that they would 

attempt to ‘‘confirm’’ a debt in response to receiving 

a validation notice. Participants stated that they 

would do so by, for example, contacting either the 

creditor or the debt collector. Participants did not 

report that they would dispute solely for the 

purposes of confirming the details of the debt. See 

November 2020 Qualitative Testing Report, supra 

note 34, at 11. 

302See Am. Bar Ass’n, Model Rules of 

Professional Conduct, Rule 4.3: Dealing with 

Unrepresented Person https://

www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_

responsibility/publications/model_

that facilitating disputes will also 

benefit industry because consumer 

disputes may lead to questionable or 

invalid debts being removed from the 

market. 

Other commenters objected to 

proposed § 1006.34(c)(4)(i). Industry 

trade group commenters stated that the 

proposed dispute prompts would 

increase dispute volume and, 

consequently, debt collectors would 

incur additional costs responding to 

disputes. Industry commenters stated 

that higher dispute volumes would 

overwhelm debt collectors, making it 

difficult to identify and process valid 

disputes. Industry and industry trade 

group commenters stated that the 

proposed dispute prompts would lead 

consumers to believe that they had to 

dispute the debt, even if they recognized 

the debt as valid. Industry and industry 

trade groups argued that streamlining 

the dispute process would encourage 

frivolous disputes. One industry trade 

group stated that requiring a lawyer 

engaged in debt collection to include 

the proposed dispute prompts on a 

validation notice would constitute 

providing legal advice to unrepresented 

persons, which is a violation of attorney 

rules of professional conduct. 

Industry and industry trade group 

commenters stated the proposed dispute 

prompts would not solicit enough 

information for debt collectors to 

evaluate disputes. According to 

commenters, the proposed dispute 

prompts are too general and would 

result in generic disputes that would 

increase compliance costs, frustrate 

dispute investigation, undermine 

consumer communication, and increase 

litigation risk. To address these 

concerns, commenters recommended 

modifications to proposed 

§ 1006.34(c)(4)(i). Some commenters 

suggested that the validation notice 

provide additional space where a 

consumer could include additional 

dispute detail, update contact 

information, or provide communication 

preferences. Other commenters 

recommended replacing the proposed 

dispute prompts with narrative 

instructions that solicit dispute detail 

and supporting documentation. 

As discussed in the section-by-section 

analysis of § 1006.34(c)(2)(i), 

commenters stated that some debt 

collectors receive payments and other 

correspondence, including disputes, at 

separate addresses. Industry 

commenters stated that proposed 

§ 1006.34(c)(4)(i) would effectively 

combine a dispute form with a payment 

coupon. According to commenters, a 

consumer’s dispute may not be 

processed in a timely fashion if a 

consumer returns a consumer-response 

information form with a dispute to a 

dedicated payment address. 

Several consumer advocate 

commenters recommended combining 

the proposed dispute prompts into a 

single prompt. According to these 

commenters, a single dispute prompt 

would be appropriate because the 

FDCPA does not require a consumer to 

specify a reason for a dispute and a 

consumer may make unintentional 

admissions against their interest by 

providing details. 

Some commenters suggested 

additional dispute-related prompts. 

Consumer advocate commenters 

recommended prompts for debts 

discharged in bankruptcy, debts 

resulting from identity theft, and debts 

that were previously paid or settled. 

Industry commenters urged the Bureau 

to add a general account inquiry 

prompt. According to one industry 

commenter, consumers with an account 

inquiry may perceive that they have no 

alternative but to select a dispute 

prompt if proposed § 1006.34(c)(4)(i) 

does not include a general account 

inquiry prompt. 

An industry commenter asked for 

additional guidance about how the 

proposed dispute prompts should be 

formatted when validation information 

is provided on a website. 

Consistent with the rationale 

discussed in the proposal and for the 

following reasons, the Bureau is 

adopting proposed § 1006.34(c)(4)(i). 

The Bureau determines that 

§ 1006.34(c)(4)(i) will help consumers 

exercise their FDCPA section 809 

dispute rights, in part because prompts 

are a common feature in written and 

electronic communications and most 

consumers are familiar with the 

concept. The Bureau determines that 

facilitating consumer disputes under 

FDCPA section 809 is beneficial, 

particularly for less sophisticated 

consumers. Further, to the extent 

consumer disputes help remove invalid 

debts from circulation, § 1006.34(c)(4)(i) 

will improve the efficiency of debt 

markets. 

It is also not clear that finalizing the 

dispute prompts will result in a 

significant increase in consumer 

disputes compared to current dispute 

rates. Section 1006.34(c)(2) will require 

debt collectors to disclose more 

information about the debt and will 

help consumers recognize debts they 

owe. Thus, § 1006.34(c)(2) may reduce 

the number of disputes arising from lack 

of consumer recognition. 

The Bureau disagrees that 

§ 1006.34(c)(4)(i) will make it more 

difficult for debt collectors to identify 

and process valid disputes. As noted 

above, § 1006.34(c)(2) should reduce the 

number of disputes arising from lack of 

consumer recognition. Therefore, the 

disputes debt collectors receive will be 

more likely to reflect problems with the 

underlying debt. Further, 

§ 1006.34(c)(4)(i)’s dispute prompts— 

including § 1006.34(c)(4)(i)(D)’s freeform dispute prompt—may help 

consumers articulate and provide more 

detailed information about the nature of 

their disputes. Thus, debt collectors 

may better understand the nature of a 

consumer’s dispute and be able to 

respond more efficiently than if 

consumers had provided generic 

disputes. 

Further, dispute prompts likely will 

not lead consumers to believe that they 

must dispute the debt. The Bureau’s 

consumer testing indicates that 

consumers who receive a validation 

notice understand that they are not 

required to dispute a debt.301 Further, 

the Bureau disagrees that streamlining 

the dispute process will significantly 

increase the frequency of frivolous 

disputes. As discussed in the sectionby-section analysis of § 1006.34(c)(3)(i) 

and (v), debt collectors have not 

provided evidence that supports the 

premise that a significant number of 

consumers exercise their FDCPA section 

809 verification rights solely to evade or 

avoid paying debts that they owe. 

Absent such evidence, the Bureau 

declines to conclude that consumers 

will dispute for such purposes. 

The Bureau determines that requiring 

debt collectors who are attorneys to 

include dispute prompts in the 

consumer-response information will not 

cause those debt collectors to violate the 

professional rule of conduct against 

providing legal advice to an 

unrepresented person.302 The FDCPA 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 5817 

of_professional_conduct/rule_4_3_dealing_with_

unrepresented_person/ (last visited Dec. 2, 2020). 

303 During usability testing, when participants 

were asked what they could do if they did not think 

they owed the debt, ‘‘all participants understood 

that they had options for contacting the debt 

collector to dispute the debt,’’ which included 

calling and writing. FMG Usability Report, supra 

note 28, at 48. See also November 2020 Qualitative 

Testing Report, supra note 34, at 11 (discussion in 

‘‘Response to the model validation notice’’ section). 

304 85 FR 76734, 76850–55 (Nov. 30, 2020). 

305 15 U.S.C. 1692g(a)(5). 

306 84 FR 23274, 23405 (May 21, 2019). 

307As finalized, § 1006.34(c)(3)(ii) provides that 

validation information includes the date that the 

debt collector will consider the end date of the 

validation period and a statement that, if the 

consumer requests in writing on or before that date 

the name and address of the original creditor, the 

debt collector must cease collection of the debt 

until the debt collector sends the consumer the 

name and address of the original creditor, if 

different from the current creditor. 

308See 15 U.S.C. 1692g(b). 

309 84 FR 23274, 23405 (May 21, 2019). 

requires all debt collectors, including 

debt collectors who are attorneys, to 

include in the validation information 

statements relating to the consumer’s 

right to dispute the debt. The dispute 

prompt merely provides consumers a 

simple way to exercise that right if the 

consumer so chooses; it does not advise 

the consumer whether to do so. In 

addition, the commenter that raised this 

concern cited no case law, legal 

interpretation, or comparable evidence 

to support the proposition that 

including the dispute prompt will be 

problematic. 

The Bureau is not modifying 

§ 1006.34(c)(4)(i) to provide additional 

space for consumers to provide dispute 

details or to replace the dispute prompts 

with narrative instructions. As 

discussed above, the Bureau finds that 

it is unlikely that § 1006.34(c)(4)(i) will 

increase generic dispute volume. On the 

contrary, the dispute prompts— 

including the free-form dispute prompt 

in § 1006.34(c)(4)(i)(D)—will provide 

debt collectors with more detailed 

dispute information than they receive in 

many cases today. Further, the free-form 

dispute prompt informs consumers that 

they can provide additional information 

on the reverse of the consumerresponse-information section (which is 

formatted as a tear-off on the model 

validation notice) or on a separate page. 

Thus, there is no need to provide 

additional space for dispute detail on 

the validation notice itself. 

Section 1006.34(c)(4)(i) will not lead 

to disputes being misdirected to 

dedicated payment addresses. As 

discussed in the section-by-section 

analysis of § 1006.34(c)(4)(iii), the debt 

collector must disclose in the consumerresponse information section the same 

mailing address disclosed pursuant to 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(i), which is the mailing 

address where the debt collector accepts 

disputes and requests for originalcreditor information. 

The Bureau declines to structure 

§ 1006.34(c)(4)(i) as a single dispute 

prompt. As discussed above, the dispute 

prompts are designed to help consumers 

articulate, and debt collectors better 

understand, the nature of a consumer’s 

dispute and respond more efficiently 

than if consumers had provided generic 

disputes. Reformulating 

§ 1006.34(c)(4)(i) as a single prompt 

would undermine this goal. Meanwhile, 

the dispute prompts described in 

§ 1006.34(c)(4)(i) do not contain 

individualized information that could 

reasonably result in a consumer making 

an unintentional admission against their 

interest. 

The Bureau declines to adopt 

additional dispute-related prompts. 

Additional prompts for debts discharged 

in bankruptcy, debts resulting from 

identity theft, and debts that were 

previously paid or settled are, in the 

aggregate, not feasible and would likely 

overwhelm consumers. Further, the 

Bureau believes the dispute prompts in 

§ 1006.34(c)(4)(i)(B) (this is not my debt) 

and (C) (the amount is wrong) 

essentially capture these scenarios. 

The Bureau also declines to add a 

general account inquiry prompt distinct 

from the dispute prompt, as suggested 

by some commenters who argued that 

consumers would use the dispute 

prompts to obtain general information. 

The Bureau’s testing has shown that 

consumers generally understand that 

their response options are not limited to 

selecting a dispute prompt and that 

disputing the debt is not the appropriate 

method to raise a general question about 

the account.303

The Bureau declines to provide 

additional guidance about formatting 

the dispute prompts if validation 

information is provided on a website. 

As discussed in the November 2020 

Final Rule, the Bureau did not finalize 

several proposed interventions related 

to electronic delivery of required 

notices, including proposed alternative 

procedures for providing the validation 

information on a secure website 

(proposed § 1006.42(c)(2)(ii)).304

Because the Bureau is not addressing 

electronic delivery more broadly, the 

Bureau declines here to provide 

guidance about disclosing validation 

information on websites. However, as 

discussed in the section-by-section 

analysis of § 1006.34(d)(2), in contrast to 

the proposal, debt collectors are not 

required to use the model validation 

notice or a substantially similar form. 

Accordingly, the Bureau is finalizing 

proposed § 1006.34(c)(4)(i) pursuant to 

its authority to implement and interpret 

FDCPA section 809, as well as its 

authority under Dodd-Frank Act section 

1032(a). 

34(c)(4)(ii) Original-Creditor 

Information Prompt 

FDCPA section 809(a)(5) requires a 

debt collector to disclose to consumers 

their right under FDCPA section 809(b) 

to request the name and address of the 

original creditor, if different from the 

current creditor.305 Proposed 

§ 1006.34(c)(4)(ii) provided that 

consumer-response information 

includes the statement, ‘‘I want you to 

send me the name and address of the 

original creditor,’’ using that phrase or 

a substantially similar phrase, next to a 

prompt the consumer could use to 

request original-creditor information.306

Proposed § 1006.34(c)(4)(ii) was 

intended to work in tandem with 

proposed § 1006.34(c)(3)(ii).307 The 

Bureau received no comments 

specifically addressing proposed 

§ 1006.34(c)(4)(ii) and is finalizing it as 

proposed. 

34(c)(4)(iii) 

FDCPA section 809(b) assumes that a 

consumer has the ability to write to a 

debt collector to exercise the consumer’s 

verification rights.308 Requiring a debt 

collector to include mailing addresses 

for the consumer and the debt collector, 

along with the consumer-response 

information described in 

§ 1006.34(c)(4)(i) and (ii), may facilitate 

a consumer’s ability to exercise the 

consumer’s verification rights. The 

Bureau proposed § 1006.34(c)(4)(iii) to 

provide that consumer-response 

information includes mailing addresses 

for the consumer and the debt 

collector.309

An industry trade group stated that 

some debt collectors use vendors to 

receive and process mail from 

consumers. According to this 

commenter, the Bureau should permit a 

debt collector to disclose the address at 

which a debt collector receives mail, 

even if that address is not the debt 

collector’s physical address. 

The Bureau is finalizing 

§ 1006.34(c)(4)(iii) with a clarifying 

revision that addresses the commenter’s 

request regarding letter vendor mailing 

addresses. The Bureau is revising 

§ 1006.34(c)(4)(iii) to provide that the 

mailing addresses disclosed for the 

consumer and the debt collector in the 

consumer-response information must 

include the debt collector’s and the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
5818 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

310 15 U.S.C. 1692g(a)(1). 311The periodic statement requirement pursuant 

to 12 CFR 1026.41(b) does not apply to open-end 

consumer credit transactions, such as a home equity 

line of credit. See 12 CFR 1026.41(a)(1). Pursuant 

to 12 CFR 1026.41(e), certain types of transactions 

are exempt from § 1026.41(b)’s periodic statement 

requirement, including reverse mortgages, 

timeshare plans, certain charged-off mortgage loans, 

mortgage loans with certain consumers in 

bankruptcy, and fixed-rate mortgage loans where a 

servicer provides the consumer with a coupon book 

for payment. Further, small servicers as defined by 

12 CFR 1026.41(e)(4)(ii) are exempt from the 

periodic statement requirement. 312 84 FR 23274, 23348 (May 21, 2019). 313See 12 CFR 1026.41(e). 

consumer’s names and mailing 

addresses as disclosed pursuant to 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(i) and (ii). In turn, the 

Bureau notes that final § 1006.34(c)(2)(i) 

and comment 34(c)(2)(i)–2 permit debt 

collectors to disclose a vendor’s mailing 

address, if that is an address at which 

the debt collector accepts disputes and 

requests for original-creditor 

information. Thus, under the final rule, 

a debt collector may include a vendor’s 

address in the consumer-response 

information if that is the address that 

the debt collector discloses pursuant to 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(i). 

The Bureau notes that final 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(i) and comment 

34(c)(2)(i)–1 permit a debt collector to 

disclose its trade name or DBA, instead 

of its legal name. Thus, under the final 

rule, a debt collector must disclose its 

trade name or DBA in the consumerresponse information if that is the name 

that the debt collector discloses 

pursuant to § 1006.34(c)(2)(i). 

34(c)(5) Special Rule for Certain 

Residential Mortgage Debt 

FDCPA section 809(a)(1) requires a 

debt collector to disclose to consumers 

the amount of the debt.310 As discussed 

in the section-by-section analysis of 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(vi) through (viii), the 

Bureau interprets FDCPA section 

809(a)(1) to require debt collectors to 

disclose three pieces of itemizationrelated information: The itemization 

date; the amount of the debt on the 

itemization date; and an itemization of 

the debt reflecting interest, fees, 

payments, and credits since the 

itemization date. 

For certain residential mortgage debt 

covered by TILA, as implemented by 

Regulation Z, 12 CFR 1026, 12 CFR 

1026.41(b) generally requires that a 

periodic statement be delivered or 

placed in the mail within a reasonably 

prompt time after the payment due date 

or the end of any courtesy period 

provided for the previous billing cycle. 

The Bureau understands that most 

residential mortgage debt is subject to 

this requirement, although exceptions 

exist.311 The Bureau further 

understands that a consumer is 

provided with such a periodic statement 

every billing cycle, even if a loan is 

transferred between servicers. Pursuant 

to 12 CFR 1026.41(d)(3), such a periodic 

statement must include a past payment 

breakdown, which shows the total of all 

payments received since the last 

statement, including a breakdown 

showing the amount, if any, that was 

applied to principal, interest, escrow, 

fees, and charges, and the amount, if 

any, sent to any suspense or unapplied 

funds account. The proposal stated that 

these periodic statement disclosures 

may be functionally equivalent to, and 

as useful for the consumer as, the 

information described in proposed 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(vii) through (ix).312

Proposed § 1006.34(c)(5) therefore 

provided that, for debts subject to 

Regulation Z, 12 CFR 1026.41, a debt 

collector need not provide the 

validation information described in 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(vii) through (ix) if the 

debt collector provided the consumer, at 

the same time as the validation notice, 

a copy of the most recent periodic 

statement provided to the consumer 

under 12 CFR 1026.41(b), and referred 

to that periodic statement in the 

validation notice. Proposed comment 

34(c)(5)–1 provided examples clarifying 

how debt collectors could comply with 

§ 1006.34(c)(5). Consistent with the 

proposal’s rationale, and for the reasons 

discussed below, the Bureau is adopting 

§ 1006.34(c)(5) and its related 

commentary with a substantive 

modification and a clarification. 

Some commenters recommended that 

the Bureau expand proposed 

§ 1006.34(c)(5) to cover additional debt 

types. An industry trade group 

commenter stated that the Bureau 

should revise proposed § 1006.34(c)(5) 

to apply to all residential mortgage debt, 

including to transactions that are 

exempt from § 1026.41(b)’s periodic 

statement requirement, such as 

mortgage loans with certain consumers 

in bankruptcy. As discussed in detail in 

the section-by-section analysis of 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(viii), the Bureau received 

feedback that its proposed itemization 

would be incompatible with the account 

characteristics of debts in bankruptcy. 

Thus, this commenter suggested that the 

Bureau should revise proposed 

§ 1006.34(c)(5) to permit a debt collector 

to reference the consumer’s bankruptcy 

case and the filed or pending proof of 

claim instead of providing the 

itemization-related disclosures required 

by § 1006.34(c)(2). Other industry trade 

group commenters variously 

recommended that the special rule 

extend to reverse mortgages structured 

as open-end credit, home-equity lines of 

credit, and credit cards. 

A consumer advocate commenter 

recommended that the Bureau revise 

proposed § 1006.34(c)(5) to apply only 

to debts that are currently subject to 

Regulation Z, 12 CFR 1026.41, to reduce 

the likelihood that a debt collector 

provides an outdated periodic 

statement. According to the commenter, 

TILA coverage is fluid and a significant 

amount of time can elapse between 

when the creditor provides a last 

periodic statement and when the debt 

collector provides a validation notice. 

This commenter recommended that the 

Bureau revise proposed § 1006.34(c)(5) 

to provide that the previous periodic 

statement must have been provided no 

more than 31 days before the validation 

notice is sent. The commenter also 

recommended that, if any entity other 

than the current servicer provided the 

most recent periodic statement, the debt 

collector must conduct a reasonable 

investigation to verify the accuracy of 

the prior entity’s periodic statement or 

prepare its own periodic statement. 

The Bureau declines to expand 

§ 1006.34(c)(5) to cover additional debt 

types. For certain residential mortgage 

debt, the final rule permits debt 

collectors to provide a periodic 

statement that was provided under 12 

CFR 1026.41(d)(3) in lieu of the 

information described in final 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(vi) through (viii) because 

those periodic statement disclosures are 

functionally equivalent to, and as useful 

for the consumer as, that itemization 

information. This special rule is not 

appropriate for the additional debt types 

recommended by commenters because 

those debt types are not subject to 

prescriptive disclosure regimes, such as 

Regulation Z. The Bureau doubts that 

disclosures used for those other debt 

types relate to information that is 

functionally equivalent to, or as useful 

as, the information § 1006.34(c)(2)(vi) 

through (viii) requires. For instance, 

mortgage loans with certain consumers 

in bankruptcy are exempt from 

§ 1026.41(b)’s periodic statement 

requirement.313 With respect to debts in 

bankruptcy in general, the Bankruptcy 

Code does not prescribe disclosure 

requirements for proofs of claim that are 

comparable to Regulation Z, 12 CFR 

1026.41(d)(3). As discussed in the 

section-by-section analysis of 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(ix), reverse mortgages are 

not subject to prescriptive regulatory 

requirements for periodic statements. 

The periodic statement requirement in 

12 CFR 1026.41(b) does not cover openend consumer credit transactions, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 5819 

314See 12 CFR 1026.41(a)(1). 

315Under § 1006.34(d)(2)(ii), a debt collector who 

uses the model validation notice and who also uses 

the special rule for certain residential mortgage debt 

under § 1006.34(c)(5) receives a safe harbor for use 

of the model notice except with respect to the 

disclosures that appear on the separate page. 

316 84 FR 23274, 23348 (May 21, 2019). Section 

1006.34(b)(1) defines clear and conspicuous, and 

the Bureau responded to comments on that 

definition in the section-by-section analysis of 

§ 1006.34(b)(1). 

317As discussed under the heading Proposed 

Provision Not Finalized in this section-by-section 

analysis, the Bureau is not finalizing proposed 

§ 1006.34(d)(1)(ii) and therefore is finalizing 

proposed § 1006.34(d)(1)(i) as § 1006.34(d)(1). 

318As discussed in the section-by-section analysis 

of § 1006.34(d)(1), the Bureau proposed 

§ 1006.34(d)(1)(i) to require that required validation 

information be provided in a clear and conspicuous 

manner. 

319The Bureau is relocating and repurposing 

some of the proposed text of § 1006.34(d)(1)(ii) and 

comment 34(d)(1)(ii)–1 to § 1006.34(d)(2). See the 

section-by-section analysis of § 1006.34(d)(2). 

320 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq. 

including home-equity lines of credit.314

With respect to credit card debt, no 

special accommodation is necessary as 

debt collectors can readily disclose the 

itemization information pursuant to 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(vi) through (viii). 

The Bureau determines that 

§ 1006.34(c)(5) should apply only to 

debts that are currently subject to 

Regulation Z, 12 CFR 1026.41. 

Modifying the proposal to this effect is 

appropriate to reduce the likelihood that 

a debt collector provides an outdated 

periodic statement, which may not 

provide information that is functionally 

equivalent to, or as useful as, the 

information described in 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(vi) through (viii). The 

Bureau therefore is revising proposed 

§ 1006.34(c)(5) and its related 

commentary to provide that the special 

rule only applies to residential mortgage 

debt if a periodic statement is required 

under Regulation Z, 12 CFR 1026.41, at 

the time a debt collector provides the 

validation notice.315

Accordingly, the Bureau is finalizing 

§ 1006.34(c)(5) as described above and is 

finalizing comment 34(c)(5)–1 with 

minor revisions for clarity and 

consistency with provisions of the final 

rule. 

34(d) Form of Validation Information 

34(d)(1) In General 

The Bureau proposed 

§ 1006.34(d)(1)(i) to require that the 

validation information described in 

§ 1006.34(c) be conveyed in a clear and 

conspicuous manner. The Bureau 

reasoned that FDCPA section 809(a)’s 

required disclosures would be 

ineffective unless a debt collector 

disclosed them in a manner that was 

readily understandable to consumers.316

The Bureau received no comments 

specifically addressing proposed 

§ 1006.34(d)(1)(i). The Bureau therefore 

is finalizing it largely as proposed but 

renumbered as § 1006.34(d)(1) 317 and 

with a wording change solely for 

consistency with final § 1006.34(c). The 

Bureau adopts § 1006.34(d)(1) to 

implement and interpret FDCPA section 

809(a) and pursuant to its authority 

under FDCPA section 814(d) to 

prescribe rules with respect to the 

collection of debts by debt collectors. 

The Bureau also adopts § 1006.34(d)(1) 

pursuant to its authority under section 

1032(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act to 

prescribe rules to ensure that the 

features of consumer financial products 

and services are disclosed fully, 

accurately, and effectively. The Bureau 

finalizes this requirement on the basis 

that validation information is a feature 

of debt collection and this information 

must be readily understandable to be 

effectively and accurately disclosed. 

Proposed Provision Not Finalized 

As noted at the outset of the sectionby-section analysis of § 1006.34, the 

Bureau proposed that debt collectors 

could use the model validation notice to 

comply with the disclosure 

requirements proposed in 

§ 1006.34(a)(1)(i) and (d)(1).318 In turn, 

the Bureau proposed § 1006.34(d)(1)(ii) 

to require that, if provided in a 

validation notice, the content, format, 

and placement of the validation 

information in § 1006.34(c) and the 

optional disclosures in § 1006.34(d)(3) 

must be substantially similar to the 

model validation notice. Proposed 

comment 34(d)(1)(ii)–1 explained that a 

debt collector could make certain 

changes as long as the resulting 

disclosures were substantially similar to 

the model validation notice, and it 

provided an example of a change that 

debt collectors may make to the 

validation notice if the consumer is 

deceased. 

While some industry, industry trade 

group, and consumer advocate 

commenters supported proposed 

§ 1006.34(d)(1)(ii), other industry and 

industry trade group commenters raised 

concerns that the proposed model 

validation notice would not 

accommodate all debt types and debt 

collection practices, suggesting that 

some debt collectors therefore would be 

unable to comply with proposed 

§ 1006.34(d)(1)(ii). At least two 

commenters, including a debt buyer 

specializing in medical debt, stated that 

the proposed model validation notice 

was not well-suited for non-financial 

debts, such as medical debts. A number 

of commenters objected to the proposal 

because it would not allow debt 

collectors to combine multiple debts in 

a single validation notice or place 

multiple validation notices in one 

envelope. Commenters asked the Bureau 

to modify proposed § 1006.34(d)(1)(ii) to 

provide debt collectors more flexibility 

to customize validation notices to 

accommodate their business practices 

and the types of debts they collect. 

As discussed in the section-by-section 

analysis of § 1006.34(d)(2), the Bureau 

has determined that a model validation 

notice will benefit consumers and 

industry. However, based in part on 

feedback from commenters, the Bureau 

also has determined that proposed 

§ 1006.34(d)(1)(ii) was overly 

prescriptive. Proposed 

§ 1006.34(d)(1)(ii) would have required 

any validation notice provided by a debt 

collector to be substantially similar to 

the model validation notice. Such a 

requirement could cause some debt 

collectors to face undue compliance 

challenges depending on their business 

practices and the types of debts they 

collect. 

For this reason, the Bureau is not 

finalizing proposed § 1006.34(d)(1)(ii) 

and its related commentary. Instead, as 

discussed in the section-by-section 

analysis of § 1006.34(d)(2), the Bureau is 

adopting a more flexible framework in 

which debt collectors need not use 

either the model validation notice, 

specified variations of the model notice, 

or a substantially similar form, but debt 

collectors who do so will receive a safe 

harbor for compliance with the 

information and form requirements of 

§ 1006.34(c) and (d)(1).319 This flexible 

framework is more consistent with 

model form safe harbors in other 

consumer financial regulations.320 The 

Bureau determines that this new 

framework will accommodate industry 

without significantly increasing risks to 

consumers because the Bureau believes 

it is likely that, if possible, debt 

collectors will use the model validation 

notice, specified variations of the model 

notice, or a substantially similar form to 

receive the compliance safe harbor. The 

Bureau notes that a debt collector who 

provides the validation information in a 

form that is not substantially similar 

either to the model validation notice or 

to a specified variation of the model 

notice also is subject to the FDCPA 

section 807 prohibition on false or 

misleading representations and the 

FDCPA section 809(b) prohibition on 

overshadowing. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
5820 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

321 84 FR 23274, 23405 (May 21, 2019). As 

discussed elsewhere in part V, proposed 

§ 1006.34(a)(1)(i) provided that debt collectors must 

send validation notices containing the information 

described in proposed § 1006.34(c) to consumers in 

a manner permitted by § 1006.42 (i.e., in a manner 

reasonably expected to provide actual notice and in 

a form that the consumer may keep and access 

later). And proposed § 1006.34(d)(1) provided that 

debt collectors must provide such validation 

information clearly and conspicuously. 

322See 15 U.S.C. 1692e; see also 15 U.S.C. 

1692g(b) (‘‘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.’’). 

323Proposed § 1006.34(d)(3) specified that a debt 

collector who used the model validation notice 

could include any of the optional disclosures along 

with the validation information without losing the 

§ 1006.34(d)(2) safe harbor for compliance. 

324The model validation notice includes the 

following optional disclosures permitted by 

§ 1006.34(d)(3), each of which is described in more 

detail in the section-by-section analysis below: (1) 

Debt collector telephone contact information (see 

§ 1006.34(d)(3)(i)); (2) reference code (see 

§ 1006.34(d)(3)(ii)); (3) payment disclosures (see 

§ 1006.34(d)(3)(iii)); (4) a statement referring to 

disclosures made under applicable law on the 

reverse of the validation notice (see 

§ 1006.34(d)(3)(iv)(A)); (5) debt collector’s website 

(see § 1006.34(d)(3)(v)(A)); (6) statement explaining 

how a consumer can dispute the debt or request 

original-creditor information electronically (see 

§ 1006.34(d)(3)(v)(B)); (7) Spanish-language 

translation disclosures (see § 1006.34(d)(3)(vi)); (8) 

merchant brand information (see 

§ 1006.34(d)(3)(vii)); and (9) for debt not related to 

a consumer financial product or service, the 

information specified in § 1006.34(c)(2)(iii) or 

34(d)(2) Safe Harbor 

As discussed, the Bureau proposed 

§ 1006.34(d)(2) to provide, pursuant to 

its authority under Dodd-Frank Act 

section 1032(b), that a debt collector 

who uses the model validation complies 

with the disclosure requirements of 

§ 1006.34(a)(1)(i) and (d)(1).321 Proposed 

comment 34(d)(2)–1 provided certain 

details regarding use of the model 

validation notice. Under proposed 

§ 1006.34(d)(2) and as explained in 

proposed comment 34(d)(2)–1, although 

use of the model validation notice was 

not required, debt collectors would have 

received a safe harbor for compliance 

only if they used the model validation 

notice. Under proposed § 1006.34(d)(2), 

debt collectors would not have received 

a safe harbor if they used a form that 

was substantially similar to the model 

validation notice. 

As discussed below, the Bureau is 

finalizing proposed § 1006.34(d)(2) and 

comment 34(d)(2)–1 with significant 

revisions to, among other things, 

provide that debt collectors may obtain 

a safe harbor for compliance with the 

validation information disclosure 

requirements by using either the model 

validation notice, specified variations of 

the model notice, or a substantially 

similar form. The Bureau is finalizing 

new commentary to provide additional 

details regarding the revised safe harbor 

framework. 

Industry and industry trade group 

commenters overall supported 

providing a safe harbor to debt 

collectors who use the model validation 

notice. An industry and an industry 

trade group commenter stated that a safe 

harbor would reduce frivolous litigation 

and compliance costs. An industry 

commenter stated that not requiring 

debt collectors to use the model 

validation notice would help to ensure 

that debt collectors can provide 

validation notices in a manner 

consistent with their business practices 

and the debt types they collect. 

Some industry commenters asked the 

Bureau to specify what optional 

disclosures could be added to the model 

notice. A number of industry and 

industry trade group commenters also 

asked the Bureau to further clarify what 

changes debt collectors could make to 

the model validation notice and still 

receive the safe harbor. 

Relatedly, some industry and industry 

trade group commenters asked the 

Bureau to clarify the meaning of 

‘‘substantially similar,’’ and two 

industry trade group commenters 

recommended that the Bureau adopt 

Regulation Z’s definition of 

substantially similar. Some industry and 

industry trade group commenters 

recommended that the Bureau expand 

§ 1006.34(d)(2) to provide that debt 

collectors who use the model validation 

notice comply with FDCPA section 

807’s prohibition on false or misleading 

statements and FDCPA section 809(b)’s 

overshadowing prohibition.322

A group of consumer advocate 

commenters stated that proposed 

§ 1006.34(d)(2) was too broad. 

Specifically, according to the 

commenter, the safe harbor’s crossreference to § 1006.34(a)(1)(i) was 

overbroad because simply using the 

model validation notice does not mean 

that the debt collector sent the 

validation notice in an initial 

communication or within five days of 

the initial communication as required 

by § 1006.34(a)(1)(i). This commenter 

recommended that the Bureau remove 

the reference to § 1006.34(a)(1)(i) from 

§ 1006.34(d)(2). 

After considering this feedback, and 

to clarify each of the ways in which a 

debt collector may receive a safe harbor 

for compliance with the final rule’s 

validation information disclosure 

requirements, the Bureau is finalizing 

§ 1006.34(d)(2) and its related 

commentary with significant revisions, 

as follows. 

34(d)(2)(i) In General 

First, the Bureau is finalizing 

§ 1006.34(d)(2)(i) to provide that, as 

proposed, a debt collector who uses the 

model validation notice receives a safe 

harbor for compliance with the final 

rule’s validation information disclosure 

requirements. The Bureau determines 

that a safe harbor is appropriate because 

the model validation notice will 

effectively disclose information required 

by § 1006.34(c), and the safe harbor will 

incentivize debt collectors to use the 

model notice. 

The Bureau agrees that the 

§ 1006.34(d)(2) safe harbor should not 

cover delivery of the validation notice. 

The Bureau recognizes the risk that a 

debt collector could deliver the model 

validation notice in an ineffective 

manner and that, as a result, the notice 

would be delayed or never received by 

the consumer. The Bureau does not 

intend § 1006.34(d)(2) to provide a safe 

harbor in such a scenario. For this 

reason, the Bureau is finalizing 

§ 1006.34(d)(2)(i) to specify that the safe 

harbor for use of the model notice 

covers only compliance with the 

information and form requirements of 

final § 1006.34(c) and (d)(1). 

In response to comments requesting 

clarity about the use of optional 

disclosures on the model notice, the 

Bureau is finalizing § 1006.34(d)(2)(i) to 

squarely address how the safe harbor 

applies with respect to the 

§ 1006.34(d)(3) optional disclosures.323

First, the Bureau clarifies, as was 

intended in the proposal, that a debt 

collector may include any or all of the 

§ 1006.34(d)(3) optional disclosures 

without losing the safe harbor pursuant 

to § 1006.34(d)(2). Specifically, final 

§ 1006.34(d)(2)(i) provides that the 

model validation notice contains the 

validation information required by 

§ 1006.34(c) and certain optional 

disclosures permitted by 

§ 1006.34(d)(3). Section 1006.34(d)(2)(i) 

further provides that a debt collector 

who uses the model validation notice 

complies with the information and form 

requirements of § 1006.34(c) and (d)(1), 

including if the debt collector: Omits 

any or all of the optional disclosures 

shown on the model notice (see 

§ 1006.34(d)(2)(i)(A)); or adds any or all 

of the optional disclosures described in 

§ 1006.34(d)(3) that are not shown on 

the model notice (see 

§ 1006.34(d)(2)(i)(B)), provided that any 

such optional disclosures are no more 

prominent than any of the required 

validation information.324


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 5821 

(c)(3)(iv) (i.e., name of the creditor to whom the 

debt was owed on the itemization date and Bureau’s 

debt collection website, respectively) (see 

§ 1006.34(d)(3)(viii)). The model validation notice 

does not include the following optional disclosures 

permitted by § 1006.34(d)(3): (1) Time-barred debt 

disclosures made under applicable law on the front 

of the validation notice (see § 1006.34(d)(3)(iv)(B)); 

(2) debt collector email address (see 

§ 1006.34(d)(3)(v)(A)); and (3) affinity brand or 

facility name information (but, as noted above, 

merchant brand information is shown on the model 

notice in the same location) (see 

§ 1006.34(d)(3)(vii)). 

The requirement that any 

§ 1006.34(d)(3) optional disclosures that 

are added to the model validation notice 

be no more prominent than any of the 

validation information is designed to 

ensure that any such optional 

disclosures do not overload consumers 

with information or distract them from 

the required validation information. A 

debt collector who chooses to include 

one or more of the § 1006.34(d)(3) 

optional disclosures that do not appear 

on the model validation notice, but who 

violates the no-more-prominent 

requirement, loses the safe harbor under 

§ 1006.34(d)(2) and may violate 

§ 1006.34 depending on the facts and 

circumstances. 

As discussed in the section-by-section 

analysis of § 1006.34(c)(1), a consumer 

advocate commenter asked the Bureau 

to clarify what version of the FDCPA 

section 807(11) disclosure should 

appear on the validation notice: The 

longer, initial disclosure described in 

§ 1006.18(e)(1) or the shorter, 

subsequent disclosure described in 

§ 1006.18(e)(2). The model validation 

notice includes the disclosure required 

by § 1006.18(e)(1). The Bureau is 

adopting new comment 34(d)(2)(i)–1 to 

clarify that a debt collector who uses the 

model notice to provide a validation 

notice as described in 

§ 1006.34(a)(1)(i)(B)—i.e., a debt 

collector who provides the validation 

notice within five days of the initial 

communication—may replace the 

disclosure required by § 1006.18(e)(1) 

with the disclosure required by 

§ 1006.18(e)(2) without losing the safe 

harbor provided by use of the model 

notice. Comment 34(d)(2)(i)–1 also 

refers to comment 34(c)(1)–1 for further 

guidance related to providing the 

disclosure required by § 1006.18(e) on a 

validation notice. 

The Bureau declines to extend the 

§ 1006.34(d)(2) safe harbor to cover 

compliance with FDCPA section 807’s 

prohibition on false or misleading 

statements. A debt collector who uses 

the model validation notice is still 

capable of making false or misleading 

statements to consumers in the notice. 

For example, a debt collector using the 

model validation notice could include 

false or misleading information about 

the debt, such as an inflated current 

amount of the debt. 

However, the Bureau agrees that debt 

collectors who use the model validation 

notice should have a safe harbor for 

compliance with FDCPA section 

809(b)’s overshadowing prohibition. 

The Bureau provides a safe harbor to 

that effect in § 1006.38(b). The sectionby-section analysis of § 1006.38(b) 

discusses this change in further detail. 

34(d)(2)(ii) Certain Disclosures on a 

Separate Page 

To conform with modifications in 

other sections of the Rule that permit 

debt collectors to make certain 

itemization-related disclosures on 

separate pages, the Bureau is finalizing 

new § 1006.34(d)(2)(ii). As discussed in 

the section-by-section analysis of 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(viii), when disclosing 

the itemization of the current amount of 

the debt, a debt collector has the option 

of disclosing that itemization on a 

separate page. As discussed in the 

section-by-section analysis of 

§ 1006.34(c)(5), the final rule establishes 

a special rule for certain residential 

mortgage debt that permits a debt 

collector, subject to certain conditions, 

to provide a periodic statement under 

Regulation Z, 12 CFR 1026.41, instead 

of the itemization-related validation 

information required by 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(vi) through (viii). 

Section 1006.34(d)(2)(ii) establishes 

how these provisions interact with the 

safe harbor provided by use of the 

model notice. Specifically, 

§ 1006.34(d)(2)(ii) establishes that a debt 

collector who uses the model validation 

notice and makes certain disclosures on 

a separate page pursuant to 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(viii) or (5) may still 

receive a safe harbor for use of the 

model notice except with respect to the 

disclosures that appear on the separate 

page. 

34(d)(2)(iii) Substantially Similar Form 

As discussed in the section-by-section 

analysis of § 1006.34(d)(1), the Bureau 

has determined that debt collectors 

should receive a safe harbor for the 

information and form requirements of 

§ 1006.34(c) and (d)(1) if they use a form 

that is substantially similar to the model 

validation notice. The Bureau 

determines that, so long as a form is 

substantially similar to the model 

notice, the validation information 

disclosures will remain effective; the 

Bureau therefore is finalizing 

§ 1006.34(d)(2) to provide this flexibility 

for debt collectors. 

For this reason, final 

§ 1006.34(d)(2)(iii) provides that a debt 

collector who uses the model validation 

notice as described in § 1006.34(d)(2)(i) 

or (ii) may make changes to the form 

and retain a safe harbor for compliance 

with the information and form 

requirements of § 1006.34(c) and (d)(1), 

provided that the form remains 

substantially similar to the model 

notice. (As discussed elsewhere in this 

Notice, a debt collector may comply 

with the requirements in § 1006.34(c) 

and (d)(1) without using the model 

validation notice.) 

Final comment 34(d)(2)(iii)–1 

provides details regarding the meaning 

of substantially similar, as requested by 

commenters, including examples of 

permissible changes. The Bureau 

believes that these are differences that 

may be useful to debt collectors and 

consumers and will not increase the risk 

of consumer harm. 

One permissible change relates to 

deceased consumers. Comment 

34(d)(2)(iii)–1 incorporates proposed 

comment 34(d)(1)(ii)–1, which 

discussed changes that debt collectors 

could make if the consumer were 

deceased. The Bureau proposed 

comment 34(d)(1)(ii)–1 to explain that a 

debt collector may make certain changes 

to the content, format, and placement of 

the validation information described in 

§ 1006.34(c) as long as the resulting 

disclosures are substantially similar to 

the model notice. Proposed comment 

34(d)(1)(ii)–1 also provided an example 

of a change that debt collectors may 

make to the model validation notice if 

the consumer is deceased. 

The Bureau explained that, although 

the model validation notice will contain 

the name of the deceased consumer, 

some persons who are authorized to act 

on behalf of the deceased consumer’s 

estate may be misled by the use of 

second person pronouns such as ‘‘you’’ 

in the validation notice. For example, 

the proposed model validation notice 

stated that ‘‘you owe’’ the debt collector. 

While nothing in the proposal would 

have prohibited a debt collector from 

including a cover letter to explain the 

nature of the validation notice, 

proposed comment 34(d)(1)(ii)–1 also 

clarified that a debt collector could 

modify inapplicable language in the 

validation notice that could suggest that 

the recipient of the notice was liable for 

the debt. For example, if a debt collector 

sent a validation notice to a person 

authorized to act on behalf of the 

deceased consumer’s estate, and if that 

person was not liable for the debt, the 

debt collector could use the deceased 

consumer’s name instead of ‘‘you.’’ 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
5822 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

325As described in § 1006.34(d)(2)(ii), a debt 

collector who includes certain itemization-related 

disclosures on a separate page in the same 

communication with the validation notice, and who 

includes on the front of the notice the required 

statement referring to those disclosures, receives a 

safe harbor for compliance with the information 

and form requirements of § 1006.34(c) and (d)(1) 

except with respect to the disclosures that appear 

on the separate page. 

326See 84 FR 23274, 23338 (May 21, 2019). 

327CFPB Quantitative Testing Report, supra note 

31, at 13–16. 

328See FMG Summary Report, supra note 29, at 

5–7. 

329Several comments in response to the May 

2019 proposal also criticized the consumer testing 

as being outdated because, when that proposal was 

published, the most recent testing had occurred in 

2016. However, the Bureau does not find any reason 

to believe that consumer understanding of the 

The Bureau received a few comments 

on proposed comment 34(d)(1)(ii)–1. 

One trade group commenter 

recommended that the Bureau allow 

debt collectors to replace second-person 

pronouns with references to the estate, 

such as ‘‘the estate’s bill.’’ A group of 

consumer advocates stated that, 

although the comment’s example would 

be appropriate in certain circumstances, 

the Bureau should provide an entirely 

separate model validation notice for 

decedent debt because, these 

commenters believed, debt collectors 

would be unlikely to diverge from the 

model notice. Two trade group 

commenters also asked the Bureau to 

create a second model validation notice 

for decedent debt. 

The Bureau is incorporating proposed 

comment 34(d)(1)(ii)–1 into comment 

34(d)(2)(iii)–1, which clarifies that a 

debt collector may make changes to the 

model validation notice and retain the 

safe harbor provided by use of the 

model notice. Because the example 

regarding decedent debt is illustrative, 

nothing in comment 34(d)(2)(iii)–1 

prohibits a debt collector from making 

other substantially similar 

modifications, such as referring to the 

estate rather than ‘‘you,’’ while still 

retaining the safe harbor. As explained 

elsewhere in this section-by-section 

analysis, the Bureau declines to create 

separate model forms for certain types 

of debt. The Bureau has modified the 

model-form-safe-harbor framework 

under § 1006.34(d)(2) to afford debt 

collectors more flexibility to customize 

validation information to accommodate 

their business practices and the types of 

debts they collect. Within identified 

limits, debt collectors may make 

changes to the model validation notice 

and still meet the standard for a safe 

harbor under § 1006.34(d)(2). 

Comment 34(d)(2)(iii)–1 also includes 

four new examples of other permissible 

changes: Relocating the consumerresponse information required by 

§ 1006.34(c)(4) to facilitate mailing; 

adding barcodes or QR codes, as long as 

the inclusion of such items does not 

violate § 1006.38(b); adding the date the 

form is generated; and embedding 

hyperlinks, if delivering the form 

electronically, which was proposed in 

comment 34(d)(2)–1. 

The Bureau clarifies that, if a debt 

collector includes disclosures other than 

(1) the required validation information, 

(2) any optional disclosures described in 

§ 1006.34(d)(3), or (3) any disclosures 

that, if included, still leave the form 

substantially similar in substance, 

clarity, and meaningful sequence to the 

model notice, then the safe harbor does 

not apply with respect to the entirety of 

the validation notice. Except as 

described in § 1006.34(d)(2)(ii), the 

Bureau has determined not to apply the 

safe harbor on a partial (i.e., disclosureby-disclosure) basis because it is not 

clear how disclosures other than those 

referenced above would interact with 

the validation information.325 Final 

comment 34(d)(2)–1 clarifies that a debt 

collector who provides a validation 

notice that is neither a notice described 

in § 1006.34(d)(2)(i) or (ii), nor a 

substantially similar notice as described 

in § 1006.34(d)(2)(iii), does not receive a 

safe harbor for compliance with the 

information and form requirements of 

§ 1006.34(c) and (d)(1). The Bureau 

notes that a debt collector who adds 

disclosures to the model validation 

notice that are not referenced above 

nevertheless may be able to comply 

with the requirements in § 1006.34(c) 

and (d)(1), § 1006.38(b)(1), and other 

requirements of the FDCPA and this 

final rule. 

Model Validation Notice 

While the majority of industry 

commenters who commented on the 

topic supported the idea of a model 

form, some criticized the design of the 

proposed model validation notice. At 

least two industry commenters stated 

that the proposed model notice 

contained too much content and would 

overwhelm consumers. One commenter 

criticized the proposed model notice for 

departing from the prevailing industry 

design for validation notices. A number 

of identical or nearly identical 

comments suggested that consumers 

would confuse the proposed model 

notice for a government document, such 

as an IRS notice, but did not explain 

what in particular about the model 

notice they believed would cause such 

consumer confusion. 

The Bureau’s findings do not support 

the conclusions that the model notice 

contains too much content or will 

overwhelm consumers. The model 

validation notice was developed and 

validated over multiple rounds of 

consumer testing that support its 

efficacy and comprehensibility. The fact 

that the model validation notice departs 

from prevailing industry design is 

intended. As the proposal noted, many 

validation notices used today are 

confusing and lack sufficient 

information to help consumers 

recognize their debts or exercise their 

FDCPA verification rights.326 With the 

model validation notice, the Bureau has 

developed an improved validation 

notice that benefits both consumers and 

debt collectors. In quantitative testing, 

the model validation notice consistently 

performed better than or equal to a 

‘‘status quo’’ notice designed to 

resemble validation notices that some 

debt collectors use today.327 The Bureau 

also disagrees that the model validation 

notice resembles a government 

document; the form clearly discloses 

that it is from a debt collector, not the 

government. 

A number of consumer advocate and 

academic commenters asserted that the 

proposed model notice was not 

adequately tested. Some of these 

commenters stated that the Bureau’s 

testing included too few participants to 

generate valid conclusions about the 

proposed model notice’s efficacy or to 

evaluate the comprehension of 

consumers, particularly of the least 

sophisticated consumers. For instance, a 

consumer advocate commenter 

expressed concern that only 60 

consumers were included in the 

cognitive and usability testing 

rounds.328 Likewise, an academic 

commenter stated that the Bureau’s 

consumer testing focused too heavily on 

observing what testing participants 

looked at on the model notice (based on 

the use of eye tracking techniques) at 

the expense of testing participants’ 

comprehension of the notice. Another 

commenter stated that the Bureau 

should have tested more diverse groups, 

including consumers with limited 

English proficiency, students, older 

consumers, and consumers from more 

diverse socioeconomic backgrounds. 

Some consumer advocate and academic 

commenters recommended that the 

Bureau field test the proposed model 

notice with consumers with real debts. 

A consumer advocate expressed concern 

about the performance of certain aspects 

of the proposed model notice in 

quantitative testing, noting in particular 

that approximately 40 percent of 

respondents who received the model 

notice failed to identify the correct 

entity the consumer should pay.329


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 5823 

model notice has changed since 2016, and the 

commenters did not provide any evidence to 

support such a claim. Moreover, since the May 2019 

proposal, the Bureau has conducted two additional 

testing rounds. 

330FMG Usability Report, supra note 28, at 85– 

87. 

331 In response to the question ‘‘According to the 

notice, if Person A wanted to make a payment on 

the debt, who should he or she sent the payment 

to?’’ approximately 60 percent of consumers who 

received the model validation notice answered 

correctly compared to approximately 40 percent of 

consumers who received a status quo notice. CFPB 

Quantitative Testing Report, supra note 31, at 14. 

332An industry commenter stated that courts 

define verification narrowly and have not imposed 

a duty upon debt collectors to establish that a debt 

is owed. See Walton v. EOS CCA, 885 F.3d 1024, 

1027–28 (7th Cir. 2018) (‘‘The verification assures 

the consumer that the creditor actually made the 

demand the debt collector said it did and equips the 

consumer to evaluate the validity of the creditor’s 

claim. It would be both burdensome and 

significantly beyond the Act’s purpose to interpret 

§ 1692g as requiring a debt collector to undertake 

an investigation into whether the creditor is 

actually entitled to the money it seeks.’’); Haddad 

v. Alexander, Zelmanski, Danner & Fioritto, 758 

F.3d 777 (6th Cir. 2014); Dunham v. Portfolio 

Recovery Assocs., 663 F.3d 997, 1003 (8th Cir. 2001) 

(citing Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo, 174 F.3d 394 (4th 

Cir. 1999)). 

333For instance, one commenter recommended 

that the model notice should state ‘‘verifies the 

amount of the debt claimed’’ instead of ‘‘shows you 

owe the debt.’’ 

334 In Haddad, the court wrote that a verifying 

debt collector ‘‘should provide the date and nature 

of the transaction that led to the debt, such as a 

purchase on a particular date, a missed rental 

payment for a specific month, a fee for a particular 

service provided at a specified time, or a fine for 

a particular offense assessed on a certain date.’’ 758 

F.3d at 786. 

335While FDCPA section 809 requires a debt 

collector to honor only written verification requests, 

the Bureau understands that some debt collectors 

honor both written and non-written verification 

requests. Nothing in the FDCPA, the November 

2020 Final Rule, or this rule prevents such debt 

collectors from continuing to do so. 

336This recommendation is based on phrasing 

that the Bureau adopted for usability testing. As 

noted in the usability testing report, consumers who 

reviewed validation notices using this phrasing 

‘‘exhibited less confusion’’ about the distinction 

between how a debt collector would be required to 

respond when receiving a dispute in writing or by 

telephone. See FMG Usability Report, supra note 

28, at 55–56. 

The Bureau disagrees that the model 

notice was not adequately tested. The 

model validation notice was developed 

and validated over multiple rounds of 

testing between 2014 and 2020, and the 

Bureau determines that these multiple 

rounds of testing were sufficient to 

assess the model validation notice’s 

efficacy and comprehensibility. Further, 

the Bureau disagrees that its testing 

focused on eye-tracking at the expense 

of comprehension testing as consumer 

comprehension of the model validation 

notice was assessed in three rounds of 

testing. The Bureau’s testing used eyetracking in conjunction with consumer 

responses to inform its conclusions. 

The Bureau disagrees that it did not 

sample sufficiently diverse groups. The 

Bureau selected respondents with the 

goal of developing diverse testing pools 

that would serve as a proxy for the 

population at large. For example, in one 

round of usability testing, participants 

reflected a range of demographic 

characteristics broken down by race and 

ethnicity, household income, education 

level, and employment status.330 With 

respect to criticism that the Bureau did 

not ‘‘field test’’ the model validation 

notice, testing the form with consumers 

with real debts would have been 

impractical. Regarding comments that 

the model validation notice did not 

perform well during the quantitative 

testing round, the Bureau disagrees. As 

noted above, in that testing round, the 

model validation notice consistently 

performed better than or equal to the 

status quo notice, including on the 

question of to whom the consumer 

should send a payment.331

Commenters provided feedback on 

specific aspects of the proposed 

validation notice, including the notice’s 

disclosure of the FDCPA section 

809(a)(4) dispute right. As discussed, 

§ 1006.34(c)(3)(i), which implements 

FDCPA section 809(a)(4), requires debt 

collectors to: (1) Disclose the date the 

debt collector will consider the end date 

of the validation period; and (2) state 

that, if the consumer notifies the debt 

collector in writing on or before that 

date that the debt, or any portion of the 

debt, is disputed, the debt collector 

must cease collection of the debt, or the 

disputed portion of the debt, until the 

debt collector sends the consumer either 

verification of the debt or a copy of a 

judgment. The proposed model notice 

showed this disclosure as: ‘‘Call or write 

to us by November 12, 2019, to dispute 

all or part of the debt . . . . If you write 

to us by November 12, 2019, we must 

stop collection on any amount you 

dispute until we send you information 

that shows you owe the debt.’’ 

Some commenters criticized the 

phrase ‘‘shows you owe the debt.’’ 

Industry and industry trade group 

commenters stated that ‘‘shows you owe 

the debt’’ would require debt collectors 

to prove that consumers owe the debt. 

According to these commenters, this 

would modify the verification standard 

established by FDCPA section 809 and 

expose debt collectors to increased 

litigation risk.332 Thus, these 

commenters recommended that the 

Bureau revise the proposed model 

notice to mirror the FDCPA’s statutory 

text.333 In contrast, a group of academic 

commenters stated that the verification 

standard established by case law is more 

robust than the phrase ‘‘shows you owe 

the debt’’ suggests.334 These 

commenters expressed concerns that the 

proposed model notice would diminish 

the FDCPA’s verification standard. 

The Bureau is not changing the final 

model validation notice’s disclosure of 

the FDCPA section 809(a)(4) dispute 

right. The Bureau does not intend to 

modify FDCPA section 809’s 

verification standard and disagrees that 

the phrase ‘‘shows you owe the debt’’ 

has that effect. ‘‘Shows you owe the 

debt’’ is a plain-language phrase that the 

Bureau is adopting to improve 

consumer understanding. This 

rulemaking does not interpret what 

constitutes verification under FDCPA 

section 809. 

The Bureau received comments on the 

model notice’s description of the 

dispute rights under FDCPA section 

809(a)(3) and (4). Under FDCPA section 

809(a)(3), disputes can be made orally or 

in writing, which the proposed model 

notice showed in part as: ‘‘Call or write 

to us by November 12, 2019, to dispute 

all or part of the debt.’’ However, under 

FDCPA section 809(a)(4) and (b), 

requests for verification must be made 

in writing to have effect under the 

statute.335 An academic commenter and 

at least two consumer advocates 

expressed concern that the proposed 

model notice’s description of these 

dispute rights was too nuanced, and 

consumers would not understand that 

they must write to request verification. 

To address this concern, a commenter 

recommended that the Bureau revise the 

model notice to state, ‘‘Call us to 

dispute. But if you do call, we may not 

be required to send information that 

shows you owe the debt.’’ 336 An 

industry trade group expressed 

uncertainty about why the proposed 

model notice used the phrase ‘‘call or 

write’’ as opposed to ‘‘write’’ in 

different sentences. 

The Bureau acknowledges that the 

dispute rights under FDCPA section 

809(a)(3) and (4) may not be intuitive to 

some consumers. Nevertheless, the 

Bureau settled on the current phrasing 

in the model validation notice to 

emphasize the validation period end 

date as opposed to the actions—i.e., 

calling or writing—that a consumer may 

take. In general, the model validation 

notice has tested well. The Bureau is 

concerned that revising or adding 

content to clarify the consequences of 

writing versus calling may undermine 

the overall efficacy of the form. Further, 

this clarification would be unnecessary 

in many cases. The Bureau expects that 

many consumers will visit the Bureau’s 

website for more detailed information 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
5824 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

337 If the debt collector is collecting debt related 

to a consumer financial product or service as 

defined in § 1006.34.2(f), a statement that informs 

the consumer that additional information regarding 

consumer protections in debt collection is available 

on the Bureau’s website is required under 

§ 1006.34(c)(3)(iv). If the debt collector is collecting 

debt other than debt related to a consumer financial 

product or service, such a statement is optional 

under § 1006.34(d)(3)(viii). 

338 During November 2020 usability testing, 98 

percent of participants correctly identified North 

South Group as the correct party to send payments 

to. Further, participants generally understood that 

they could dispute the debt with North South 

Group. See November 2020 Qualitative Testing 

Report, supra note 34, at 15. 

339 During the most recent round of qualitative 

testing, a few participants stated that they were 

unsure how to learn more about debt collection in 

general. For example, one participant was unable to 

find the statement required by § 1006.34(c)(3)(iv) on 

the model notice. See November 2020 Qualitative 

Testing Report, supra note 34, at 13. 

regarding consumer protections in debt 

collection.337 However, to provide 

further clarity, the Bureau has 

reformatted how these dispute rights 

appear on the model validation notice. 

Specifically, the dispute rights now 

appear in separate bullets with bolded 

text for comprehension purposes. 

Commenters provided feedback on 

the proposed model validation notice’s 

original-creditor-information request 

disclosure pursuant to FDCPA section 

809(a)(5). Section 1006.34(c)(3)(ii), 

which implements this provision, 

requires debt collectors to disclose the 

date the debt collector will consider the 

end date of the validation period and a 

statement that, if the consumer requests 

in writing on or before that date the 

name and address of the original 

creditor, the debt collector must cease 

collection of the debt until the debt 

collector sends the consumer the name 

and address of the original creditor, if 

different from the current creditor. The 

proposed model notice showed this 

disclosure as: ‘‘Write to ask for the name 

and address of the original creditor. If 

you write by November 12, 2019, we 

will stop collection until we send you 

that information.’’ An industry 

commenter stated that, by omitting the 

phrase ‘‘if different from the current 

creditor,’’ the proposed model notice 

would compel debt collectors to 

respond to original-creditor-information 

requests, even if the current creditor is 

the original creditor. A consumer 

advocate supported the omission, 

arguing that debt collectors should be 

required to respond to all originalcreditor-information requests, even if 

the current creditor and the original 

creditor are the same. 

The Bureau concludes that the model 

validation notice should include the 

statutory phrase ‘‘if different from the 

current creditor’’ when disclosing the 

original-creditor-information request 

right. Thus, as finalized, the model 

validation notice includes the phrase ‘‘if 

different from the current creditor.’’ 

Further, as discussed below, the Bureau 

is finalizing new § 1006.38(c)(2), which 

sets forth an alternative procedure that 

a debt collector may use to respond to 

a consumer’s request for originalcreditor information when the original 

creditor is the same as the current 

creditor. 

Commenters recommended two other 

modifications to the proposed model 

notice. To emphasize the distinction 

between the debt collector and the 

creditor, an industry trade group 

commenter suggested that the Bureau 

revise the proposed model notice to 

emphasize that ‘‘North South Group is 

a debt collector, not a creditor.’’ 

Another industry trade group stated that 

the model notice should incorporate 

account information into the miniMiranda disclosure, which would 

frontload information that would help 

consumers recognize alleged debts and 

thereby reduce the number of disputes 

debt collectors receive. An industry 

trade group commenter stated that the 

proposed model notice is not properly 

formatted for standard mailing 

envelopes. According to the commenter, 

§ 1006.34(c)(4)’s consumer-response 

information section will not fit a 

standard glassine window return 

envelope. 

The Bureau declines other 

recommendations to modify the model 

validation notice. The Bureau declines 

to specify that North South Group is 

‘‘not a creditor,’’ as consumer testing 

indicates that consumers generally have 

a functional understanding that North 

South Group is a debt collector.338 The 

Bureau declines to modify the debt 

collection disclosure required by 

FDCPA section 807(11) and § 1006.18(e) 

as finalized in the November 2020 Final 

Rule. The Bureau concludes that 

combining this statutory disclosure with 

account information would undermine 

its clarity and purpose. The Bureau 

declines to modify the model notice in 

response to feedback that the form is not 

properly formatted for standard mailing 

envelopes. Comment 34(d)(2)(iii)–1 

clarifies that debt collectors may 

relocate the consumer-response 

information required by § 1006.34(c)(4) 

to facilitate mailing without losing the 

safe harbor provided by § 1006.34(d)(2). 

Thus, the Bureau determines that debt 

collectors will be able to format the form 

for mailing. 

Various commenters requested that 

the Bureau publish additional model 

validation notices to address specific 

scenarios. Several consumer advocate 

commenters urged the Bureau to 

translate the model notice into other 

languages, including Spanish. An 

industry trade group commenter 

recommended that the Bureau develop 

a model notice that debt collectors 

could use with consumers who are not 

obligated on the debt, such as heirs, 

successors in interest, and consumers 

whose debts were discharged in 

bankruptcy. An industry commenter 

recommended that the Bureau create a 

model notice that omits all optional 

disclosures. 

The Bureau declines to create 

additional model validation notice 

forms. As discussed earlier in this 

section-by-section analysis, the Bureau 

has modified the model-form-safeharbor framework under § 1006.34(d)(2) 

to afford debt collectors more flexibility 

to customize validation information to 

accommodate their business practices 

and the types of debts they collect. 

Within identified limits, debt collectors 

may make changes to the model 

validation notice and still meet the 

standard for a safe harbor under 

§ 1006.34(d)(2). 

The Bureau is making an additional 

change to the model validation notice in 

response to testing. The statement 

required by § 1006.34(c)(3)(iv) informs 

the consumer that additional 

information regarding consumer 

protections in debt collection is 

available on the Bureau’s website. The 

Bureau’s most recent consumer testing 

indicated that a small number of 

participants who used the model 

validation notice were uncertain about 

where to find more information about 

consumers’ protections in debt 

collection.339 In response to this 

finding, the Bureau is modifying how 

the statement required by 

§ 1006.34(c)(3)(iv) appears on the model 

validation notice to further emphasize 

this disclosure and the Bureau’s website 

address. 

34(d)(3) Optional Disclosures 

Proposed § 1006.34(d)(3) provided 

that a debt collector could include the 

optional information described in 

§ 1006.34(d)(3)(i) through (vi) when 

providing the validation information. 

The Bureau received no comments 

specifically addressing the language in 

proposed § 1006.34(d)(3). Commenters 

did suggest a variety of optional 

disclosures to add to § 1006.34(d)(3), 

such as barcodes or QR codes, the date 

a validation notice was created and sent, 

disclosures required by government 

creditors, and a disclosure notifying the 

consumer if the debt collector will 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 5825 

340See comment 34(d)(2)(iii)–1 (examples of 

permissible changes to the model notice include (1) 

adding barcodes or QR codes as long as their 

inclusion does not violate § 1006.38(b), and (2) 

adding the date the form is generated). 

341See the section-by-section analysis of 

§ 1006.34(d)(2)(i), particularly the discussion of 

new § 1006.34(d)(2)(i)(A) and (B), which refers to 

the optional disclosures. 

342Although § 1006.34(d)(3)(ii) permits debt 

collectors to use any number they choose as a 

reference code, debt collectors may be prohibited 

from using certain numbers by other applicable 

laws, such as privacy or data security rules or 

regulations. 

record telephone calls. Some of these 

suggested disclosures are permissible 

changes to the model notice under 

§ 1006.34(d)(2)(iii) 340 or optional 

disclosures under § 1006.34(d)(3), and 

debt collectors can choose to make other 

suggested disclosures without safe 

harbor protection. 

The Bureau is finalizing 

§ 1006.34(d)(3) largely as proposed but 

with minor technical revisions for 

clarity and with one substantive 

revision to clarify that a debt collector 

who includes any of the optional 

disclosures receives the safe harbor 

described in § 1006.34(d)(2), provided 

that the debt collector otherwise uses 

the model validation notice or a 

variation of the model notice as 

described in § 1006.34(d)(2). This 

revision harmonizes § 1006.34(d)(3) 

with certain revisions to § 1006.34(d)(2) 

in the final rule.341

The Bureau is finalizing 

§ 1006.34(d)(3) and the related 

provisions of § 1006.34(d)(2), including 

each of the optional disclosures that 

§ 1006.34(d)(3) permits debt collectors 

to provide, to implement and interpret 

FDCPA section 809(a) and (b) and 

pursuant to its FDCPA section 814(d) 

authority to prescribe rules with respect 

to the collection of debts by debt 

collectors. The Bureau also is finalizing 

§ 1006.34(d)(3) and the optional 

disclosures pursuant to its authority 

under section 1032(a) of the Dodd-Frank 

Act to prescribe rules to ensure that the 

features of consumer financial products 

and services are disclosed fully, 

accurately, and effectively. 

34(d)(3)(i) Telephone Contact 

Information 

Proposed § 1006.34(d)(3)(i) provided 

that a debt collector could include, 

along with the validation information, 

the debt collector’s telephone contact 

information, including telephone 

number and the times that the debt 

collector accepts consumer telephone 

calls. 

Two industry trade group commenters 

supported permitting debt collectors to 

disclose telephone contact information, 

with one such commenter noting that it 

would facilitate communication with 

consumers, and the other noting that 

some State laws require debt collectors 

to disclose telephone contact 

information. A group of consumer 

advocate commenters recommended 

that the Bureau make telephone contact 

information a mandatory disclosure. 

The Bureau determines that debt 

collectors should be permitted to 

include their telephone contact 

information along with the validation 

information. Section 1006.34(d)(3)(i) 

will accommodate debt collectors who 

choose to communicate with consumers 

by telephone or who are required to 

disclose telephone contact information 

by applicable State law. The Bureau 

declines to make telephone contact 

information a mandatory disclosure 

because, while many debt collectors 

likely will provide telephone contact 

information, either by choice or because 

of a State-law requirement, some debt 

collectors may not need or want to do 

so. In such cases, consumers can use 

other contact information required in 

the validation information to contact the 

debt collector. For these reasons, the 

Bureau is finalizing § 1006.34(d)(3)(i) 

largely as proposed, except that the 

Bureau is finalizing the clarification that 

telephone contact information may 

include, for example, a telephone 

number as well as the times that the 

debt collector accepts consumer 

telephone calls, as new comment 

34(d)(3)(i)–1, rather than in the 

regulation text as proposed. 

34(d)(3)(ii) Reference Code 

Many debt collectors include 

reference codes on validation notices for 

administrative purposes. The Bureau 

proposed § 1006.34(d)(3)(ii) to 

accommodate this practice by 

permitting a debt collector to include, 

along with the validation information, a 

number or code that the debt collector 

uses to identify the debt or the 

consumer. One industry commenter 

asked the Bureau to create a safe harbor 

for debt collectors to use an account 

number as a reference code, if that 

number is labeled as a reference code. 

The Bureau determines that creating 

such a safe harbor is unnecessary 

because debt collectors may use any 

number they choose as a reference 

code.342 The Bureau therefore is 

finalizing § 1006.34(d)(3)(ii) as 

proposed. 

34(d)(3)(iii) Payment Disclosures 

The Bureau proposed in 

§ 1006.34(d)(3)(iii) to allow debt 

collectors to include certain payment 

disclosures along with the validation 

information, provided that such 

disclosures were no more prominent 

than any of the validation information. 

Proposed § 1006.34(d)(3)(iii)(A) 

provided that a debt collector could 

include in the validation notice the 

statement ‘‘Contact us about your 

payment options,’’ using that phrase or 

a substantially similar phrase. Proposed 

§ 1006.34(d)(3)(iii)(B) provided that a 

debt collector could include in the 

consumer-response information section 

described in proposed § 1006.34(c)(4) 

the statement, ‘‘I enclosed this amount,’’ 

using that phrase or a substantially 

similar phrase, payment instructions 

after that statement, and a prompt for a 

consumer to write in a payment amount. 

As discussed below, the Bureau is 

finalizing § 1006.34(d)(3)(iii) largely as 

proposed, but with certain revisions for 

clarity and consistency with other 

provisions in the final rule. 

Industry and industry trade group 

commenters supported permitting debt 

collectors to include optional payment 

disclosures. One industry trade group 

stated that the proposed optional 

payment disclosures were appropriate 

because they would not violate FDCPA 

section 809(b)’s overshadowing 

prohibition. 

Consumer advocate commenters 

generally objected to proposed 

§ 1006.34(d)(3)(iii). A number of these 

commenters stated that consumers may 

perceive the payment disclosures as 

threatening, may misconstrue the 

disclosures as stating that consumers 

must make a payment to exercise their 

FDCPA dispute right, or may be 

confused about whether a payment is in 

their interest. Some commenters stated 

that the proposed disclosures could lead 

consumers to make payments that they 

might not otherwise have made, which 

some commenters noted could cause 

consumers to inadvertently revive 

previously time-barred debts. These 

commenters asked the Bureau not to 

finalize proposed § 1006.34(d)(3)(iii). 

Some commenters suggested revisions 

to the proposed optional payment 

disclosures. Industry and industry trade 

group commenters recommended that 

the Bureau make the proposed optional 

payment disclosures more prominent. 

For example, some commenters 

suggested that the proposed optional 

payment disclosures be placed at the 

top of the consumer-response 

information section. An industry 

commenter recommended that the 

model validation notice include 

additional optional payment 

disclosures. Industry trade group 

commenters recommended that the 

Bureau permit debt collectors to include 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
5826 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

343See 84 FR 23274, 23350 (May 21, 2019). 

344For example, during consumer testing, 

participants reported a variety of actions they 

thought they could take, and approximately 50 

percent of respondents said they would confirm the 

debt is accurate before responding. Similarly, 

participants who received the model validation 

notice, which included the optional payment 

disclosures, generally understood from the notice 

how they could dispute the debt. See November 

2020 Qualitative Testing Report, supra note 34, at 

11, 15. 

345Participants with prior debt collection 

experience observed that the model notice was 

‘‘different’’ than other validation notices they had 

received because the notice did not include 

threatening or intimidating language. See November 

2020 Qualitative Testing Report, supra note 34, at 

10. 

346FMG Usability Report, supra note 28, at 59– 

61. 

347 During usability testing, participants 

expressed an understanding that one purpose of the 

model validation notice was to solicit payment on 

a debt. When asked about their payment options 

based on the model validation notice, 

approximately 80 percent of participants stated that 

they would contact the debt collector by telephone, 

website, email, or write to explore payment options. 

See November 2020 Qualitative Testing Report, 

supra note 34, at 10,12. 

348Final § 1006.34(d)(2)(i) states that certain 

optional disclosures permitted by § 1006.34(d)(3) 

are contained on the model notice; those optional 

disclosures satisfy the requirement to be no more 

prominent than any validation information. Final 

§ 1006.34(d)(2)(i)(B) also permits inclusion of the 

optional disclosures described by § 1006.34(d)(3) 

that are not included on the model notice so long 

as they are no more prominent than any validation 

information; see the section-by-section analysis of 

§ 1006.34(d)(2)(i) for more detail. 

349Although these commenters cited various 

State laws requiring disclosures, they primarily 

referred to State laws requiring time-barred debt 

disclosures and revival disclosures. For example, 

one industry trade group commenter noted that 

Massachusetts, New Mexico, and New York State 

and City require disclosures about time-barred debt 

and revival that specifically or practically must 

appear on the front page of the validation notice. 

instructions about how a consumer 

could make a payment by telephone, 

website, or alternative payment 

methods, such as debit card or ACH. 

Based on the concerns noted above 

about potential consumer 

misunderstanding of the payment 

disclosures, a group of consumer 

advocate commenters urged the Bureau 

to amend the validation notice to 

segregate the payment disclosures from 

the other disclosures and to eliminate 

the payment prompt on the consumer 

response form. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

proposal, the Bureau determines that 

the proposed optional payment 

disclosures facilitate payments that may 

benefit both consumers and debt 

collectors. For consumers who 

recognize and choose to repay all or part 

of a debt, payment disclosures may 

make the transaction more efficient and 

convenient. In addition, for consumers 

who determine that they owe a debt but 

may not be ready to repay all of it at that 

time, payment disclosures may facilitate 

a discussion that can lead to repayment, 

settlement, or a payment plan.343 The 

Bureau also has determined that the 

optional payment disclosures do not 

overshadow, and are not inconsistent 

with, consumers’ verification rights 

pursuant to FDCPA section 809(b).344

Further, the Bureau’s testing found 

that the model validation notice, which 

was tested with the optional payment 

disclosures, was not threatening or 

intimidating.345 The Bureau disagrees 

that consumers will believe mistakenly 

that they must make a payment to 

exercise their verification rights. As the 

proposal noted, consumer testing 

indicates that consumers who encounter 

a payment disclosure on a validation 

notice understand that a payment is not 

required to dispute a debt.346 The 

Bureau determines that inclusion of the 

neutral, non-threatening optional 

payment disclosures will not confuse 

consumers about whether making a 

payment is in their best interest. For the 

same reasons, the Bureau declines the 

suggestion to segregate the payment 

disclosures from the other disclosures 

and to eliminate the payment prompt on 

the consumer response form. 

The Bureau declines 

recommendations to permit debt 

collectors to emphasize or highlight the 

payment option disclosures. Making the 

payment disclosures more prominent, as 

some industry commenters suggested, 

would reduce the efficacy of the model 

validation notice and risk 

overshadowing the validation 

information in violation of FDCPA 

section 809(b). The Bureau also 

determines that the optional payment 

disclosures in § 1006.34(d)(3)(iii)(A) and 

(B) are sufficient to facilitate 

payments 347 and that additional 

prominence for the payment disclosures 

is not justified. The Bureau also 

declines to permit debt collectors to 

include specific instructions about other 

payment methods. Section 

1006.34(d)(3)(iii)(A) permits debt 

collectors to invite consumers to contact 

them about payment options, and debt 

collectors have the ability to provide 

information about alternative payment 

methods in subsequent 

communications. 

For these reasons, this Bureau is 

finalizing § 1006.34(d)(3)(iii) largely as 

proposed but with several revisions for 

clarity and for consistency with other 

provisions in the final rule. First, the 

Bureau is deleting the sentences that 

specified that the optional payment 

disclosures in both 

§ 1006.34(d)(3)(iii)(A) and (B) must be 

no more prominent than any of the 

validation information. These deleted 

sentences are unnecessary in view of 

revisions to the final rule in 

§ 1006.34(d)(2) that apply to all of the 

optional disclosures, which makes the 

deleted sentences redundant.348 In 

addition, the Bureau is adding language 

to clarify that a debt collector may 

choose to include either of the optional 

payment disclosures, or both of them. 

Lastly, the Bureau is finalizing 

§ 1006.34(d)(3)(iii)(B) to clarify that the 

optional payment disclosure must 

appear ‘‘below’’ (rather than merely 

‘‘with’’) the consumer-response 

information required by 

§ 1006.34(c)(4)(i) and (ii). 

Accordingly, final § 1006.34(d)(3)(iii) 

provides that debt collectors may 

include either or both of the following 

payment disclosures: (1) The statement, 

‘‘Contact us about your payment 

options,’’ using that phrase or a 

substantially similar phrase; and (2) 

below the consumer-response 

information required by 

§ 1006.34(c)(4)(i) and (ii), the statement, 

‘‘I enclosed this amount,’’ using that 

phrase or a substantially similar phrase, 

payment instructions after that 

statement, and a prompt. 

34(d)(3)(iv) Disclosures Under 

Applicable Law 

Some States require specific 

disclosures to appear on validation 

notices. To enable debt collectors to 

comply with both § 1006.34(a)(1) and 

disclosure requirements under other 

applicable law, the Bureau proposed 

§ 1006.34(d)(3)(iv) to permit a debt 

collector to include, on the front of the 

validation notice, a statement that other 

disclosures required by applicable law 

appear on the reverse of the form and, 

on the reverse of the validation notice, 

any such legally required disclosures. 

Proposed comment 34(d)(3)(iv)–1 

provided examples of disclosure 

requirements that proposed 

§ 1006.34(d)(3)(iv) would cover, 

including disclosures required by State 

statutes or regulations and disclosures 

required by judicial opinions or orders. 

For the reasons discussed below, the 

Bureau is adopting proposed 

§ 1006.34(d)(3)(iv) with revisions, 

including the addition of new regulatory 

text subsections and commentary. 

A number of industry and industry 

trade group commenters stated that the 

Bureau’s proposal regarding disclosures 

required by other applicable law would 

either conflict with or not accommodate 

such disclosures. Commenters stated 

that some States require disclosures to 

appear on the front of a validation 

notice.349 To address such concerns, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 5827 

350As discussed in the section-by-section analysis 

of § 1006.34(d)(2), the final rule permits a debt 

collector who uses the model validation notice, 

specified variations of the model notice, or a 

substantially similar form to receive a safe harbor. 

Moreover, as discussed below in this section-bysection analysis of § 1006.34(d)(3)(iv), the Bureau is 

modifying how the statement required by 

§ 1006.34(d)(3)(iv) is disclosed on the model 

validation notice to mirror language on a disclosure 

required under Wisconsin law. 

351See, e.g., Colo. Rev. Stat. sec. 12–14–105(3)(c) 

(‘‘In its initial written communication to a 

consumer, a collection agency shall include the 

following statement: ‘For information about the 

Colorado Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, see 

www.ago.state.co.us/cadc/cadcmain.cfm.’ If the 

notification is placed on the back of the written 

communication, there shall be a statement on the 

front notifying the consumer of such fact.’’); Wis. 

Admin. Code DFI-Bkg sec. 74.13 (‘‘Unless the initial 

communication is written and contains the 

following notice or the debtor has paid the debt, a 

licensee shall send the debtor the following notice 

within 5 days after the initial communication with 

a debtor: ‘This collection agency is licensed by the 

Division of Banking in the Wisconsin Department 

of Financial Institutions, www.wdfi.org.’ . . . here 

the notice required by sub. (1) is printed on the 

reverse side of any collection notice or validation 

sent by the licensee, the front of such notice shall 

bear the following statement in not less than 8 point 

type: ‘‘Notice: See Reverse Side for Important 

Information.’’). 

352To permit this additional flexibility for timebarred debt disclosures as distinguished from other 

disclosures made under applicable law, the final 

rule has re-numbered proposed § 1006.34(d)(3)(iv), 

which would have specified that the applicable law 

disclosures are placed on the reverse side of the 

validation notice only, as § 1006.34(d)(3)(iv)(A). 

353As with other disclosures required by or 

providing safe harbors under applicable law, debt 

collectors can also make the time-barred debt 

disclosures on the reverse of the validation notice 

pursuant to § 1006.34(d)(3)(iv)(A). See comment 

34(d)(3)(iv)(A)–1, which gives an example of a timebarred debt disclosure as a disclosure permitted by 

§ 1006.34(d)(3)(iv)(A). 

commenters recommended that the 

Bureau allow debt collectors to include 

required State law disclosures on the 

front of the validation notice. One 

commenter, an industry trade group, 

urged the Bureau to allow for formatting 

flexibility for such State law disclosures 

while still affording safe harbor 

protection. At least one commenter 

suggested that the Bureau preempt State 

laws that require disclosures on the 

front of a validation notice. 

The Bureau determines that, 

particularly with the changes to the 

model validation notice discussed in the 

section-by-section analysis, final 

§ 1006.34(d)(3)(iv) generally will 

accommodate disclosures required by 

other applicable law.350 As noted above, 

a few States require time-barred debt 

disclosures to appear on the front of a 

validation notice; time-barred debt 

disclosures are discussed further below. 

The Bureau is not aware that States 

specifically require any other 

disclosures to appear on the front of the 

validation notice; as such, the Bureau 

concludes that disclosures specifically 

required by applicable law, other than 

in those few instances relating to timebarred debt, can be accommodated on 

the reverse of the validation notice. The 

Bureau also is not aware of font size, 

prominence, or placement requirements 

established by State or other applicable 

law that final § 1006.34(d)(3)(iv) will not 

accommodate, as discussed further 

below. Further, the statement that 

§ 1006.34(d)(3)(iv) permits on the front 

of a validation notice is consistent with 

State laws that require statements on the 

front of the notice.351 The Bureau will 

continue to monitor whether disclosures 

required by other applicable law are 

inconsistent or conflict with § 1006.34 

or Regulation F generally, and if such an 

inconsistency or conflict is identified, 

the Bureau will endeavor to take action 

to address it. The Bureau also reiterates 

that, unlike the proposal, the final rule 

does not require the validation notice to 

be substantially similar to the model 

validation notice; thus, if 

§ 1006.34(d)(3)(iv) does not 

accommodate a disclosure required 

under State or other applicable law, 

then debt collectors can provide such a 

disclosure without necessarily violating 

the rule, but they would lose the 

§ 1006.34(d)(2) safe harbor. 

The Bureau has revised 

§ 1006.34(d)(3)(iv) in response to 

feedback and for clarity. Final 

§ 1006.34(d)(3)(iv)(A) provides that the 

debt collector may include, on the 

reverse of the validation notice, any 

disclosures that are specifically required 

by, or that provide safe harbors under, 

applicable law and, if any such 

disclosures are included, a statement on 

the front of the validation notice 

referring to those disclosures. Final 

comment 34(d)(3)(iv)(A)–1 clarifies that 

disclosures permitted by 

§ 1006.34(d)(3)(iv)(A) include, for 

example, specific disclosures required 

by Federal, State, or municipal statutes 

or regulations, and specific disclosures 

required by judicial or administrative 

decisions or orders, including 

administrative consent orders. The 

comment also describes how such 

disclosures could include, for example, 

time-barred debt disclosures and 

disclosures that the current amount of 

the debt may increase or vary due to 

interest, fees, or other charges, provided 

that such disclosures are specifically 

required by applicable law. 

The Bureau has revised 

§ 1006.34(d)(3)(iv) and its 

accompanying commentary from the 

proposal to clarify the disclosures that 

are permitted by § 1006.34(d)(3)(iv). 

Specifically, the revisions clarify that 

the provision applies if a debt collector 

must comply with a specific disclosure 

requirement under Federal, State, or 

local law, or under a judicial or 

administrative decision or order. As 

such, the Bureau emphasizes that this 

provision is not intended to capture 

circumstances in which a debt collector 

is not providing a disclosure that is 

required under a specific law, decision, 

or order, but rather the debt collector is 

providing a disclosure to try to comply 

with a more general legal requirement. 

For example, if the debt collector were 

to add language to the validation notice 

to try to avoid a finding of an unfair, 

deceptive, or abusive practice under 

Dodd-Frank Act section 1031 or the 

FDCPA, that is not an optional 

disclosure covered by 

§ 1006.34(d)(3)(iv). Debt collectors are 

not precluded from making such 

disclosures, but they will not receive the 

safe harbor under § 1006.34(d)(2). 

The Bureau has made modifications 

to the final rule, moreover, to provide 

additional flexibility with respect to 

time-barred debt disclosures, in 

response to feedback to the proposal. 

Under new § 1006.34(d)(3)(iv)(B),352 if a 

debt collector is collecting time-barred 

debt, the debt collector may include on 

the front of the validation notice any 

time-barred debt disclosure that is 

specifically required by, or that provides 

a safe harbor under, applicable law, 

provided that applicable law specifies 

the content of the disclosure.353 New 

comment 34(d)(3)(iv)(B)–1 clarifies that, 

for example, if applicable State law 

requires a debt collector who is 

collecting time-barred debt to disclose 

to the consumer that the law limits how 

long a consumer can be sued on a debt 

and that the debt collector cannot or 

will not sue the consumer to collect it, 

the debt collector may include that 

disclosure on the front of the validation 

notice. New comment 34(d)(3)(iv)(B)–1 

also includes a cross-reference to the 

definition of time-barred debt under 

§ 1006.26(a)(2) and clarifies that, for 

purposes of § 1006.34(d)(3)(iv)(B), timebarred debt disclosures may include 

disclosures about revival of debt 

collectors’ right to bring a legal action to 

enforce the debt. The Bureau concludes 

that providing additional flexibility to 

debt collectors to make these optional 

disclosures either on the front or reverse 

of the validation notice is warranted in 

view of circumstances in which it may 

be difficult to discern under applicable 

State or local law whether time-barred 

debt disclosures must appear on the 

front of a validation notice. Moreover, 

the Bureau is finalizing 

§ 1006.34(d)(3)(iv)(B) in view of the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
5828 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

354Avila, 817 F.3d at 76 (adopting the safe harbor 

approach for debt collectors disclosing the amount 

of the debt when the balance may increase due to 

interest and fees adopted in Miller v. McCalla, 

Raymer, Padrick, Cobb, Nichols, & Clark, LLC, 214 

F.3d 872, 876 (7th Cir. 2000)). 

355As discussed earlier in this section-by-section 

analysis, § 1006.34(d)(3)(iv) has been revised in the 

final rule to clarify that the optional disclosures are 

those that are ‘‘specifically’’ required by applicable 

law or that provide a safe harbor under applicable 

law. 

356The Bureau based this statement on a 

Wisconsin disclosure requirement. See Wis. Admin. 

Code DFI-Bkg sec. 74.13. 

Bureau’s decision not to finalize a 

requirement for debt collectors to 

provide disclosures relating to timebarred debt or revival laws, described in 

more detail in the section-by-section 

analysis of § 1006.26. 

The Bureau received feedback about 

modifying the scope of proposed 

§ 1006.34(d)(3)(iv). An industry trade 

group commenter stated that the Bureau 

should limit § 1006.34(d)(3)(iv) to State 

laws and exclude disclosures required 

by judicial decisions or orders. 

According to the commenter, courts 

should not be permitted to dictate nonstandard disclosures that would limit 

the efficacy of the model validation 

notice and result in validation notices 

that vary by jurisdiction. This 

commenter asserted that permitting 

courts to vary the model validation 

notice would be inconsistent with the 

framework in other consumer financial 

laws and regulations, such as TILA and 

Regulation Z, which do not permit 

courts to add disclosures to model 

forms. A group of consumer advocate 

commenters asked the Bureau to 

prohibit debt collectors from including 

disclosures that are permitted, but not 

required, by applicable law, because 

including all possible disclosures would 

overwhelm consumers. On the other 

hand, an industry trade group 

commenter asked the Bureau to allow 

debt collectors to include such 

disclosures. 

The Bureau determines that 

§ 1006.34(d)(3)(iv) should cover 

disclosures required pursuant to judicial 

or administrative decisions or orders, 

including administrative consent orders. 

Permitting disclosures required by 

judicial or administrative decisions or 

orders to appear, like any State-lawrequired disclosures, on the reverse of a 

validation notice will neither 

undermine the efficacy of the model 

validation notice nor create validation 

notices that significantly vary by 

jurisdiction, other than on the reverse of 

the notice. Further, the Bureau 

concludes that permitting judicially 

mandated disclosures to appear on 

validation notices is not inconsistent 

with other consumer financial laws, as 

some commenters suggested. For 

instance, the Bureau understands that 

nothing in TILA and its implementing 

Regulation Z prohibit, as those 

commenters appeared to believe, 

creditors from making disclosures 

required pursuant to judicial orders or 

decisions. As noted above, final 

comment 34(d)(3)(iv)(A)–1 clarifies that 

the disclosures permitted by 

§ 1006.34(d)(3)(iv) include specific 

disclosures required by judicial 

decisions or orders. 

In response to feedback, the Bureau 

also is finalizing § 1006.34(d)(3)(iv)(A) 

and comment 34(d)(3)(iv)(A)–1 to 

permit debt collectors to include 

disclosures that provide safe harbors 

under applicable law without losing the 

safe harbor for compliance under 

§ 1006.34(d)(2). Such disclosures can 

mitigate legal risks for debt collectors 

and reduce the potential for consumer 

harm.354 On the other hand, the Bureau 

declines to allow debt collectors to 

include disclosures on the validation 

notice that are merely permitted by 

other applicable law and still retain the 

safe harbor.355 Such disclosures may be 

irrelevant to consumers, and their 

inclusion on the validation notice may 

overwhelm consumers or overshadow 

more relevant disclosures. Nevertheless, 

as noted elsewhere, a debt collector who 

included such a disclosure would not 

necessarily violate Regulation F; that 

debt collector would, however, be 

outside the safe harbor for compliance. 

Some commenters suggested that the 

Bureau revise the text and placement of 

the § 1006.34(d)(3)(iv) disclosure that 

appeared on the model validation 

notice. An industry trade group 

commenter noted that Wisconsin law 

allows disclosures on the reverse of the 

notice but requires the statement, 

‘‘Notice: See Reverse Side for Important 

Information.’’ A group of consumer 

advocate commenters suggested that 

disclosures required by applicable law 

should be separately labeled as 

‘‘Disclosures Required by Your State’’ 

and ‘‘Disclosures Required by Local 

Federal Courts.’’ 

Relatedly, some commenters noted 

that some State laws include specific 

prominence or font size requirements 

for validation notice disclosures. A 

comment letter from two associations of 

State regulatory agencies expressed 

concerns that proposed 

§ 1006.34(d)(3)(iv), as disclosed on the 

model validation notice, was not 

sufficiently prominent. In particular, 

these commenters objected that the 

statement about disclosures required by 

applicable law appeared below the 

§ 1006.34(d)(3)(iii)(A) payment 

disclosure. 

In response to feedback, the Bureau is 

including a new comment 

34(d)(3)(iv)(A)–2 to clarify how the 

disclosure described in 

§ 1006.34(d)(3)(iv)(A) may appear 

depending on the delivery mechanism. 

The comment clarifies that, if a debt 

collector includes disclosures pursuant 

to § 1006.34(d)(3)(iv)(A), the debt 

collector must include a statement on 

the front of the validation notice 

referring to those disclosures; and a debt 

collector may comply with the 

requirement to refer to the disclosures 

by including on the front of the 

validation notice the statement, ‘‘Notice: 

See reverse side for important 

information,’’ or a substantially similar 

statement. The comment further notes 

that if, as permitted by comment 

34(d)(3)(iv)(A)–1, a debt collector places 

the disclosures below the content of the 

validation notice, the debt collector may 

comply with the requirement to refer to 

the disclosures by stating, ‘‘Notice: See 

below for important information,’’ or a 

substantially similar statement. 

In response to feedback, the Bureau is 

also modifying how the statement 

required by § 1006.34(d)(3)(iv) is 

disclosed on the model validation 

notice. Specifically, the 

§ 1006.34(d)(3)(iv) statement appears on 

the final model notice as: ‘‘Notice: See 

Reverse Side for Important 

Information.’’ 356 The Bureau finds that 

this phrase is clearer, more 

conspicuous, and more likely to 

encourage consumer action than the 

proposed phrase, ‘‘Review state law 

disclosures on reverse side, if 

applicable.’’ Finally, the Bureau 

declines the suggestion to require debt 

collectors to label which disclosures are 

included pursuant to State law and 

which are included pursuant to judicial 

orders and decisions. That distinction 

likely makes little practical difference to 

consumers. 

The Bureau also determines that the 

§ 1006.34(d)(3)(iv) disclosure should be 

more prominent than in the proposed 

model validation notice, in part to 

account for the fact noted by some 

commenters that disclosures required by 

other applicable law may have 

prominence requirements, including 

clear and conspicuous requirements. 

The Bureau therefore has modified the 

model validation notice to further 

emphasize the § 1006.34(d)(3)(iv) 

disclosure. Specifically, in contrast to 

the proposed model validation notice, 

on which the disclosure appeared in 

regular font in the middle of a list of 

other disclosures, the disclosure appears 

on the final model validation notice 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 5829 

357Final § 1006.34(d)(2)(ii) allows a second page 

for debt collectors to provide information that 

would otherwise be provided in a relatively 

abbreviated itemization of the debt (i.e., itemization 

on a second page and for the special rule regarding 

certain residential mortgage debt). This narrow 

exception allows the debt collector to potentially 

provide significantly more information to the 

consumer on a second page. 

358Proposed § 1006.34(c)(3)(v) provided that such 

a statement was required validation information for 

validation notices provided electronically. 

359As discussed in the section-by-section analysis 

of § 1006.34(c)(3)(v), the final rule does not require 

debt collectors who provide validation notices 

electronically to include statements explaining how 

consumers can take the actions described in 

§ 1006.34(d)(3) electronically. 

360Spanish speakers represent the second-largest 

language group in the United States after English 

speakers. As of 2016, 40 million residents in the 

United States ages five and older spoke Spanish at 

home. See U.S. Census Bureau, Profile America for 

Facts for Features CB17–FF.17: Hispanic Heritage 

Month 2017, at 4 (Oct. 17, 2017), https://

www.census.gov/newsroom/facts-for-features/2017/ 

hispanic-heritage.html. 

underlined and in bold font and 

separated from other disclosures. 

Commenters sought additional 

guidance about what constitutes the 

‘‘reverse side’’ of the validation notice. 

Two industry trade group commenters 

recommended that the Bureau interpret 

‘‘reverse side’’ as synonymous with 

‘‘next page’’ to allow debt collectors to 

use a second page to provide disclosures 

required by other applicable law. 

Relatedly, one commenter stated that 

requiring a debt collector to print on 

both sides of a validation notice would 

increase costs. Two associations of State 

regulatory agencies asked the Bureau to 

clarify where State law disclosures 

should be placed on validation notices 

delivered electronically, since 

disclosures delivered electronically will 

not have a reverse side. 

The Bureau recognizes that the 

meaning of ‘‘on the reverse’’ may vary 

by delivery method and format and that 

clarification is warranted, particularly 

as to validation notices delivered 

electronically. As such, the Bureau is 

adopting new comment 34(d)(3)(iv)(A)– 

1, which clarifies, in relevant part, that 

if a debt collector provides a validation 

notice in the body of an email, the debt 

collector may, in lieu of including the 

disclosures permitted by 

§ 1006.34(d)(3)(iv)(A) on the reverse of 

the validation notice, include them in 

the same communication below the 

content of the validation notice. 

Furthermore, as discussed above, 

comment 34(d)(3)(iv)(A)–2 notes that, if 

a debt collector places the disclosures 

below the content of the validation 

notice, the debt collector may comply 

with the requirement to refer to the 

disclosures by including the statement, 

‘‘Notice: See below for important 

information,’’ or a substantially similar 

statement. These commentary 

provisions, therefore, address 

circumstances in which the validation 

notice is delivered in the body of an 

email. 

The Bureau declines to permit debt 

collectors to place disclosures required 

by other applicable law on a second 

page while maintaining the 

§ 1006.34(d)(2) safe harbor, as some 

commenters requested. In 

§ 1006.34(d)(2)(ii), the Bureau specifies 

two narrow circumstances in which 

debt collectors are permitted to include 

validation information on a second page 

because such information, presented on 

a second page, is likely to benefit 

consumers.357 And, in both cases, if a 

debt collector includes the disclosures 

on a second page, the debt collector 

loses the § 1006.34(d)(2) safe harbor 

with respect to the second page. The 

Bureau determines that it is 

unwarranted to provide a safe harbor 

that would be more expansive both in 

scope and protection than the other 

targeted exceptions to debt collectors 

providing other applicable law 

disclosures on a second page. The 

Bureau notes that debt collectors may 

include such disclosures on a second 

page without necessarily violating the 

rule. 

The Bureau is making one additional 

change not in response to comments. 

Section 1006.34(d)(3)(iv)(A) provides, in 

relevant part, that disclosures made 

under § 1006.34(d)(3)(iv) must not 

appear directly on the reverse of the 

consumer-response information 

required by § 1006.34(c)(4), which 

appears on the front of the notice. This 

revision is included to ensure that debt 

collectors who choose to make the 

optional disclosures under 

§ 1006.34(d)(3)(iv) do not provide the 

disclosures in a place where the 

disclosures would be returned with the 

consumer-response information. 

The Bureau notes that if, as permitted 

by § 1006.34(d)(3)(iv), a debt collector 

includes on the front of a validation 

notice the required statement regarding 

disclosures under other applicable law 

(i.e., ‘‘Notice: See reverse side for 

important information’’), the debt 

collector must actually place such 

disclosures on the reverse. Conversely, 

a debt collector may not include 

disclosures under other applicable law 

on the reverse of a validation notice 

without including the statement about 

those disclosures on the front of the 

validation notice. The Bureau intended 

this effect when it proposed 

§ 1006.34(d)(3)(iv) and notes it here for 

clarity. 

Accordingly, the Bureau is finalizing 

§ 1006.34(d)(3)(iv) and its related 

commentary with both substantive 

revisions and minor wording changes. 

34(d)(3)(v) Information About 

Electronic Communications 

Proposed § 1006.34(d)(3)(v) provided 

that debt collectors could include 

certain information about electronic 

communications along with the 

validation information. First, proposed 

§ 1006.34(d)(3)(v)(A) provided that a 

debt collector could include the debt 

collector’s website and email address. 

Second, proposed § 1006.34(d)(3)(v)(B) 

provided that a debt collector could 

include, for validation information not 

provided electronically, the statement 

described in § 1006.34(c)(3)(v) 

explaining how a consumer could take 

the actions described in § 1006.34(c)(4) 

and § 1006.34(d)(3) electronically.358

One industry commenter supported 

proposed § 1006.34(d)(3)(v), and the 

Bureau is finalizing it as proposed, with 

technical revisions to reflect conforming 

changes to final § 1006.34(c)(3)(v). For 

example, final § 1006.34(d)(3)(v)(B) no 

longer contains a reference to 

§ 1006.34(d)(3) because final 

§ 1006.34(c)(3)(v) itself no longer refers 

to § 1006.34(d)(3).359

34(d)(3)(vi) Spanish-Language 

Translation Disclosures 

Proposed § 1006.34(d)(3)(vi) provided 

that a debt collector could include, 

along with the validation information, 

optional Spanish-language disclosures 

that consumers could use to request a 

Spanish-language validation notice. The 

proposal stated that Spanish-speaking 

LEP consumers may benefit from a 

Spanish-language disclosure informing 

them of their ability to request a 

Spanish-language translation, if a debt 

collector chooses to make such a 

translation available.360 The proposal 

stated that debt collectors may wish to 

provide validation information in 

Spanish, as doing so may facilitate their 

communications with consumers. 

Consumer advocate commenters 

generally supported permitting debt 

collectors to provide certain Spanishlanguage disclosures along with the 

validation information. Some consumer 

advocate commenters recommended 

that the Bureau also require debt 

collectors to provide the disclosures 

described in proposed 

§ 1006.34(d)(3)(vi). A group of consumer 

advocate commenters urged the Bureau 

to require a debt collector to send a 

translated validation notice if the debt 

collector receives a request from a 

consumer seeking information in the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
5830 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

361 15 U.S.C. 1692e. 

362 84 FR 23274, 23352 (May 21, 2019). 

363See the section-by-section analysis of 

§ 1006.34(e). 364 Id. 

consumer’s preferred language, 

including a request received using the 

proposed tear off portion of the 

validation notice. 

An industry commenter supported 

proposed § 1006.34(d)(3)(vi) on the 

understanding that the Spanishlanguage disclosures would be optional. 

According to the commenter, requiring 

debt collectors to provide foreign 

language disclosures would entail 

significant costs. An industry 

commenter and an industry trade group 

commenter asked the Bureau to clarify 

whether providing the proposed 

§ 1006.34(d)(3)(vi) disclosures would 

obligate a debt collector to provide 

future communications in Spanish to 

the consumer. Some commenters raised 

questions about whether the validation 

period would be paused when a 

consumer requests a Spanish-language 

translation of the validation notice and 

then restart when it is received, with a 

local government commenter supporting 

such a revision in the final rule. 

The Bureau declines to make the 

Spanish-language disclosures described 

in § 1006.34(d)(3)(vi) mandatory. A 

requirement to provide the 

§ 1006.34(d)(3)(vi) disclosures, standing 

alone, would not be overly burdensome 

because the translation language is 

precisely described in the regulation 

and is also included on the model 

validation notice. However, the content 

of those disclosures means that 

mandating them would effectively 

compel debt collectors to provide 

translated validation notices to certain 

consumers (i.e., consumers who 

respond to the § 1006.34(d)(3)(vi) 

disclosures by requesting a Spanishlanguage validation notice).361 As 

discussed in the proposal, the Bureau 

did not propose to require debt 

collectors to provide translated 

validation notices because of the 

associated costs of such a 

requirement,362 and the Bureau is 

declining to finalize such a requirement 

in this final rule.363

A debt collector who provides the 

optional disclosure described in 

§ 1006.34(d)(3)(vi) must honor a 

consumer’s request for a translated 

validation notice or risk violating 

FDCPA section 807. However, the 

proposal did not expressly state that the 

debt collector would be obligated to 

provide the Spanish-language 

translation of the validation notice in 

this circumstance. The proposal only 

implied such an obligation. To make the 

rule clearer, the Bureau is finalizing a 

new § 1006.34(e)(2), which provides 

that a debt collector who includes in the 

validation information either or both of 

the optional disclosures described in 

§ 1006.34(d)(3)(vi), and who thereafter 

receives a request from the consumer for 

a Spanish-language validation notice, 

must provide the consumer a validation 

notice completely and accurately 

translated into Spanish.364 The Bureau 

clarifies that, other than with respect to 

§ 1006.34(e)(2), nothing in the rule 

obligates a debt collector to provide 

future communications in Spanish 

solely because the debt collector 

provided a disclosure described in 

§ 1006.34(d)(3)(vi) in Spanish. 

Regarding the commenters who asked 

for clarification about, or supported, 

restarting the validation period when 

the consumer requests a Spanishlanguage validation notice, the Bureau 

declines to mandate such a change but 

notes that debt collectors who 

voluntarily restart the validation period 

after providing a copy of the Spanishlanguage validation notice following the 

consumer’s request do not violate the 

FDCPA or Regulation F. 

For these reasons, the Bureau is 

finalizing § 1006.34(d)(3)(vi) largely as 

proposed but with a revision to clarify 

that a debt collector may include either 

of the optional Spanish-language 

translation disclosures, or both of them. 

34(d)(3)(vi)(A) 

Proposed § 1006.34(d)(3)(vi)(A) 

provided that a debt collector could 

include a statement in Spanish 

informing a consumer that the consumer 

could request a Spanish-language 

validation notice. Specifically, the 

Bureau proposed in 

§ 1006.34(d)(3)(vi)(A) to permit the 

statement, ‘‘Po ́ngase en contacto con 

nosotros para solicitar una copia de este 

formulario en espan ̃ ol,’’ using that 

phrase or a substantially similar phrase 

in Spanish. In English, this phrase 

means, ‘‘You may contact us to request 

a copy of this form in Spanish.’’ The 

proposal clarified that a debt collector 

who provided this optional disclosure 

could also include supplemental 

information in Spanish specifying how 

a consumer could request a Spanishlanguage validation notice. Proposed 

comment 34(d)(3)(vi)(A)–1 explained 

that, for example, a debt collector could 

provide a statement in Spanish that a 

consumer could request a Spanishlanguage validation notice by telephone 

or email. 

Consumer advocate commenters 

supported the Spanish-language 

disclosure described in proposed 

§ 1006.34(d)(3)(vi)(A). The Bureau 

received no other comments specifically 

addressing the disclosure. Accordingly, 

the Bureau is finalizing 

§ 1006.34(d)(3)(vi)(A) and its related 

commentary as proposed, with only 

minor wording changes. 

34(d)(3)(vi)(B) 

Proposed § 1006.34(d)(3)(vi)(B) 

provided that debt collectors could 

include in the consumer-response 

information section of the validation 

notice a statement in Spanish that a 

consumer could use to request a 

Spanish-language validation notice. 

Specifically, the Bureau proposed in 

§ 1006.34(d)(3)(vi)(B) to permit debt 

collectors to include the statement, 

‘‘Quiero esta forma en espan ̃ ol,’’ using 

that phrase or a substantially similar 

phrase in Spanish. In English, this 

phrase means, ‘‘I want this form in 

Spanish.’’ Proposed 

§ 1006.34(d)(3)(vi)(B) would have 

required this statement to be next to a 

prompt that the consumer could use to 

request a Spanish-language validation 

notice. 

Consumer advocate commenters 

generally supported the Spanishlanguage disclosure described in 

proposed § 1006.34(d)(3)(vi)(B). 

However, a group of consumer advocate 

commenters stated that the Spanish 

translation in proposed 

§ 1006.34(d)(3)(vi)(B) was inaccurate. 

Specifically, the commenters stated that 

the correct Spanish translation of 

‘‘form’’ is ‘‘formulario,’’ not ‘‘forma.’’ 

The word ‘‘forma’’ appeared in both 

proposed § 1006.34(d)(3)(vi)(B) and in 

the sample disclosure on the proposed 

model validation notice. The Bureau 

finds that ‘‘formulario,’’ not ‘‘forma,’’ is 

the correct Spanish translation of 

‘‘form.’’ The Bureau also finds that, for 

gender agreement, § 1006.34(d)(3)(vi)(B) 

should read ‘‘este formulario,’’ not ‘‘esta 

formulario.’’ 

The Bureau is finalizing 

§ 1006.34(d)(3)(vi)(B), its related 

commentary, and the disclosure on the 

model validation notice as proposed, 

but with revisions to correct the 

translation errors and with other, minor 

wording changes for consistency with 

other provisions of the final rule. 

34(d)(3)(vii) 

The Bureau proposed 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(iii) to provide that the 

merchant brand, if any, associated with 

a credit card debt, to the extent available 

to the debt collector, is validation 

information that must be provided to 

the consumer. Proposed comment 

34(c)(2)(iii)–1 provided an example of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 5831 

365See 84 FR 23274, 23340 (May 21, 2019) (citing 

the Bureau’s consumer focus group findings that 

indicate consumers use merchant brands to 

recognize credit card debts). 

366Although § 1006.34(d)(3)(vii) permits debt 

collectors to disclose the facility name associated 

with a medical debt along with the validation 

information, debt collectors may be prohibited from 

doing so by other applicable laws, such as 

healthcare privacy rules or regulations. 

merchant brand information that the 

Bureau initially determined would be 

available to a debt collector and that, 

therefore, would be required on a 

validation notice. 

For the reasons discussed below, the 

Bureau is not finalizing 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(iii) and its related 

commentary. Instead, the Bureau is 

restructuring and renumbering proposed 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(iii) as a new optional 

disclosure under § 1006.34(d)(3)(vii), 

which permits, but does not require, 

debt collectors to disclose the merchant 

brand, affinity brand, or facility name, if 

any, associated with the debt (and does 

not limit the optional disclosure to 

credit card debt). 

Industry, industry trade group, and 

consumer advocate commenters 

uniformly agreed that, if available, 

merchant brand information may help 

consumers recognize debts. For 

example, consumer advocate 

commenters stated that, in the case of a 

store-branded credit card, a consumer 

may not associate the debt with the 

original creditor (often a bank) and may 

be more likely to recognize the 

merchant, whose name appears on the 

credit card. A group of consumer 

advocate commenters asserted that such 

information was important, impliedly 

suggesting that the Bureau require its 

disclosure as part of the validation 

information. 

Although supportive of the proposed 

disclosure in principle, some industry 

trade group commenters asked the 

Bureau to clarify the circumstances in 

which merchant brand information 

would be deemed available. According 

to these commenters, whether merchant 

brand information is available may be 

unclear because it is not always 

identifiable in a consumer’s file or a 

creditor may not have provided it. One 

industry trade group commenter stated 

that the proposed provision requiring 

disclosure of merchant brand 

information for credit cards as part of 

the validation information would better 

serve consumers and reduce compliance 

costs if the provision included broader 

categories than merchant brand names 

and was an optional, rather than 

mandatory, disclosure. 

The Bureau received other comments 

about expanding the scope of proposed 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(iii). An industry trade 

group commenter recommended that 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(iii) also encompass 

affinity brand information (e.g., the 

name of a college). Other commenters 

recommended that debt collectors be 

permitted or required to disclose the 

facility name associated with a medical 

debt (e.g., the name of a hospital). 

According to commenters, a consumer 

may be more likely to recognize a 

facility where treatment was provided 

than the healthcare service provider that 

is the creditor. A group of consumer 

advocate commenters noted that 

increasingly a hospital name may act as 

a brand for an umbrella of service 

providers and thus should be treated in 

the same manner as a merchant brand. 

The Bureau determines that merchant 

brand information may help consumers 

recognize debts. However, the Bureau 

agrees with the feedback that whether 

merchant brand information is available 

may not always be clear to a debt 

collector. This ambiguity is particularly 

likely with respect to debts that have 

been sold or transferred multiple times. 

Furthermore, not all creditors will have 

an associated merchant brand, at least 

one that is distinct from the creditor 

name. 

Accordingly, in lieu of finalizing the 

requirement in proposed 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(iii), the Bureau is 

adopting new § 1006.34(d)(3)(vii), 

which permits, rather than requires, 

debt collectors to disclose the merchant 

brand information, if any, associated 

with a debt. By making merchant brand 

an optional disclosure, the Bureau 

eliminates a source of potential 

ambiguity that could expose debt 

collectors to legal risk. In addition, 

notwithstanding this modification, the 

Bureau concludes that debt collectors 

will be incentivized to provide 

merchant brand information if it is 

available. Commenters uniformly agreed 

that merchant brand information helps 

consumers recognize debts.365 Thus, 

debt collectors likely will benefit from 

including merchant brand information if 

possible. Providing merchant brand 

information will also benefit consumers 

by allowing them to more easily identify 

debts, determine whether they owe 

them, and avoid the confusion resulting 

from seeing a validation notice with an 

unfamiliar name (which potentially 

leads to the consumer ignoring the 

notice). 

The Bureau finds that affinity brand 

information and facility name 

information also may help consumers 

recognize debts they owe. Whereas a 

merchant brand can be generally 

understood as the labelling or branding 

of a commercial entity, such as a retail 

store, an affinity brand may reflect the 

labelling or branding of an entity that is 

not necessarily commercial but one with 

which the consumer has a relationship. 

For example, a higher education 

institution (e.g., ‘‘College of Columbia’’) 

or a charity may be associated with a 

consumer financial product (e.g., a 

credit card provided by ‘‘ABC Bank’’) as 

an affinity brand. See comment 

34(d)(3)(vii)–2. Moreover, facility name 

information (e.g., ‘‘ABC Hospital’’) may 

prove more recognizable to consumers 

with respect to a medical debt than the 

name of, for example, the physicians 

group or laboratory that is the actual 

creditor (particularly if the consumer 

has one appointment or procedure at 

one facility that results in multiple bills 

from multiple providers). See comment 

34(d)(3)(vii)–3. Thus, 

§ 1006.34(d)(3)(vii) also permits debt 

collectors to disclose an affinity brand 

or a facility name, if any, associated 

with a debt.366

For these reasons, the Bureau is 

finalizing § 1006.34(d)(3)(vii) to provide 

that, along with the validation 

information, debt collectors may 

disclose the merchant brand, affinity 

brand, or facility name, if any, 

associated with a debt. The Bureau also 

is adopting new comments 34(d)(3)(vii)– 

1 through –3 to provide examples of a 

merchant brand, an affinity brand, and 

a facility name, respectively. 

34(d)(3)(viii) 

The Bureau is finalizing 

§ 1006.34(d)(3)(viii) to provide that, 

although it is not required, a debt 

collector who is collecting debt not 

related to a consumer financial product 

or service may disclose certain 

additional information without losing 

the safe harbor provided by 

§ 1006.34(d)(2) (assuming the debt 

collector otherwise satisfies the 

conditions for the safe harbor). 

Specifically, § 1006.34(d)(3)(viii) 

provides that, if a debt collector is 

collecting debt other than debt related to 

a consumer financial product or service 

as defined in § 1006.2(f), the debt 

collector may disclose: (1) The name of 

the creditor to whom the debt was owed 

on the itemization date (i.e., the 

information specified in 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(iii)); or (2) a statement 

that informs the consumer that 

additional information regarding 

consumer protections in debt collection 

is available on the Bureau’s website at 

www.cfpb.gov/debt-collection (i.e., the 

information specified in 

§ 1006.34(c)(3)(iv)). The Bureau 

determines that receipt of this 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
5832 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

367See 84 FR 23274, 23351 (May 21, 2019); 85 FR 

76734, 76755 (Nov. 30, 2020). 

368 84 FR 23274, 23405 (May 21, 2019). 

369With respect to the comment about whether a 

fillable field includes a checkbox, the Bureau 

confirms that a fillable field may appear as an 

unmarked checkbox that a consumer can select. 

information may be helpful for 

consumers. 

34(d)(4) Validation Notices Delivered 

Electronically 

As discussed in the proposal and in 

the November 2020 Final Rule, 

promoting electronic communications 

may benefit consumers and debt 

collectors.367 As also discussed in the 

proposal, allowing debt collectors to 

make certain formatting modifications 

to validation notices delivered 

electronically may help consumers 

exercise their verification rights under 

FDCPA section 809 and may facilitate a 

debt collector’s ability to process and 

understand a consumer’s response to 

such an electronically delivered 

validation notice. Proposed 

§ 1006.34(d)(4) therefore provided 

several modifications, discussed in the 

section-by-section analysis of 

§ 1006.34(d)(4)(i) and (ii) below, that a 

debt collector could make, at its option, 

to the formatting of a validation notice 

delivered electronically. 

An industry trade group commenter 

expressed support for proposed 

§ 1006.34(d)(4)’s facilitation of 

validation notices delivered 

electronically. The Bureau received no 

other comments specifically addressing 

proposed § 1006.34(d). Accordingly, the 

Bureau is finalizing § 1006.34(d)(4) with 

only minor wording changes. 

The Bureau is finalizing 

§ 1006.34(d)(4) to implement and 

interpret FDCPA section 809(b) by 

establishing formatting requirements 

that facilitate the consumer’s right to 

dispute a debt and request originalcreditor information, and pursuant to its 

FDCPA section 814(d) authority to 

prescribe rules with respect to the 

collection of debts by debt collectors. 

The Bureau also is finalizing 

§ 1006.34(d)(4) pursuant to its authority 

under section 1032(a) of the Dodd-Frank 

Act to prescribe rules to ensure that the 

features of consumer financial products 

and services are disclosed fully, 

accurately, and effectively. 

34(d)(4)(i) Prompts 

Proposed § 1006.34(d)(4)(i) provided 

that a debt collector delivering a 

validation notice electronically 

pursuant to § 1006.42 could display any 

prompt required by § 1006.34(c)(4)(i) or 

(ii) or (d)(3)(iii)(B) or (vi)(B) as a fillable 

field.368

One industry trade group commenter 

supported proposed § 1006.34(d)(4)(i). 

According to the commenter, if a 

validation notice is delivered by email, 

a debt collector should be permitted to 

format the prompts in the consumerresponse information section so that the 

debt collector receives an email if a 

consumer selects them. Another 

industry trade group commenter asked 

the Bureau to clarify whether a fillable 

field includes a checkbox. 

A consumer advocate commenter 

raised concerns about permitting a debt 

collector to format the payment prompt 

described in § 1006.34(d)(3)(iii)(B) as a 

fillable field. According to the 

commenter, scammers could 

impersonate legitimate debt collectors 

and attempt to convince consumers to 

make payments on fraudulent debts 

using the payment prompts. The 

commenter urged the Bureau to evaluate 

the security risks associated with 

fillable payment prompts and consider 

other approaches. 

The Bureau determines that allowing 

a debt collector to design a validation 

notice delivered electronically to 

include fillable prompts will benefit 

consumers and industry by making it 

easier for consumers to exercise their 

verification rights, make a payment, or 

request a Spanish-language translation 

of the notice. The Bureau does not find 

that permitting a debt collector to format 

the payment prompt described in 

§ 1006.34(d)(3)(iii)(B) as a fillable field 

entails substantial security risks. The 

Bureau acknowledges that, in general, 

electronic communications present 

certain security risks to consumers. 

However, the Bureau finds that these 

general risks do not justify preventing 

debt collectors from including in 

electronic communications common 

design modifications, such as prompts, 

that are convenient to consumers. Thus, 

the Bureau declines to limit the ability 

of legitimate debt collectors to include 

on validation notices a common design 

modification that will benefit 

consumers.369

Accordingly, the Bureau is finalizing 

§ 1006.34(d)(4)(i) largely as proposed, 

with only minor wording changes for 

consistency with other provisions in the 

final rule. 

34(d)(4)(ii) Hyperlinks 

Proposed § 1006.34(d)(4)(ii) provided 

that a debt collector delivering a 

validation notice electronically could 

embed hyperlinks in the validation 

notice that, when clicked, would 

connect consumers to the debt 

collector’s website or permit consumers 

to dispute a debt or request originalcreditor information. 

Industry trade group commenters 

supported proposed § 1006.34(d)(4)(ii). 

For example, a commenter stated that 

hyperlinks are an important feature 

used to reduce the complexity of email 

and text messages while allowing 

readers to access important information. 

A consumer advocate commenter 

recommended that the Bureau also 

permit debt collectors to embed a 

hyperlink that connects consumers to 

the Bureau’s website address described 

in § 1006.34(c)(3)(iv). 

The Bureau determines that 

hyperlinks are a formatting modification 

that may benefit consumers and debt 

collectors if included in validation 

notices that are delivered electronically. 

And the Bureau agrees that debt 

collectors should be permitted to 

include a hyperlink that connects 

consumers to the Bureau’s website 

address described in § 1006.34(c)(3)(iv). 

Accordingly, the Bureau is finalizing 

§ 1006.34(d)(4)(ii) to provide that debt 

collectors may embed hyperlinks that, 

when clicked, connect consumers to the 

debt collector’s website, connect 

consumers to the Bureau’s debt 

collection website as disclosed pursuant 

to § 1006.34(c)(3)(iv), or permit 

consumers to dispute the debt or request 

original-creditor information. 

34(e) Translation Into Other Languages 

The Bureau proposed § 1006.34(e) to 

provide that a debt collector could send 

a consumer a validation notice 

completely and accurately translated 

into any language if the debt collector 

also sent an English-language validation 

notice that satisfied § 1006.34(a)(1). 

Proposed § 1006.34(e) also provided 

that, if a debt collector already provided 

a consumer an English-language 

validation notice that satisfied 

§ 1006.34(a)(1) and subsequently 

provided the consumer a validation 

notice translated into any other 

language, the debt collector would not 

need to provide an additional copy of 

the English-language notice. Proposed 

comment 34(e)–1 clarified that the 

language of a validation notice obtained 

from the Bureau’s website would be 

considered a complete and accurate 

translation, although debt collectors 

would be permitted to use other 

validation notice translations if they 

were accurate and complete. 

Industry and industry trade group 

commenters supported proposed 

§ 1006.34(e) and its optional approach 

to providing validation notices 

translated into other languages. An 

industry trade group commenter stated 

that this approach was appropriate 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 5833 

370The commenter cited, for example, Evory v. 

RJM Acquisitions Funding LLC, 505 F.3d 769, 774 

(7th Cir. 2007). However, the Bureau disagrees with 

the commenter’s premise that this opinion and the 

others it cited imply a general requirement under 

the FDCPA to provide translated notices to all 

Spanish-speaking LEP consumers. The Bureau 

believes, instead, that those holdings were 

dependent on the facts of those cases. For example, 

Evory discussed in dicta a hypothetical in which a 

debt collector targeted vulnerable Spanish-speaking 

LEP consumers with English-language validation 

notices, 505 F.3d at 774, but that particular scenario 

involved targeting, which is beyond the scope of 

§ 1006.34(e). 

371See also the section-by-section analysis of 

§ 1006.34(d)(3)(vi). 

372See 84 FR 23274, 23352 (May 21, 2019). 

because some debt collectors may not 

have the resources to conduct 

collections activities in languages other 

than English. Other industry trade group 

commenters stated that requiring debt 

collectors to provide validation notices 

in other languages would be 

burdensome and costly. An industry 

trade group commenter stated that, if a 

debt collector provided a validation 

notice in another language, a consumer 

would expect the debt collector to 

communicate in that language. 

According to this commenter, if the debt 

collector was unable to do so, this 

unfulfilled expectation would frustrate 

consumers and expose debt collectors to 

litigation risk. 

Other commenters, including 

consumer advocates, legal aid providers, 

and faith groups, recommended that 

debt collectors be required to provide 

non-English validation notices to LEP 

consumers. According to these 

commenters, LEP consumers tend to 

experience poverty at much greater 

rates, face significant challenges 

navigating the debt collection process, 

and are often subject to harassment and 

deception. Commenters stated that 

English-language validation notices 

would not enable LEP consumers to 

understand their rights in debt 

collection or to take appropriate action 

if they did not believe that they owed 

a debt. Commenters cited demographic 

statistics showing the growing 

population of LEP consumers, 

particularly in certain localities. A 

consumer advocate commenter stated 

that case law suggests that a debt 

collector’s failure to provide a nonEnglish validation notice to an LEP 

consumer may violate the FDCPA.370

To address these concerns, these 

commenters suggested various 

mandatory frameworks that would 

require debt collectors to provide 

translated validation notices to 

consumers. These suggested alternative 

frameworks included requiring debt 

collectors to provide a translated 

validation notice: (1) In Spanish and 

located on the back of every Englishlanguage validation notice; (2) with 

every English-language validation notice 

if the debt collector knows or should 

know the consumer has another 

language preference; (3) if the original 

transaction or the debt collector’s prior 

communication was conducted in a 

foreign language; (4) upon a consumer’s 

request; (5) if the debt collector received 

information in the file from the creditor 

or a prior debt collector indicating the 

consumer’s non-English language 

preference; or (6) if and when the debt 

collector at a later point communicates 

with the consumer in a foreign 

language. In some cases, commenters 

framed these interventions as narrow or 

measured. A group of consumer 

advocates also urged the Bureau to make 

available on its website Spanishtranslated validation notices as well as 

translations in the next seven most 

common languages spoken by LEP 

consumers in the United States. 

The Bureau determines that LEP 

consumers may benefit from translated 

validation notices. Further, some debt 

collectors may want to provide 

translated validation notices to LEP 

consumers, if doing so is consistent 

with their business practices. 

The Bureau, however, declines 

commenters’ requests to require debt 

collectors to provide a Spanish-language 

translation to all consumers on the back 

of every English-language validation 

notice or a translated notice to 

consumers in other languages if the debt 

collector knows or should know the 

consumer has a different language 

preference. As discussed in the 

proposal,371 these types of mandatory 

approaches would result in significant, 

industry-wide costs on both an upfront 

(implementation) basis and an ongoing 

basis, especially for smaller debt 

collectors and in connection with 

translations of the validation notice in 

languages whose use is not prevalent in 

the United States.372 The Bureau 

acknowledges that some LEP consumers 

may experience particular challenges in 

the debt collection process. However, 

commenters did not provide 

information about the costs and benefits 

of requiring debt collectors to provide 

translated validation notices to all 

consumers, regardless of whether the 

consumer requests the translation, that 

persuades the Bureau that such 

mandatory requirements are justified. 

The Bureau, as stated above, recognizes 

the benefits of providing translated 

disclosures to consumers. However, the 

Bureau concludes that the approach in 

the proposal, supplemented by certain 

changes in the final rule, strikes a better 

balance than a mandatory requirement. 

The final rule permits debt collectors to 

provide disclosures carrying safe harbor 

protection that notify and encourage 

consumers to request a Spanishlanguage translation of the validation 

notice or additional information in 

Spanish, which can assist the largest 

group of LEP consumers in the United 

States by a wide margin compared to 

other languages. At the same time, the 

final rule does not require debt 

collectors to provide all consumers with 

translated validation notices, whether in 

Spanish or other languages, and 

irrespective of whether the consumers 

request it or speak a language that is 

uncommon among LEP consumers in 

the United States. 

Regarding the request by a group of 

consumer advocate commenters that the 

Bureau translate the validation notice 

into Spanish and seven other languages 

and deem the Bureau translations as 

complete and accurate, the Bureau plans 

to make available on its website, prior 

to the effective date of the final rule, a 

Spanish-language translation of the 

validation notice, and it will consider 

taking such action in the future with 

respect to one or more of the other 

languages cited by these commenters 

following implementation of the final 

rule. 

The Bureau also declines to 

implement the other mandatory 

approaches suggested by consumer 

advocate, faith group, and legal aid 

provider commenters. As discussed 

above, these commenters suggested a 

variety of interventions, such as 

requiring the debt collector provide the 

translated notice in circumstances in 

which the consumer had expressed a 

language preference to a prior debt 

collector or the creditor and that 

preference is noted in the file for the 

debt, or in which, at a later point in the 

process, the consumer communicates in 

a foreign language. 

The Bureau disagrees with some 

commenters’ characterization of these 

interventions as targeted or narrow in 

scope, as each suggestion would entail 

a mandatory requirement with 

associated upfront and ongoing costs 

and complexity (which would be 

compounded if more than one or even 

all of these interventions were adopted 

collectively). In some cases, these 

suggested interventions are beyond the 

scope of the proposal. As to others, the 

Bureau concludes that the costs of such 

interventions to debt collectors, 

particularly smaller entities, would not 

outweigh the benefits to consumers 

because they would add undue 

complexity to the rule from an 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
5834 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

373 85 FR 76734, 74843–48, 76893 (Nov. 30, 

2020). 

374 84 FR 23274, 23353 (May 21, 2019). 375The Bureau addressed comments received on 

other aspects of proposed comment 38–2 in the 

November 2020 Final Rule. 85 FR 76734, 76843–44 

(Nov. 30, 2020). 

376 84 FR 23274, 23353 (May 21, 2019). 

377 85 FR 76734, 76844, 76893 (Nov. 30, 2020). 

378The Bureau addresses comments received 

regarding the definition of validation period in the 

section-by-section analysis of § 1006.34(b)(5). 

379This language was added to the FDCPA by the 

Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2006, 

Public Law 109–351, sec. 802(c), 120 Stat. 1966, 

2006 (2006), after an FTC advisory opinion on the 

same subject. See Fed. Trade Comm’n, Advisory 

Opinion to American Collector’s Ass’n (Mar. 31, 

2000) (opining that the 30-day period set forth in 

FDCPA section 809(a) ‘‘is a dispute period within 

which the consumer may insist that the debt 

collector verify the debt, and not a grace period 

within which collection efforts are prohibited’’ but 

that ‘‘[t]he collection agency must ensure, however, 

that its collection activity does not overshadow and 

is not inconsistent with the disclosure of the 

operational, compliance, and 

supervisory perspective. 

For these reasons, the Bureau declines 

to adopt a final rule that requires debt 

collectors to provide translated 

validation notices. Nevertheless, 

because the Bureau determines that, as 

discussed in the proposal, LEP 

consumers may benefit from receiving 

translated validation notices, the Bureau 

is finalizing § 1006.34(e) to clarify how 

debt collectors may provide such 

notices if they choose. The Bureau is 

finalizing proposed § 1006.34(e) as 

§ 1006.34(e)(1), with certain revisions 

and organizational changes for clarity; 

no substantive change is intended. 

Furthermore, as discussed in the 

section-by-section analysis of 

§ 1006.34(d)(3)(vi), the Bureau is 

finalizing new § 1006.34(e)(2) to provide 

that, if a debt collector includes in the 

validation information either or both of 

the optional disclosures notifying a 

consumer that the consumer can request 

a copy of the validation notice in 

Spanish, the debt collector must provide 

the consumer a Spanish-language 

validation notice if the consumer 

requests one. The Bureau intended this 

result in the proposal and is including 

§ 1006.34(e)(2) for clarity and in 

response to feedback. Finally, the 

Bureau is finalizing comment 34(e)–1 

with revisions to conform to the 

revisions and organizational changes 

made to § 1006.34(e); no substantive 

change is intended. 

Section 1006.38 Disputes and Requests 

for Original-Creditor Information 

FDCPA section 809(b) requires debt 

collectors both to refrain from taking 

certain actions during the 30 days after 

the consumer receives the validation 

information or notice described in 

FDCPA section 809(a) (i.e., during the 

validation period) and to take certain 

actions if a consumer either disputes the 

debt in writing, or requests the name 

and address of the original creditor in 

writing, during the validation period. 

The Bureau proposed § 1006.38 to 

implement and interpret FDCPA section 

809(b) and (c), and the Bureau finalized 

the majority of proposed § 1006.38 in 

the November 2020 Final Rule.373 The 

Bureau now is finalizing the remainder 

of proposed § 1006.38 as follows. 

Comment 38–1 

The Bureau proposed comment 38–2 

(renumbered in the November 2020 

Final Rule as comment 38–1) to set forth 

examples of written and electronic 

communications consumers can use in 

disputing the debt or requesting the 

name and address of the original 

creditor.374 The second proposed 

example, proposed comment 38–2.ii, 

would have clarified that a consumer 

could return to the debt collector the 

consumer-response form that proposed 

§ 1006.34(c)(4)(i) would have required 

to appear on the validation notice and 

indicate on the form a dispute or 

request. The Bureau received no 

comments on proposed comment 38– 

2.ii.375 The Bureau did not finalize 

proposed comment 38–2.ii in the 

November 2020 Final Rule because the 

Bureau did not finalize § 1006.34 as part 

of that final rule. The Bureau now is 

finalizing comment 38–2.ii as proposed, 

renumbered as comment 38–1.ii, except 

that the Bureau is correcting a 

typographical error in the proposed 

comment such that the final comment 

cross references § 1006.34(c)(4) rather 

than § 1006.34(c)(4)(i). 

Comment 38–3 

The Bureau proposed comment 38–1 

(renumbered in this final rule as 

comment 38–3) to clarify the 

applicability of § 1006.38 in the 

decedent debt context. Proposed 

comment 38–1 would have clarified 

that, if the consumer has not previously 

disputed the debt or requested the name 

and address of the original creditor, 

then a person who is authorized to act 

on behalf of the deceased consumer’s 

estate operates as the consumer for 

purposes of § 1006.38. Proposed 

comment 38–1 also would have clarified 

that, if a person who is authorized to act 

on behalf of the deceased consumer’s 

estate submits either a written request 

for original-creditor information or a 

written dispute to the debt collector 

during the validation period, then 

§ 1006.38(c) or (d)(2), respectively, 

would require the debt collector to cease 

collection of the debt until the debt 

collector has responded to that request 

or dispute. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

section-by-section analysis of 

§ 1006.2(e), the Bureau is interpreting 

the term consumer to mean any natural 

person, whether living or deceased, who 

is obligated or allegedly obligated to pay 

any debt. And, pursuant to its authority 

under FDCPA section 814(d) to 

prescribe rules with respect to the 

collection of debts by debt collectors, 

the Bureau is adopting commentary 

clarifying how this definition operates 

in the decedent debt context, including 

debt collectors’ obligations for providing 

the validation information and 

responding to disputes and requests for 

original-creditor information. 

Accordingly, the Bureau is finalizing 

comment 38–1 as proposed, renumbered 

as comment 38–3 in this final rule. 

38(a) Definitions 

38(a)(2) Validation Period 

The Bureau proposed in 

§ 1006.38(a)(2) to provide that the term 

validation period as used in § 1006.38 

has the same meaning given to it in 

proposed § 1006.34(b)(5).376 Because the 

Bureau did not finalize § 1006.34 in the 

November 2020 Final Rule, the Bureau 

finalized the definition in 

§ 1006.38(a)(2) with revised wording to 

refer to the 30-day period described in 

FDCPA section 809 as defined by 

Regulation F.377 The Bureau noted that 

it might, as part of this final rule, revise 

the definition of validation period as 

finalized in the November 2020 Final 

Rule to cross-reference any definition of 

that term that the Bureau adopts in this 

final rule. As discussed in the sectionby-section analysis of § 1006.34(b)(5), 

the Bureau is finalizing the definition of 

validation period.378 Therefore, the 

Bureau is making a technical change 

revising § 1006.38(a)(2), as finalized in 

the November 2020 Final Rule, to 

provide that the term validation period 

as used in § 1006.38 has the same 

meaning given to it in § 1006.34(b)(5). 

38(b) Overshadowing of Rights To 

Dispute or Request Original-Creditor 

Information 

FDCPA section 809(b) provides that, 

for 30 days after the consumer receives 

the validation information described in 

FDCPA section 809(a), a debt collector 

must not engage in collection activities 

or communications that overshadow or 

are inconsistent with the disclosure of 

the consumer’s right to dispute the debt 

or request information about the original 

creditor.379 The Bureau proposed in 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 5835 

consumer’s right to dispute the debt specified by 

[s]ection 809(a)’’). 

380 84 FR 23274, 23353–54 (May 21, 2019). 

381 85 FR 76734, 76844 (Nov. 30, 2020). 

382 In addition, one industry commenter stated 

that it generally agreed with proposed § 1006.38, 

and a group of consumer advocates that addressed 

proposed § 1006.38(b) did not object to the 

proposal. 

383 85 FR 76734, 76844, 76893 (Nov. 30, 2020). 

384 Id. 

385Accordingly, the heading for final 

§ 1006.38(b)(2) refers to the safe harbor, and the 

Bureau is revising: (1) The heading for 

§ 1006.38(b)(1) as finalized in the November 2020 

Final Rule to clarify that that paragraph relates to 

the overshadowing prohibition; and (2) 

§ 1006.38(b)(1) to omit a reference to the fact that 

the Bureau may provide in this part a safe harbor 

for debt collectors when they use certain Bureauapproved disclosures because the Bureau is 

providing that safe harbor in this final rule. 

386 85 FR 76734, 76844–45 (Nov. 30, 2020). 

387 ‘‘Original creditor means the financial 

institution that owned the consumer credit account 

at the time the account was charged off, even if that 

financial institution did not originate the account. 

Charged-off consumer debt means a consumer debt 

that has been removed from an original creditor’s 

books as an asset and treated as a loss or expense.’’ 

22 NYCRR 208.14–a(a)(2). 

§ 1006.38(b) to implement this 

prohibition and generally restate the 

relevant statutory language, with only 

minor changes for style and clarity.380

As the Bureau discussed in the 

November 2020 Final Rule,381 the 

Bureau received a few substantive 

comments addressing proposed 

§ 1006.38(b). Two industry commenters 

requested that the final rule define the 

term ‘‘overshadowing.’’ These 

commenters observed that debt 

collectors’ communications of 

validation information almost always 

expressly advise the consumer of the 

right to dispute the debt and to request 

the name and address of the original 

creditor. These commenters asserted 

that overshadowing claims are 

nonetheless some of the most common 

allegations in FDCPA lawsuits. These 

commenters also requested clarity as to 

whether the safe harbor in proposed 

§ 1006.34(d)(2) for debt collectors who 

use the model validation notice also 

would provide a safe harbor for 

compliance with the overshadowing 

prohibition in proposed § 1006.38(b). 

One industry commenter requested that 

the final rule clarify that credit reporting 

during the validation period does not 

constitute overshadowing.382

In the November 2020 Final Rule, the 

Bureau finalized proposed § 1006.38(b) 

as § 1006.38(b)(1) and reserved 

§ 1006.38(b)(2).383 As noted above, 

proposed § 1006.38(b) generally restated 

the relevant statutory language, with 

only minor changes for style and clarity, 

and § 1006.38(b)(1) in the November 

2020 Final Rule did the same. In the 

November 2020 Final Rule, the Bureau 

stated that it expected to address, as part 

of this final rule, the comments it 

received requesting further clarity about 

the safe harbor provided by 

§ 1006.34(d)(2), and the Bureau reserved 

§ 1006.38(b)(2) for that purpose.384

After considering the comments, the 

Bureau is finalizing in § 1006.38(b)(2) a 

safe harbor from the prohibition in 

§ 1006.38(b)(1) against 

overshadowing.385 Section 1006.38(b)(2) 

provides that a debt collector who uses 

Model Form B–1 in appendix B of this 

part in a manner described in 

§ 1006.34(d)(2) has not thereby violated 

§ 1006.38(b)(1). Therefore, a debt 

collector who uses Model Form B–1 in 

appendix B to Regulation F, specified 

variations of the model notice, or a 

substantially similar form, has not 

thereby violated § 1006.38(b)(1). The 

safe harbor protects only the use of the 

model validation notice to comply with 

the information and form requirements 

of § 1006.34(c) and (d)(1). If a debt 

collector uses the model validation 

notice as described in § 1006.34(d)(2) 

and conducts other collection activities 

during the validation period, the debt 

collector does not receive a safe harbor 

for those other collection activities. A 

debt collector also does not receive a 

safe harbor for the manner in which a 

model validation notice is provided, 

such as the envelope in which a model 

validation notice is provided. 

The Bureau declines to otherwise 

define the term ‘‘overshadow’’ or to 

clarify whether other collection 

activities during the validation period 

either violate or comply with the 

prohibition in final § 1006.38(b)(1). The 

Bureau finds that the safe harbor in 

§ 1006.38(b)(2) provides sufficient 

clarity for debt collectors. 

38(c) Requests for Original-Creditor 

Information 

FDCPA section 809(a)(5) states that 

the validation information a debt 

collector provides to a consumer must 

include a statement that, upon the 

consumer’s written request within the 

30-day validation period, the debt 

collector will provide the consumer 

with the name and address of the 

original creditor, if different from the 

current creditor. FDCPA section 809(b) 

provides that, if a consumer requests the 

name and address of the original 

creditor in writing within 30 days of 

receiving the validation information 

described in FDCPA section 809(a), the 

debt collector must cease collection of 

the debt until the debt collector obtains 

and mails that information to the 

consumer. The Bureau proposed in 

§ 1006.38(c) to implement this 

prohibition and generally restate the 

relevant statutory language. 

As the Bureau discussed in the 

November 2020 Final Rule, the Bureau 

received a number of comments 

addressing proposed § 1006.38(c).386

Three industry commenters requested 

that the final rule provide that, if a debt 

collector’s communication of the 

validation information to a consumer 

identifies the original creditor, the debt 

collector need not give the consumer the 

option of requesting original-creditor 

information from the debt collector. 

These commenters stated that, if the 

original creditor has already been 

identified to a consumer, it would be 

confusing to the consumer to provide 

the option to request the name and 

address of the original creditor. Further, 

they stated, consumers could use 

unnecessary requests for originalcreditor information as a tactic to delay 

or avoid collection. One industry 

commenter requested that the final rule 

clarify that a debt collector is not 

required to include original-creditor 

information in its communication of 

validation information to a consumer. 

This commenter stated that lawsuits are 

often filed alleging that a debt collector 

has violated the FDCPA by not 

identifying the original creditor in the 

validation information. 

Several commenters recommended 

that the Bureau define ‘‘original 

creditor’’ to mean the creditor at the 

time of charge off. According to an 

industry trade group, this definition 

would be consistent with other laws, 

including the Uniform Rules for New 

York State Trial Courts.387 Other 

industry and industry trade group 

commenters stated that this definition 

would be appropriate for older debts 

because a consumer may no longer 

recognize the original creditor, 

particularly if an account has been sold. 

An industry trade group suggested that 

defining ‘‘original creditor’’ as the 

creditor at the time of charge off may 

resolve some compliance challenges in 

the retail installment sales context. 

According to the commenter, in retail 

installment sales, the original creditor is 

the retail seller, not the entity that 

ultimately buys the contract, and retailseller information may not be readily 

available to the debt collector or helpful 

to the consumer. 

A group of consumer advocate 

commenters who addressed proposed 

§ 1006.38(c) generally noted the 

importance of original-creditor 

information to consumers in helping 

them recognize the debt in question. 

One commenter stated that the rule 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
5836 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

388Consumer advocates also addressed the 

proposal’s provisions regarding electronic delivery 

of original-creditor information (and other 

information) in proposed § 1006.42. These 

comments regarding electronic delivery were 

addressed in the November 2020 Final Rule. Id. at 

76848. 

389 Id. at 76893. 390While this final rule republishes in 

§ 1006.38(c) some of the text of § 1006.38(c)(1) as 

finalized in the November 2020 Final Rule, this 

final rule makes no change to the substance of 

§ 1006.38(c)(1) from what the Bureau finalized in 

the November 2020 Final Rule. 391 85 FR 76734, 76845 n.557 (Nov. 30, 2020). 392 15 U.S.C. 1692g(a)(5). 393 15 U.S.C. 1692g(b) (emphasis added). 

should require debt collectors to 

identify the original creditor in the 

validation information.388

In the November 2020 Final Rule, the 

Bureau finalized proposed § 1006.38(c) 

as § 1006.38(c)(1) and reserved 

§ 1006.38(c)(2).389 As noted above, 

proposed § 1006.38(c) generally restated 

the relevant statutory language, and 

§ 1006.38(c)(1) in the November 2020 

Final Rule did the same.390 In the 

November 2020 Final Rule, the Bureau 

stated that it expected to address, as part 

of this final rule, how a debt collector 

may respond to a request for originalcreditor information if the original 

creditor is the same as the current 

creditor, and the Bureau reserved 

§ 1006.38(c)(2) for that purpose.391 The 

Bureau also noted that it would respond 

in this final rule to the comments asking 

the Bureau to define the term original 

creditor. 

The Bureau has determined that a 

debt collector’s communication of the 

validation information must include 

disclosure of the option to request 

original-creditor information. As noted 

above, FDCPA section 809(a)(5) states 

that the validation information must 

include ‘‘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.’’ 392

Because FDCPA section 809(a) requires 

the validation information to include 

disclosure of the consumer’s right to 

request original-creditor information, 

the Bureau finds that consumer 

confusion would result if the final rule 

were to permit a debt collector not to 

respond to a consumer’s timely request 

for that information if the original 

creditor is the same as the current 

creditor. Further, FDCPA section 809(b) 

states that ‘‘[a]ny 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.’’ 393 The Bureau 

therefore has determined to require a 

debt collector to respond to a 

consumer’s request for original-creditor 

information if the original creditor is the 

same as the current creditor. 

However, the Bureau also has 

determined that FDCPA section 

809(a)(5) and (b) permits a debt collector 

to respond differently to the consumer’s 

request for original-creditor information 

when the original creditor is the same 

as the current creditor. Specifically, the 

Bureau has determined that FDCPA 

section 809(b), when read together with 

FDCPA section 809(a)(5), requires the 

debt collector to provide the name and 

address of the original creditor to the 

consumer only if the original creditor is 

different from the current creditor. 

Accordingly, the Bureau is finalizing 

new § 1006.38(c)(2) to set forth an 

alternative procedure that a debt 

collector may use to respond to a 

consumer’s request for original-creditor 

information if the original creditor is the 

same as the current creditor. 

Specifically, if a debt collector receives 

a request for the name and address of 

the original creditor submitted by the 

consumer in writing within the 

validation period, the special rule set 

forth in § 1006.38(c)(2) provides that the 

debt collector must cease collection of 

the debt until the debt collector 

reasonably determines that the original 

creditor is the same as the current 

creditor and either (i) notifies the 

consumer in writing or electronically in 

the manner required by § 1006.42 that 

the original creditor is the same as the 

current creditor and refers the consumer 

to the debt collector’s earlier provision 

of the validation information or (ii) 

satisfies § 1006.38(c)(1). 

Under the final rule, a debt collector 

is not required to use the alternative 

procedure in § 1006.38(c)(2); a debt 

collector can always comply with the 

rule by complying with § 1006.38(c)(1). 

By adopting the § 1006.38(c)(2) 

alternative procedure, the Bureau strikes 

the best balance between providing debt 

collectors with a less burdensome 

method of responding to consumer 

requests for original-creditor 

information and protecting consumers. 

The Bureau adopts the alternative 

procedure in § 1006.38(c)(2) as an 

interpretation of FDCPA section 

809(a)(5) and (b), and pursuant to its 

authority under FDCPA section 814(d). 

In particular, § 1006.38(c)(2) is an 

interpretation of what it means for a 

debt collector, pursuant to FDCPA 

section 809(b), to ‘‘obtain[ ] . . . the 

name and address of the original 

creditor’’ and send that information to 

the consumer when, pursuant to FDCPA 

section 809(a)(5), the debt collector 

already provided the name of the 

current creditor to the consumer within 

the validation information (as required 

by FDCPA section 809(a)(2) and 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(v)) and the original 

creditor is not different from the current 

creditor. If the original creditor is the 

same as the current creditor, the Bureau 

interprets FDCPA section 809(b)’s 

requirement to provide original-creditor 

information to the consumer to mean 

that a debt collector must cease 

collection of the debt until the debt 

collector either provides the name and 

address of the original creditor to the 

consumer in compliance with 

§ 1006.38(c)(1) or, in compliance with 

§ 1006.38(c)(2), notifies the consumer in 

writing or electronically in the manner 

required by § 1006.42 that the original 

creditor is the same as the current 

creditor and refers the consumer to the 

debt collector’s earlier provision of the 

validation information. 

The Bureau declines to require all 

debt collectors to include the name of 

the original creditor in the validation 

information because the Bureau believes 

such a requirement is not necessary or 

warranted. The statute prescribes a 

method for a consumer to obtain this 

information upon request. Further, the 

Bureau interprets FDCPA section 

809(a)(2) as requiring debt collectors to 

disclose in the validation information 

the name of the current creditor; i.e., 

‘‘the name of the creditor to whom the 

debt is owed.’’ 

The Bureau declines to define 

‘‘original creditor’’ in the manner 

commenters suggested. Although the 

definition suggested by commenters 

might be accurate for some debts, it is 

not clear to the Bureau that the 

suggested definition would be accurate 

for all debts. The Bureau did not 

propose such a definition and the 

Bureau does not have sufficient 

information to develop and include a 

definition of ‘‘original creditor’’ in the 

rule. 

Taking into consideration the 

provisions of FDCPA section 809(a) and 

(b), the final rule provides debt 

collectors an alternative response 

procedure, described above, when the 

original creditor—which in many cases 

will be the creditor as of the itemization 

date—is the same as the current 

creditor. The alternative procedure 

permits debt collectors to respond to 

some consumer requests for originalcreditor information in a less 

burdensome way, while also protecting 

consumers. Therefore, the Bureau 

believes that defining original creditor 

in the final rule is unnecessary and 

unwarranted. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 5837 

394 84 FR 23274, 23357–59 (May 21, 2019). 

395 85 FR 76734, 76893 (Nov. 30, 2020). 

396 Id. at 76850–51. 

397 84 FR 23274, 23356–57 (May 21, 2019). 

398 85 FR 76734, 76893 (Nov. 30, 2020). 

399 Id. at 76850–51. 

400 84 FR 23274, 23367 (May 21, 2019). 401 85 FR 76734, 76907 (Nov. 30, 2020). 402 Id. at 76858 n.600. 403 15 U.S.C. 1692n. 404 85 FR 76734 at 76860 (Nov. 30, 2020). 

405 84 FR 23274, 23368 (May 21, 2019). 

406 85 FR 76734, 76860 (Nov. 30, 2020). 

407 Id. 

Section 1006.42 Sending Required 

Disclosures 

42(a) Sending Required Disclosures 

42(a)(2) Exceptions 

The Bureau proposed in 

§ 1006.42(a)(2) to provide that a debt 

collector need not comply with 

§ 1006.42(a)(1) when providing the 

disclosure required by § 1006.6(e) or 

§ 1006.18(e) in writing or electronically, 

unless the disclosure was included on a 

notice required by § 1006.34(a)(1)(i) or 

§ 1006.38(c) or (d)(2).394 Because the 

Bureau did not finalize § 1006.34 in the 

November 2020 Final Rule, the Bureau 

finalized § 1006.42(a)(2) with a 

reference to the notice required by 

FDCPA section 809(a), as implemented 

by Regulation F, in lieu of a reference 

to the notice required by 

§ 1006.34(a)(1)(i).395 Because the Bureau 

is now finalizing § 1006.34, the Bureau 

is making a technical change revising 

§ 1006.42(a)(2) to refer to the notice 

required by § 1006.34(a)(1)(i), as 

originally proposed. The Bureau 

addressed comments received regarding 

proposed § 1006.42(a)(2) in the sectionby-section analysis of § 1006.42(a)(2) in 

the November 2020 Final Rule.396

42(b) Requirements for Certain 

Disclosures Sent Electronically 

Proposed § 1006.42(b)(1) generally 

would have required a debt collector 

who provided the validation notice 

described in § 1006.34(a)(1)(i)(B) 

electronically to do so in accordance 

with section 101(c) of the E–SIGN 

Act.397 Because the Bureau did not 

finalize § 1006.34 in the November 2020 

Final Rule, the Bureau finalized 

§ 1006.42(b) with a reference to the 

notice required by FDCPA section 

809(a), as implemented by Regulation F, 

in lieu of a reference to the validation 

notice described in 

§ 1006.34(a)(1)(i)(B).398 Because the 

Bureau is now finalizing § 1006.34, the 

Bureau is making a technical change 

revising § 1006.42(b) to refer to the 

validation notice required by 

§ 1006.34(a)(1)(i)(B), as originally 

proposed. The Bureau addressed 

comments received regarding proposed 

§ 1006.42(b)(1) in the section-by-section 

analysis of § 1006.42(b) in the November 

2020 Final Rule.399

Subpart C—Reserved 

Subpart D—Miscellaneous 

Section 1006.100 Record Retention 

100(a) In General 

Section 1006.100(a), as finalized in 

the November 2020 Final Rule, requires 

a debt collector to retain records that are 

evidence of compliance or noncompliance with the FDCPA and 

Regulation F. The Bureau proposed 

comment 100–1 to clarify that, for 

purposes of § 1006.100(a), evidence of 

compliance includes, among other 

things, copies of documents provided by 

the debt collector to the consumer in 

accordance with the requirements of 

proposed § 1006.34.400 Because the 

Bureau did not finalize § 1006.34 in the 

November 2020 Final Rule, the Bureau 

finalized comment 100(a)–1 to include, 

as an example of evidence of 

compliance, copies of documents 

provided by the debt collector to the 

consumer in accordance with FDCPA 

section 809(a), as implemented by 

Bureau regulation.401 Because the 

Bureau now is finalizing § 1006.34, the 

Bureau is making a technical change 

revising comment 100(a)–1 to include, 

as an example of evidence of 

compliance, copies of documents 

provided by the debt collector to the 

consumer in accordance with § 1006.34, 

as originally proposed. The Bureau 

addressed comments received regarding 

proposed comment 100–1 in the 

section-by-section analysis of 

§ 1006.100(a) and comment 100(a)–1 in 

the November 2020 Final Rule.402

Section 1006.104 Relation to State 

Laws 

FDCPA section 816 provides that the 

FDCPA does not annul, alter, or affect, 

or exempt any person subject to the 

provisions of the FDCPA 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 the 

FDCPA, and then only to the extent of 

the inconsistency. FDCPA section 816 

also provides that, for purposes of that 

section, a State law is not inconsistent 

with the FDCPA if the protection such 

law affords any consumer is greater than 

the protection provided by the 

FDCPA.403 The November 2020 Final 

Rule finalized § 1006.104 to implement 

FDCPA section 816.404

Proposed comment 104–1 clarified 

that a disclosure required by applicable 

State law that describes additional 

protections under State law does not 

contradict the requirements of the 

FDCPA or the corresponding provisions 

of Regulation F.405 In the November 

2020 Final Rule, the Bureau indicated 

that it was not finalizing proposed 

comment 104–1 as part of that rule and 

would determine whether and how to 

finalize the comment as part of this final 

rule.406

As discussed in the November 2020 

Final Rule, some commenters asked the 

Bureau to clarify how proposed 

comment 104–1 would interact with 

State law disclosure requirements.407

According to these commenters, the 

proposed commentary did not track 

FDCPA section 816’s statutory language 

and therefore would be susceptible to 

competing interpretations. These 

commenters expressed concern that 

proposed comment 104–1 could be 

interpreted to mean that § 1006.104 

would preempt State law disclosure 

requirements that afford the same 

protections as the FDCPA and the 

corresponding provisions of Regulation 

F. These commenters opposed such an 

interpretation as inconsistent with 

FDCPA section 816. 

With proposed comment 104–1, the 

Bureau did not intend to communicate 

that § 1006.104 would preempt 

disclosures required by State law that 

describe State laws that afford the same 

protections as the FDCPA and the 

corresponding provisions of Regulation 

F. To mitigate the risk that the proposed 

commentary could be interpreted in this 

manner, the Bureau is modifying 

proposed comment 104–1 to more 

closely track FDCPA section 816’s 

statutory language. 

Accordingly, the Bureau is finalizing 

comment 104–1 to clarify that the 

FDCPA and the corresponding 

provisions of Regulation F do not annul, 

alter, or affect, or exempt any person 

subject to these requirements from 

complying with a disclosure 

requirement under applicable State law 

that describes additional protections 

under State law that are not inconsistent 

with the FDCPA and Regulation F. In 

addition, comment 104–1 clarifies that a 

disclosure required by State law is not 

inconsistent with the FDCPA or 

Regulation F if the disclosure describes 

a protection such law affords any 

consumer that is greater than the 

protection provided by the FDCPA or 

Regulation F. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
5838 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

408 85 FR 76734, 76863 (Nov. 30, 2020); see also 

84 FR 23274, 23276 (May 21, 2019). 

409Specifically, section 1022(b)(2)(A) of the 

Dodd-Frank Act (12 U.S.C. 5512(b)(2)(A)) requires 

the Bureau to consider the potential benefits and 

costs of the regulation to consumers and covered 

persons, including the potential reduction of access 

by consumers to consumer financial products and 

services; the impact of the rule on insured 

depository institutions and insured credit unions 

with less than $10 billion in total assets as 

described in section 1026 of the Dodd-Frank Act (12 

U.S.C. 5516); and the impact on consumers in rural 

areas. 

410Consumers do choose their lenders, and, in 

principle, consumer loan contracts could specify 

which debt collector would be used or what debt 

collection practices would be in the event a loan 

is not repaid. Some economists have identified 

potential market failures that prevent loan contracts 

from including such terms even when they could 

make both borrowers and lenders better off. For 

example, terms related to debt collection may not 

be salient to consumers at the time a loan is made. 

Alternatively, if such terms are salient, a contract 

that provides for more lenient collection practices 

may lead to adverse selection, attracting a 

disproportionate share of borrowers who know they 

are more likely to default. See Thomas A. Durkin 

et al., Consumer Credit and the American Economy 

521–25 (Oxford U. Press 2014) (discussing potential 

sources of market failure and potential problems 

with some of those arguments). See also Erik Durbin 

& Charles Romeo, The Economics of Debt 

Collection: With attention to the issue of salience 

of collections at the time credit is granted, Journal 

of Credit Risk (Sept. 4, 2020) (discussing how rules 

that limit debt collection affect consumer welfare 

when debt collection is not salient to consumers 

when they borrow). 

411See Thomas A. Durkin et al., Consumer Credit 

and the American Economy 521–25 (Oxford U. 

Press 2014) (discussing theory and evidence on how 

restrictions on creditor remedies affect the supply 

of credit). Empirical evidence on the impact of State 

laws restricting debt collection is discussed in 

section G below. The provisions in this final rule 

could also affect consumer demand for credit, to the 

extent that consumers contemplate collection 

practices when making borrowing decisions. 

However, there is evidence suggesting that 

consumer demand for credit is generally not 

responsive to differences in creditor remedies. See 

James Barth et al., Benefits and Costs of Legal 

Restrictions on Personal Loan Markets, Journal of 

Law & Economics, 29(2) (1986). 

411 See 15 U.S.C. 1692(e). 

412See id. 

VI. Effective Date 

As discussed in the November 2020 

Final Rule, the Bureau proposed an 

implementation period of one year after 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register.408 The Bureau 

received several comments on the 

proposed effective date. As noted in the 

November 2020 Final Rule, a few 

industry commenters supported the 

proposed effective date, stating that a 

one-year implementation period would 

provide debt collectors with enough 

time to comply with the rule. Two other 

industry commenters supported an 18- 

month and a 24-month implementation 

period, respectively, arguing that it 

would take longer than one year to 

update policies and procedures, train 

employees, and make programming 

changes necessary to come into 

compliance. A government commenter 

encouraged the Bureau to provide small 

entities more than one year to comply, 

if such entities were not exempted from 

the rule altogether. Several industry 

commenters asked the Bureau to clarify 

that a debt collector is permitted to 

comply with all or part of the final rule 

before the effective date. 

The Bureau considered those 

comments in finalizing the November 

2020 Final Rule and determined that 

that final rule would take effect one year 

after publication in the Federal 

Register. The Bureau determined that 

the revisions made to the proposal and 

discussed in that Final Rule would 

permit debt collectors to meet that 

effective date. The Bureau also 

recognized that all stakeholders might 

benefit if the November 2020 Final Rule 

and this final rule had the same 

effective date. 

As noted in part III, the November 

2020 Final Rule was published in the 

Federal Register on November 30, 2020 

and will take effect on November 30, 

2021. The Bureau concludes that all 

stakeholders will benefit if the 

November 2020 Final Rule and this final 

rule have the same effective date. The 

Bureau also determines that setting the 

effective date for this final rule as 

November 30, 2021, consistent with the 

effective date of the November 2020 

Final Rule, will provide debt collectors 

nearly one year, and therefore sufficient 

time, to come into compliance with this 

final rule. 

The Bureau notes that debt collectors 

may, but are not required to, comply 

with the final rule’s requirements and 

prohibitions before the effective date. 

Until that date, the FDCPA and other 

applicable law continue to govern the 

conduct of FDCPA debt collectors. 

Similarly, to the extent the final rule 

establishes a safe harbor from liability 

for certain conduct or a presumption 

that certain conduct complies with or 

violates the rule, those safe harbors and 

presumptions are not effective until the 

final rule’s effective date. 

VII. Dodd-Frank Act Section 1022(b) 

Analysis 

A. Overview 

In developing the final rule, the 

Bureau has considered the potential 

benefits, costs, and impacts as required 

by section 1022(b)(2)(A) of the DoddFrank Act.409

Debt collectors play a critical role in 

markets for consumer financial products 

and services. Credit markets function 

because lenders expect that borrowers 

will pay them back. In consumer credit 

markets, if borrowers fail to repay what 

they owe per the terms of their loan 

agreement, creditors often engage debt 

collectors to attempt to recover amounts 

owed, whether through the court system 

or through less formal demands for 

repayment. 

In general, third-party debt collection 

creates the potential for market failures. 

Consumers do not choose their debt 

collectors, and, as a result, debt 

collectors do not have the same 

incentives that creditors have to treat 

consumers fairly.410 Certain provisions 

of the FDCPA may help mitigate such 

market failures in debt collection, for 

example by prohibiting unfair, 

deceptive, or abusive debt collection 

practices by third-party debt collectors. 

Any restriction on debt collection 

may reduce repayment of debts, 

providing a benefit to some consumers 

who owe debts and an offsetting cost to 

creditors and debt collectors. A decrease 

in repayment will in turn lower the 

expected return to lending. This can 

lead lenders to increase interest rates 

and other borrowing costs and to restrict 

availability of credit, particularly to 

higher-risk borrowers.411 Because of 

this, policies that increase protections 

for consumers with debts in collection 

involve a tradeoff between the benefits 

of protections for those consumers and 

the possibility of increased costs of 

credit and reduced availability of credit 

for all consumers. Whether there is a net 

benefit from such protections depends 

on whether consumers value the 

protections enough to outweigh any 

associated increase in the cost of credit 

or reduction in availability of credit. 

The final rule will further the 

FDCPA’s goals of eliminating abusive 

debt collection practices and ensuring 

that debt collectors who refrain from 

such practices are not competitively 

disadvantaged.412 However, as 

discussed below, it is not clear based on 

the information available to the Bureau 

whether the net effect of the final rule 

will be to make it more costly or less 

costly for debt collectors to recover 

unpaid amounts, and therefore not clear 

whether the rule will tend to increase or 

decrease the supply of credit. The final 

rule will benefit both consumers and 

debt collectors by increasing clarity and 

certainty about what the FDCPA 

prohibits and requires. When a law is 

unclear, it is more likely that parties 

will disagree about what the law 

requires, that legal disputes will arise, 

and that litigation will be required to 

resolve disputes. Since 2010, consumers 

have filed approximately 8,000 to 

12,000 lawsuits under the FDCPA each 

year, some of which involve issues on 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 5839 

413See WebRecon LLC, WebRecon Stats for Dec 

2019 & Year in Review, https://webrecon.com/ 

webrecon-stats-for-dec-2019-and-year-in-reviewhow-did-your-favorite-statutes-fare/ (last visited 

Dec. 1, 2020). Greater clarity about legal 

requirements could reduce unintentional violations 

and could also reduce lawsuits because, when 

parties can better predict the outcome of a lawsuit, 

they may be more likely to settle claims out of 

court. 

414Some debt collectors have reported that they 

receive approximately 10 demand letters from 

attorneys asserting a violation of the FDCPA for 

each lawsuit filed. See Small Business Review 

Panel Outline, supra note 39, at 69 n.105. 

415For example, as discussed further below, debt 

collectors typically may disclose only the 

information that FDCPA section 809(a) specifically 

references and may provide the FDCPA section 809 

information using statutory language, rather than 

plain language that consumers can more easily 

comprehend. 

416See CFPB Debt Collection Consumer Survey, 

supra note 292. 

417For more information about Bureau data 

sources, see Bureau of Consumer Fin. Prot., Sources 

and uses of data at the Bureau of Consumer 

Financial Protection (Sept. 26, 2018), https://

www.consumerfinance.gov/data-research/researchreports/sources-and-uses-data-bureau-consumerfinancial-protection/. 

418See CFPB Debt Collection Operations Study, 

supra note 37. 

419See Small Business Review Panel Report, 

supra note 40. 

420These requirements, and the specificity of the 

requirements, may vary depending upon the 

jurisdiction in which the collection occurs. This 

baseline does not include any potential impacts of 

the November 2020 Final Rule, however. The 

November 2020 Final Rule included a separate 

Dodd-Frank Act Section 1022(b) analysis, and that 

rule’s provisions do not go into effect until 

November 30, 2021. 

which the law is unclear.413 The 

number of disputes settled without 

litigation has likely been much 

greater.414 Perhaps more important than 

the costs of resolving legal disputes are 

the steps that debt collectors take to 

prevent legal disputes from arising in 

the first place. This includes direct costs 

of legal compliance, such as auditing 

and legal advice, as well as indirect 

costs from avoiding collection practices 

that might be both effective and legal 

but that raise potential legal risks. In 

some cases, debt collectors seeking to 

follow the law and avoid litigation have 

adopted practices that appear to be 

economically inefficient, with costs that 

exceed the benefits to consumers or 

even impose net costs on consumers.415

This final rule relating to disclosures 

could make debt collection either more 

or less costly in ways that are difficult 

to predict. For example, the validation 

notice requirements will provide 

consumers with more information than 

they currently receive about debts, 

which could reduce costs to consumers 

and debt collectors from disputes that 

arise when consumers do not recognize 

the debt or do not understand the basis 

for the alleged amount due. At the same 

time, the final rule’s clearer explanation 

of dispute rights could make consumers 

more likely to dispute, which could 

provide benefits to consumers while 

increasing costs for debt collectors. 

Disputes are costly for debt collectors to 

process, so these requirements could 

either increase or decrease debt 

collector and consumer costs depending 

on the net effect on dispute rates. 

In developing the final rule, the 

Bureau has consulted, or offered to 

consult with, the appropriate prudential 

regulators and other Federal agencies, 

including regarding consistency with 

any prudential, market, or systemic 

objectives administered by such 

agencies. 

B. Provisions To Be Analyzed 

The analysis below considers the 

potential benefits, costs, and impacts to 

consumers and covered persons of key 

provisions of the final rule (provisions), 

which include: 

1. Time-barred debt: Prohibiting suits 

and threats of suit. 

2. Notice for validation of debts. 

3. Required actions prior to furnishing 

information. 

C. Data Limitations and Quantification 

of Benefits, Costs, and Impacts 

The discussion in this part VII relies 

on publicly available information as 

well as information the Bureau has 

obtained. To better understand 

consumer experiences with debt 

collection, the Bureau developed its 

2015 Survey of Consumer Views on 

Debt, which provided the first 

comprehensive and nationally 

representative data on consumers’ 

experiences and preferences related to 

debt collection.416 In addition, the 

Bureau relies on its Consumer Credit 

Panel (CCP) to understand potential 

benefits and costs to consumers of the 

rule.417 To better understand potential 

effects of the rule on industry, the 

Bureau has engaged in significant 

outreach to industry, including through 

the CFPB Debt Collection Operations 

Study.418 In July 2016, the Bureau 

consulted with small entities as part of 

the SBREFA process and obtained 

important information on the potential 

impacts of proposals that the Bureau 

was considering at the time for the 

topics covered by the final rule; many 

of those proposals are included in the 

final rule.419

The sources described above, together 

with other sources of information and 

the Bureau’s market knowledge, form 

the basis for the Bureau’s consideration 

of the likely impacts of the final rule. 

The Bureau makes every attempt to 

provide reasonable estimates of the 

potential benefits and costs to 

consumers and covered persons of this 

final rule given available data. However, 

available data sources generally do not 

permit the Bureau to quantify, in dollar 

terms, how particular provisions will 

affect consumers. With respect to 

industry impacts, much of the Bureau’s 

existing data come from qualitative 

input from debt collectors and other 

entities that operate in the debt 

collection market rather than from 

representative sampling that would 

allow the Bureau to estimate total 

benefits and costs. 

General economic principles and the 

Bureau’s expertise in consumer 

financial markets, together with the data 

and findings that are available, provide 

insight into the potential benefits, costs, 

and impacts of the final rule. Where 

possible, the Bureau has made 

quantitative estimates based on these 

principles and the data available. Some 

benefits and costs, however, are not 

amenable to quantification, or are not 

quantifiable given the data available to 

the Bureau. The Bureau provides a 

qualitative discussion of those benefits, 

costs, and impacts. The Bureau 

requested additional data or studies that 

could help quantify the benefits and 

costs to consumers and covered persons 

of the May 2019 Proposed Rule and the 

February 2020 Proposed Rule. The 

Bureau summarizes comments on this 

subject below, but few comments 

explicitly addressed quantifying the 

costs and benefits of the rule or 

provided additional data or studies. 

Comments on the benefits and costs of 

the rule are also discussed in part V 

above. 

D. Baseline for Analysis 

In evaluating the potential benefits, 

costs, and impacts of the final rule, the 

Bureau takes as a baseline the current 

legal framework governing debt 

collection. This includes debt collector 

practices as they currently exist, 

responding to the requirements of the 

FDCPA as currently interpreted by 

courts and law enforcement agencies, 

other Federal laws, and the rules and 

statutory requirements promulgated by 

the States.420 In the consideration of 

potential benefits, costs, and impacts 

below, the Bureau discusses its 

understanding of practices in the debt 

collection market under this baseline 

and how those practices are likely to 

change under the final rule. 

Until the creation of the Bureau, no 

Federal agency was given the authority 

to write substantive regulations 

implementing the FDCPA, meaning that 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
5840 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

421For purposes of the section 1022(b)(2) 

analysis, the Bureau considers any consequences 

that consumers perceive as harmful to be a cost to 

consumers. In considering whether consumers 

might perceive certain activities as harmful, the 

Bureau is not analyzing whether those activities 

would be unlawful under the FDCPA or the DoddFrank Act. 

422The final rule may also increase costs to 

covered persons to the extent that debt collectors 

who currently sue or threaten to sue to collect timebarred debt increase their efforts to determine 

whether or not a debt is time barred. As discussed 

above in part V, The Bureau recognizes that, in 

most jurisdictions, expiration of the statute of 

limitations provides the consumer with an 

affirmative defense to liability, but it does not bar 

a debt collector from bringing suit. As such, some 

debt collectors who sue or threaten to sue on older 

debts may currently expend less time and effort 

verifying the time-barred status of a debt than they 

will under the final rule. 

many of the FDCPA’s requirements are 

subject to interpretations in court 

decisions that are not always consistent 

or do not always definitely resolve an 

issue, such as a single district court 

opinion on an issue. Debt collectors’ 

practices reflect their interpretations of 

the FDCPA and their decisions about 

how to balance effective collection 

practices against litigation risk. Many of 

the impacts of the final rule relative to 

the baseline would arise from changes 

that debt collectors would make in 

response to additional clarity about the 

most appropriate interpretation of what 

conduct is permissible and not 

permissible under the FDCPA’s 

provisions. 

The Bureau received no comments 

regarding its choice of baseline for its 

section 1022(b) analysis. 

E. Goals of the Rule 

The final rule is intended to further 

the FDCPA’s goals of eliminating 

abusive debt collection practices and 

ensuring that debt collectors who refrain 

from such practices are not 

competitively disadvantaged. To these 

ends, an important goal of the rule is to 

benefit both consumers and debt 

collectors by increasing clarity and 

certainty about what the FDCPA 

prohibits and requires, which could 

improve compliance with the FDCPA 

while reducing unnecessary litigation 

regarding the FDCPA’s requirements. 

As discussed in part V and in this part 

VII, other goals of the rule’s provisions 

regarding validation information 

include providing more information to 

consumers about their debts, which may 

help consumers determine whether a 

debt is theirs and whether the reported 

amount owed is accurate and may 

reduce unnecessary disputes. The 

validation information is also intended 

to help consumers to know their rights 

and be able to exercise them, including 

by disputing a debt. In addition, the 

model validation notice is intended to 

provide information to consumers in a 

more appealing and easy-to-read format, 

making it more likely that consumers 

read and comprehend the information 

than with the validation notices 

currently in use. 

The rule’s provision requiring debt 

collectors to take certain actions prior to 

furnishing information about a debt to a 

consumer reporting agency is intended 

to increase the likelihood that 

consumers learn about an alleged debt 

before furnishing occurs, giving them an 

opportunity to resolve the debt or 

dispute it if appropriate. 

The rule’s provision prohibiting debt 

collectors from suing or threatening to 

sue on time-barred debts is intended to 

mitigate the consumer harms that can 

result from such actions, including 

causing some consumers to pay or 

prioritize time-barred debts over other 

debts in the mistaken belief that doing 

so is necessary to avoid litigation or 

adverse judgments, when in fact 

consumers have meritorious defenses 

based on the statute of limitations. 

F. Coverage of the Rule 

The final rule applies to debt 

collectors as defined in the FDCPA and 

§ 1006.2(i) of the November 2020 Final 

Rule. Creditors that collect on debts 

they own generally will not be affected 

directly by the final rule because they 

typically are not debt collectors for 

purposes of the FDCPA. Creditors, 

however, may experience indirect 

effects if debt collectors’ costs increase 

and if those costs are passed on to 

creditors. 

G. Potential Benefits and Costs to 

Consumers and Covered Persons 

The Bureau discusses the benefits and 

costs of the rule to consumers and 

covered persons (generally FDCPA debt 

collectors) in detail below.421 The 

Bureau believes that an important 

benefit of many of the provisions to both 

consumers and covered persons— 

compared to the baseline of the FDCPA 

as currently interpreted by courts and 

law enforcement agencies—is an 

increase in clarity and precision of the 

law governing debt collection. Greater 

certainty about legal requirements can 

benefit both consumers and debt 

collectors, making it easier for 

consumers to understand and assert 

their rights and easier for firms to 

ensure they are in compliance. The 

Bureau discusses these benefits in more 

detail with respect to certain provisions 

below but believes that they generally 

apply, in varying degrees, to all of the 

provisions discussed below. 

1. Time-Barred Debt: Prohibiting Suits 

and Threats of Suit 

Section 1006.26(b) prohibits a debt 

collector from suing or threatening to 

sue a consumer to collect a time-barred 

debt. 

As discussed in part V above, 

multiple courts have held that the 

FDCPA prohibits suits and threats of 

suit on time-barred debt. The Bureau 

understands that most debt collectors do 

not knowingly sue or threaten to sue 

consumers to collect time-barred debts. 

Although the final rule applies a strict 

liability standard to this prohibition, 

under which debt collectors may be 

liable for suits or threats of suit even if 

they do not know that the debt is timebarred, the Bureau believes that debt 

collectors have multiple ways of 

managing such risk including, but not 

limited to, confirming that the statute of 

limitations has not expired before 

bringing or threatening to bring a legal 

action or, if a debt collector is unable to 

make such a determination, refraining 

from bringing or threatening to bring a 

legal action while, in most States, 

continuing with non-litigation 

collection activities. Therefore, the 

Bureau does not expect this provision of 

the rule to have a significant effect on 

most debt collectors. 

To the extent that there are costs to 

covered persons or benefits to 

consumers from this provision, they 

will most likely come from reduced 

payments on time-barred debts, to the 

extent that some debt collectors 

currently sue or threaten to sue on timebarred debts as a strategy to elicit 

payment.422 If it is currently true that (1) 

suing or threatening to sue on debts is 

an important means of collection for 

debts for which the statute of limitations 

is close to expiring, and (2) most debt 

collectors stop suing or threatening to 

sue once the statute of limitations for a 

debt expires, then one would expect 

repayment rates to drop after the statute 

of limitations expires, and that drop 

might be made more significant by the 

provision. Such a reduction in 

payments would benefit consumers who 

owe the debts while imposing costs on 

debt collectors and creditors and 

potentially increasing the cost of credit 

generally. 

The Bureau therefore attempted to 

indirectly measure the potential effect of 

the provision by examining the behavior 

of consumers who owe debts that either 

recently expired or are close to expiring 

under their State’s statute of limitations. 

To do so, the Bureau used data from its 

Consumer Credit Panel (CCP), which 

contains information from one of the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 5841 

three nationwide CRAs. The Bureau 

used data from the CCP to attempt to 

estimate the current effect of State 

statutes of limitation on the propensity 

of consumers to pay old debts in 

collection. 

The CCP contains information on 

collections tradelines—records that 

were furnished to this nationwide CRA 

by third-party debt collectors or debt 

buyers. The Bureau analyzed these data 

to determine whether the probability of 

payment declines around the expiration 

of the statute of limitations in the 

consumer’s State. Specifically, the 

Bureau followed debts reported in the 

CCP from the time they were first 

reported on a consumer’s credit record 

until they either showed some record of 

payment or disappeared from the credit 

record. In this analysis, the Bureau 

assumed that the applicable statute of 

limitations is the one applicable to 

written contracts in the consumer’s 

State of residence and that the statute of 

limitations begins for a debt on the date 

that the debt first appears on the 

consumer’s credit report. The Bureau 

assumed this starting date because there 

was no other date in the available data 

on which to reasonably base the 

beginning of the statute of limitations. 

There is likely to be some inaccuracy in 

this assumption due to a variety of 

factors, including delays between the 

beginning of the period defined by the 

statute of limitations and the first report 

of information to the CRA and cases in 

which the applicable statute of 

limitations is not the one in the 

consumer’s State. However, if the 

estimated expiration of the statute of 

limitations is at least approximately 

correct in most cases, then one would 

expect to observe whether the 

expiration of the statute of limitations 

has an effect on the likelihood that a 

debt is reported to have been paid. 

The Bureau calculated the probability 

of payment occurring after a given 

number of days, conditional on no 

payment occurring before—in technical 

terms, the ‘‘hazard rate’’ for payments— 

for all collections tradelines in the CCP. 

The Bureau then calculated the average 

hazard rate based on the number of 

months before or after the estimated 

expiration of the applicable statute of 

limitations. This calculation is plotted 

in Figure 1, below. The figure shows 

that the probability of a collections 

tradeline showing evidence of payment 

declines steadily for at least a year 

leading up to the estimated expiration of 

the statute of limitations and continues 

to decline at roughly the same rate 

afterwards. Thus, while the probability 

of payment declines over time, the 

reduced ability of debt collectors to 

pursue litigation does not seem to 

materially affect payments on 

collections tradelines. Combined with 

the Bureau’s understanding that debt 

collectors generally do not knowingly 

sue or threaten to sue on time-barred 

debt, this suggests that the provision 

would be unlikely to cause any further 

reduction in the rate of repayment on 

time-barred debt. 

Because the available data do not 

permit the Bureau to identify the 

expiration of the statute of limitations 

precisely, the analysis above may fail to 

identify some effects. 

2. Notice for Validation of Debts 

Section 1006.34 implements and 

interprets FDCPA section 809(a), (b), (d), 

and (e). Specifically, § 1006.34(a) 

provides that, subject to certain 

exceptions, a debt collector must 

provide a consumer the validation 

information described in § 1006.34(c). 

Section 1006.34(c) implements FDCPA 

section 809(a)’s content requirements 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8ER19JA21.027</GPH>
5842 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

423CFPB Debt Collection Consumer Survey, supra 

note 292. 

424FMG Focus Group Report, supra note 26, at 

15–16. 

425See CFPB Debt Collection Consumer Survey, 

supra note 292, at 13, 40–41. 

426The survey questions concerning consumer 

beliefs about errors in collections did not ask 

respondents to distinguish between debts owed to 

a debt collector and debts owed to a creditor. If 

consumers are more or less likely to believe there 

is an error for collection attempts by debt collectors, 

then this percentage and those below may over- or 

under-estimate the likelihood that a consumer 

believes a debt is in error when the consumer is 

contacted by a debt collector. 

and specifies that validation 

information includes certain 

information about the debt and the 

consumer’s protections with respect to 

debt collection that debt collectors do 

not currently provide to consumers. 

Section 1006.34(d) sets forth a general 

requirement that such information be 

clear and conspicuous. Section 

1006.34(d) also provides safe harbors for 

using the model validation notice, 

specified variations of the model notice, 

or a substantially similar form, and 

permits the inclusion of certain optional 

information. Section 1006.34(e) 

affirmatively permits debt collectors to 

provide validation notices translated 

into other languages and requires debt 

collectors who offer to provide 

consumers translated notices to provide 

them to consumers who request them. 

Potential benefits and costs to 

consumers. The required validation 

information may benefit consumers in 

four ways. First, the disclosures will 

provide more information about the 

debt, which may help consumers 

determine whether the debt is theirs and 

whether the reported amount owed is 

accurate. Second, the notice will 

provide a plain-language disclosure of 

the consumer’s rights in debt collection, 

in particular the right to dispute, which 

should help consumers to know their 

rights and be able to exercise them. 

Third, the validation information will 

include consumer-response information 

that should make it easier for consumers 

to take certain actions, including 

disputing a debt. Finally, the model 

validation notice form is intended to 

provide information to consumers in a 

more plain-language and visually 

appealing format, making it more likely 

that consumers will read and 

comprehend the information than with 

the validation notices currently in use. 

To quantify the benefit of providing 

more and clearer validation information, 

the Bureau would need to estimate the 

impact of this additional information on 

consumers’ ability to recognize their 

debts compared to what is currently 

provided on validation notices, as well 

as how consumers would respond to 

that additional information. Although 

the Bureau is not aware of data that 

would permit a full accounting of these 

benefits, below is a summary of 

information the Bureau is aware of that 

is relevant to assessing these benefits. 

The Bureau understands that, in 

general, validation notices currently 

include little or no information about 

the debt beyond the information 

specifically listed in section 809(a) of 

the FDCPA (e.g., the current amount of 

the debt and the name of the current 

creditor). This information may not be 

sufficient for the consumer to recognize 

the debt, particularly if: (1) The amount 

owed has changed over time due to 

interest, fees, payments, or credits; (2) 

the debt collector has changed since an 

original collection attempt; or (3) the 

creditor’s name is not one the consumer 

associates with the debt (as with some 

store-branded credit cards issued by 

third-party financial institutions). 

Consumers who do not recognize a debt 

because the information on a validation 

notice is insufficient may incur costs if 

they mistakenly dispute a debt they 

owe, make a payment on a debt they do 

not owe, or ignore a debt on the 

assumption that the collection attempt 

is in error. 

Relative to current validation notices, 

the validation information under the 

final rule will include more specific 

details about the debt, such as the debt’s 

account number and an itemization of 

the debt. The Bureau has determined 

that this information will benefit 

consumers by making it easier for them 

to determine whether they owe a debt 

and, therefore, reducing the likelihood 

of incurring costs due to mistakes like 

those noted above. The consumer can 

also use the consumer-response 

information to request the name and 

address of the original creditor, which 

may further help the consumer to 

recognize the debt. 

To fully evaluate the benefits to 

consumers of disclosing this additional 

information, the Bureau would need 

representative data to estimate how 

often consumers would read and 

understand the additional information 

on the notice and the extent to which 

that information increases consumer 

recognition and understanding 

compared to a notice without it. For 

example, the Bureau could further 

quantify some of the consumer benefits 

of the additional information if the 

Bureau were able to estimate: (1) How 

many consumers ignore notices out of a 

mistaken conclusion that the debt is not 

theirs; (2) how many consumers dispute 

correct debts, and subsequently, how 

much time the validation notice saves 

by obviating later interactions that result 

from improper disputes; and (3) how 

many consumers fail to dispute or make 

payments on incorrect debts. The 

Bureau is not aware of a source of 

information on the number of 

consumers in these categories or the 

possible time savings that could result 

from the validation information. The 

Bureau’s Debt Collection Consumer 

Survey suggests that the required 

validation information would likely be 

helpful in recognizing a debt. 

Specifically, when asked how helpful 

various pieces of information would be 

in figuring out whether they owed a 

debt, consumers were most likely to 

indicate that the creditor name, type of 

debt, and an itemization of the amount 

owed (such as principal, interest, and 

fees) were especially valuable.423 These 

opinions were echoed in focus groups in 

which consumers noted that, after a 

debt is sold, it is more difficult to 

recognize, and that they wanted as 

much information as possible to help 

them recognize the debt as theirs 

(especially the account number, 

creditor, and amount due) with the 

exception of sensitive information like 

social security numbers.424

To quantify the benefits of the 

provision requiring a clear and 

conspicuous disclosure of a consumer’s 

right to dispute a debt, the Bureau 

would need to estimate the number of 

consumers who fail to dispute debts that 

they do not owe because they are 

unaware of, or do not comprehend, their 

right to dispute. The Bureau cannot 

precisely quantify this benefit; however, 

the discussion below identifies several 

applicable considerations and estimates. 

The Bureau estimates that at least 49 

million consumers are contacted by debt 

collectors each year.425 Twenty-eight 

percent of consumers who said they had 

been contacted about one or more debts 

in collection reported that the contacts 

included attempts to collect at least one 

debt that the consumers believed they 

did not owe.426 One-third of consumers 

who had been contacted said the 

amount the creditor or debt collector 

was trying to collect was wrong for at 

least one of these debts, and 16 percent 

said the contacts included at least one 

contact about a debt that was instead 

owed by a family member. (Some 

consumers reported more than one of 

these issues). Taken together, more than 

half of consumers (53 percent) who said 

they had been contacted about one or 

more debts in collection reported that 

they thought at least one of the debts 

they were contacted about was in error. 

This suggests that there are many 

consumers who receive the validation 

notices in use today who might be likely 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 5843 

427A 2016 research report by the United 

Kingdom’s Financial Conduct Authority showed 

that, in a large randomized control trial, a tear-off 

form (with a text or email reminder) led to more 

consumers switching from a current savings 

account to one with a better interest rate relative to 

getting only an informational text or email reminder 

and relative to an informational box with 

instructions on how to switch. Paul Adams et al., 

Attention, Search and Switching: Evidence on 

Mandated Disclosure from the Savings Market (UK 

Fin. Conduct Authority, Occasional Paper No. 19 

2016), https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/ 

occasional-papers/occasional-paper-19.pdf. 

428FMG Summary Report, supra note 29. 

429See, e.g., Ian Ayres & Alan Schwartz, The NoReading Problem in Consumer Contract Law, 66 

Stan. L. Rev. 545 (2014); Yannis Bakos et al., Does 

Anyone Read the Fine Print? Consumer Attention 

to Standard-Form Contracts, 43 J. Legal Studies 1, 

1–35 (2014); George R. Milne & Mary J. Culnan, 

Strategies for Reducing Online Privacy Risks: Why 

Consumers Read (or Don’t Read) Online Privacy 

Notices, 18 J. Interactive Mktg. 3, 15–29 (2004); 

Jonathan A. Obar & Anne Oeldorf-Hirsch, The 

Biggest Lie on the internet: Ignoring the Privacy 

Policies and Terms of Service Policies of Social 

Networking Services (York U., draft version, 2018), 

http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2757465. 

430FMG Cognitive Report, supra note 27. 

431See Sec. & Exchange Comm’n, A Plain English 

Handbook (Aug. 1998), https://www.sec.gov/pdf/ 

handbook.pdf. 

432FMG Summary Report, supra note 29. 

433The idea that consumers may decrease their 

engagement with information when more 

information is provided is somewhat supported by 

research on ‘‘choice overload.’’ This work indicates 

that, if choice sets are large, some people opt to 

make no choice at all. See, e.g., Sheena Iyengar et 

al., How Much Choice is Too Much? Contributions 

to 401(k) Retirement Plans, in Pension Design and 

Structure: New Lessons from Behavioral Finance, at 

83 (Oxford U. Press 2004). 

434See FMG Summary Report, supra note 29, at 

5–7. 

to dispute based on their perception that 

either the debt is not theirs or is wrong. 

Among the 53 percent of consumers 

who cited one of the issues noted above, 

42 percent reported that they disputed 

a collection in the prior year, and 11 

percent of consumers who had not cited 

one of those issues indicated that they 

had disputed a debt. The fact that less 

than half of consumers who questioned 

a debt about which the creditor or debt 

collector contacted them reported 

disputing a debt is consistent with the 

possibility that some consumers do not 

dispute in response to a collection effort 

because they are not aware of the option 

to dispute or do not understand the 

steps required to do so. The required 

clear-and-conspicuous statement of the 

dispute right could benefit these 

consumers by making them aware of 

their right to dispute and informing 

them how to dispute. 

The survey’s finding that only 42 

percent of consumers who thought they 

experienced an error with a debt in 

collection disputed the error suggests 

consumers are uncertain about how to 

dispute a debt in collection or that they 

believe that disputes require too much 

time and effort relative to the expected 

benefit. The required consumerresponse information could reduce 

these impediments to disputing debts 

that consumers believe are in error. 

Specifically, the consumer-response 

information will provide a clear means 

of disputing a debt in a way that triggers 

the protections provided by the FDCPA 

and this rule. Furthermore, the 

convenience of the consumer-response 

information, which is formatted on the 

model validation notice as a tear-off 

with prompts for various actions, could 

reduce barriers to responding by 

eliminating or reducing the burden of, 

for example, deciding what information 

is relevant and how to phrase the 

response.427 This could allow some 

consumers to save time and avoid other 

negative consequences, such as lower 

credit scores due to a debt they may not 

owe being listed as unpaid on their 

credit reports. 

Additionally, the consumer-response 

information includes an option to 

request information about the original 

creditor. Original-creditor information 

may help consumers in determining 

whether the debt is theirs. 

The Bureau has tested a model 

validation notice. Several 

considerations went into the content 

and design of the model validation 

notice. First, consumers must have 

relevant and accurate information to 

make informed decisions about how to 

act with regard to the debt. The Bureau 

therefore conducted consumer testing to 

identify what pieces of information 

consumers considered to be important 

to help them identify whether a debt 

was theirs, whether the amount stated 

was correct, and how the amount the 

debt collector was attempting to collect 

has changed over time (e.g., due to fees, 

interest, and payments).428 However, 

there is some indication that consumers 

tend to not read certain types of 

standard-form disclosures.429 To try to 

avoid this result, the Bureau conducted 

consumer testing exploring how 

consumers interacted and engaged with 

the notice and the pieces of information 

contained therein.430 This helped the 

Bureau understand whether consumers 

were inclined to engage with the 

document in general and which pieces 

of the validation notice received more or 

less consumer attention. 

The Bureau incorporated the findings 

from this consumer testing in its design 

of the model validation notice. To 

increase both consumer engagement 

with and comprehension of the 

validation information, the Bureau 

designed the model notice to be visually 

engaging. The notice uses plain 

language wherever possible and 

conforms to recommendations the 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

(SEC) set forth in its plain English 

handbook.431 To reduce the perceived 

complexity of the information, the form 

uses a clear hierarchy of information 

through positioning in a columnar 

format, varying type size, and boldfaced type for subsection headings. It 

uses shading to highlight the amount 

due and plain language rather than 

technical terms. Usability testing 

analyzing eye-tracking suggests that 

participants were able to locate relevant 

information on the form, with most 

participants able to quickly locate their 

account number and the contact 

information of the creditor.432 The 

information presented in the form is 

also concise, presenting consumers with 

a manageable amount of information 

about the debt and what they can do in 

response to the information. This is 

important, as the perceived and actual 

cost to a consumer of reading a 

disclosure increases with the amount of 

information provided.433

A number of consumer advocate and 

academic commenters asserted that the 

proposed model notice was not 

adequately tested. Some of these 

commenters stated that the Bureau’s 

testing included too few participants to 

generate valid conclusions about the 

proposed model notice’s efficacy or to 

evaluate the comprehension of 

consumers, particularly of the least 

sophisticated consumers. For instance, a 

consumer advocate expressed concern 

that only 60 consumers were included 

in the cognitive and usability testing 

rounds.434 Likewise, an academic 

commenter stated that the Bureau’s 

consumer testing focused too heavily on 

observing what testing participants 

looked at on the model notice (based on 

the use of eye tracking techniques) at 

the expense of testing participants’ 

comprehension of the notice. Another 

commenter stated that the Bureau 

should have tested more diverse groups, 

including consumers with limited 

English proficiency, students, older 

consumers, and consumers from more 

diverse socioeconomic backgrounds. 

Some consumer advocate and academic 

commenters recommended that the 

Bureau field test the proposed model 

notice with consumers with real debts. 

A consumer advocate expressed concern 

about the performance of certain aspects 

of the proposed model notice in 

quantitative testing, noting in particular 

that approximately 40 percent of 

respondents who received the model 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
5844 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

435Several comments in response to the May 

2019 proposal also criticized the consumer testing 

as being outdated because, when that proposal was 

published, the most recent testing had occurred in 

2016. However, the Bureau does not find any reason 

to believe that consumer understanding of the 

model notice has changed since 2016, and the 

commenters did not provide any evidence to 

support such a claim. Moreover, since the May 2019 

proposal, the Bureau has conducted two additional 

testing rounds. 

436FMG Usability Report, supra note 28, at 85– 

87. 

437 In response to the question ‘‘According to the 

notice, if Person A wanted to make a payment on 

the debt, who should he or she sent the payment 

to?’’ approximately 60 percent of consumers who 

received the model validation notice answered 

correctly compared to approximately 40 percent of 

consumers who received a status quo notice. CFPB 

Quantitative Testing Report, supra note 31, at 14. 

438See id. at 16. 

439See Small Business Review Panel Report, 

supra note 40, at 22. 

440See Small Business Review Panel Report, 

supra note 40, at 22 (finding that small entities 

would benefit from a model notice that reduced 

litigation risk arising from conflicting court 

decisions about what information is permitted on 

a validation notice). 

441CFPB Debt Collection Operations Study, supra 

note 37, at 31. 

notice failed to identify the correct 

entity the consumer should pay.435

The Bureau disagrees that the model 

validation notice was not adequately 

tested. The model validation notice was 

developed and validated over multiple 

rounds of testing between 2014 and 

2020, and the Bureau determines that 

these multiple rounds of testing were 

sufficient to assess the model validation 

notice’s efficacy and comprehensibility. 

Further, the Bureau disagrees that its 

testing focused on eye-tracking at the 

expense of comprehension testing as 

consumer comprehension of the model 

validation notice was assessed in three 

rounds of testing. The Bureau’s testing 

used eye-tracking in conjunction with 

consumer responses to inform its 

conclusions. 

The Bureau disagrees that it did not 

sample sufficiently diverse groups. The 

Bureau selected respondents with the 

goal of developing diverse testing pools 

that would serve as a proxy for the 

population at large. For example, in one 

round of usability testing, participants 

reflected a range of demographic 

characteristics broken down by race and 

ethnicity, household income, education 

level, and employment status.436 With 

respect to the criticism that the Bureau 

did not ‘‘field test’’ the model validation 

notice, testing the form with consumers 

with real debts would have been 

impractical. 

Regarding comments that the model 

validation notice did not perform well 

during the quantitative testing round, 

the Bureau disagrees. As noted above, in 

that testing round, the model validation 

notice consistently performed better 

than or equal to the status quo notice, 

including on the question of to whom 

the consumer should send a 

payment.437 Additionally, the Bureau 

conducted qualitative follow-up testing 

of the model notice in October 2020. In 

this testing 88 percent of respondents 

reported that the notice was either ‘‘very 

easy’’ or ‘‘easy’’ to understand.438

Between 71 percent and 100 percent of 

participants responded correctly to 14 

different comprehension questions. 

Although some participants expressed 

confusion about a few aspects of the 

notice, the initial reactions to the notice 

were that information was clear and the 

available actions were obvious. 

In summary, the Bureau’s testing 

establishes that consumers will benefit 

from the use of the model notice 

compared to the baseline of status quo 

validation notices. 

The Bureau expects consumers to 

experience few costs as a result of the 

provision. 

Potential benefits to covered persons. 

The provision provides debt collectors 

with a safe harbor if they use the model 

validation notice, specified variations of 

the model notice, or a substantially 

similar form to meet the requirements in 

§ 1006.34(c). The Bureau understands 

that debt collectors currently face 

litigation risk associated with the 

validation notices they send, reflecting, 

in part, conflicting court decisions about 

what language is required and what 

language is permitted in the notices.439

The Bureau expects a significant 

number of debt collectors will use the 

model notice, specified variations of the 

model notice, or a substantially similar 

form and, therefore, will face 

significantly reduced litigation risk 

when providing validation notices 

because they will receive the safe 

harbor. This will benefit debt collectors 

directly, by reducing litigation costs 

related to validation notices. The 

provision’s requirements to provide 

specific information about the debt and 

about a consumer’s protections in debt 

collection could also indirectly benefit 

debt collectors by adding information to 

validation notices that would be helpful 

to consumers but that debt collectors 

currently do not include for fear that it 

would increase litigation risk. The 

validation information may also make 

consumers more likely to dispute, 

which could increase costs for debt 

collectors, as discussed under ‘‘Potential 

costs to covered persons’’ below. 

The validation information includes 

specific information about the debt 

intended to help consumers identify the 

debt and understand the amount the 

debt collector claims is owed. The 

Bureau’s qualitative consumer research 

and the Bureau’s complaint data suggest 

that the information currently included 

in validation notices is often not 

sufficient for consumers to identify a 

debt or whether the amount owed is 

correct. If consumers are better able to 

identify debts, they may be less likely to 

dispute or ignore a debt that they in fact 

owe, and at the same time may be better 

able to articulate the basis for a dispute 

of a debt that they do not owe. These 

effects could benefit debt collectors by 

reducing the costs associated with 

consumer disputes. Although it is 

possible that debt collectors could 

currently provide such information on 

validation notices, the Bureau 

understands that some debt collectors 

who would like to provide additional 

information do not do so largely due to 

the legal risks associated with including 

information in the validation notice 

beyond what is expressly required by 

the FDCPA.440 The form will 

significantly reduce this legal risk. To 

quantify the benefits of this provision to 

covered persons, the Bureau would 

need data on how frequently consumers 

do not recognize the debt or the amount 

owed as identified on a validation 

notice, how many consumers would 

better recognize the debt if they received 

the required validation information, and 

how consumers would act in response 

to that information. While the Bureau is 

not aware of available data that would 

permit it to estimate these numbers, the 

Debt Collection Consumer Survey does 

provide some basis for concluding that 

the required validation information will 

be helpful to consumers and, therefore, 

beneficial for debt collectors. 

The validation information could 

reduce debt collector costs associated 

with disputes by preventing some 

disputes from consumers who are more 

likely to recognize that they owe a debt 

and by making the disputes that debt 

collectors receive clearer and easier to 

resolve. 

Debt collectors report that processing 

disputes is a costly activity and that it 

can be especially difficult to process 

disputes if the consumer provides little 

or no detail about the basis for a 

dispute. Debt collectors surveyed by the 

Bureau indicated that most disputes 

took between five minutes and one hour 

of staff time to resolve, with 15 to 30 

minutes being the most common 

amount of time.441 Respondents said 

that disputes took the longest amount of 

time to resolve if the basis of the dispute 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 5845 

442 Id. 

443The assumption of 140 million validation 

notices per year is based on an estimated 49 million 

consumers contacted by debt collectors each year 

and an assumption that each consumer receives an 

average of approximately 2.8 notices during the 

year. 

444This assumes an hourly wage of $15 and taxes, 

benefits, and incentives of $7 per hour. See CFPB 

Debt Collection Operations Study, supra note 37, at 

17 (reporting estimated debt collector wages 

between $10 and $20 per hour plus incentives). 

445See id. at 33. 

446 In the Operations Study, over 85 percent of 

debt collectors surveyed by the Bureau reported 

using letter vendors. Id. at 32. 

447 Id. at 33. 

448 In the Bureau’s Operations Study, 52 of 58 

respondents reported receiving itemization of postcharge-off fees on at least some of their accounts. 

Id. at 23. 

449 Id. at 26. 

450One industry trade group estimated that an 

itemization requirement would cost $600 million in 

professional fees to conduct legal analyses of 

HIPAA compliance for medical debt, $30 million 

for one-time system reprogramming for debt 

collectors, and $3 billion for one-time system 

reprogramming for creditors. The proposal allegedly 

would also result in billions of dollars in ongoing 

support costs and uncompensated medical care 

because, according to the commenter, the proposed 

requirement, if adopted, would increase the risks 

that hospitals might be unable to use debt 

collectors. As discussed in part V, the itemization 

requirement should not raise issues of HIPAA 

compliance that would require creditors to engage 

legal counsel in order to provide the required 

information, as HIPAA privacy regulations 

explicitly permit disclosure where required by law. 

While some one-time costs will be required so that 

collection and billing systems can incorporate the 

data needed to comply with the requirement, as 

discussed in this section, the Bureau understands 

that the required changes would not be far outside 

the scope of normal adjustments to billing and 

collection systems and does not have reason to 

believe the changes would be so expensive as to 

prevent hospitals from using debt collectors. The 

final rule permits debt collectors to use the date of 

the last statement or invoice provided to the 

consumer by a creditor as the itemization date. If 

providing a debt collector with itemization 

information were prohibitively expensive for a 

medical provider, such providers could avoid these 

costs by simply issuing a statement to the 

consumer. 

was unclear or if the consumer said the 

debt was not theirs.442

One commenter noted that 40 percent 

of disputes at their debt collection 

agency are non-generic and generally 

resolvable. This commenter asserted 

that the tear offs on the model 

validation notice will make these nongeneric disputes less informative. An 

industry commenter noted that 99.4 

percent of accounts it received were not 

disputed. Of the 0.6 percent that are 

disputed, 80 percent are accurate once 

more information is gathered. Given 

this, the commenter argued that 

providing consumers itemized 

statements for medical bills, which can 

run into many pages, is unnecessary. 

The Bureau does not have a basis to 

estimate how much the validation 

information might affect dispute rates. 

As an illustration of potential cost 

savings if dispute rates fall, if the 

information were to reduce the number 

of consumers who dispute by 1 percent 

of all validation notices sent, and 

assuming that there are 140 million 

validation notices sent per year,443 the 

overall number of annual disputes 

would fall by 1.4 million. Assuming 

time to process each dispute of 0.375 

hours, the overall savings to industry 

would be estimated at 525,000 personhours, or approximately 250 full-time 

equivalents. Assuming labor costs for 

debt collectors of $22 per hour,444 this 

would represent industry cost savings of 

about $11.5 million. 

The validation notice could also 

reduce the cost of processing disputes 

by making it easier for consumers who 

dispute to provide at least some 

information about the basis of their 

disputes. This could reduce the costs to 

covered persons of processing disputes 

by making it easier for debt collectors to 

investigate disputed debts in order to 

verify the debt. 

Potential costs to covered persons. 

Debt collectors already send validation 

notices to consumers to comply with the 

FDCPA, so the validation information 

will generally affect the content of 

existing disclosures debt collectors are 

sending rather than require debt 

collectors to send entirely new 

disclosures. Nonetheless, debt collectors 

will incur certain costs to comply with 

the form. These include one-time 

compliance costs, the ongoing costs of 

obtaining the required validation 

information, and potentially ongoing 

costs of responding to a potential 

increase in the number of disputes. 

The provision will require debt 

collectors to reformat their validation 

notices to accommodate the validation 

information requirements. The Bureau 

expects that any one-time costs to debt 

collectors of reformatting the validation 

notice will be relatively small, 

particularly for debt collectors who rely 

on vendors, because the Bureau expects 

that most vendors will provide an 

updated notice at no additional cost.445

The Bureau understands from its 

outreach that many covered persons 

currently use vendors to provide 

validation notices.446 Surveyed firms, 

and their vendors, told the Bureau that 

vendors do not typically charge an 

additional cost to modify an existing 

template (although this practice might 

not apply given that the final rule likely 

will require more extensive changes to 

validation notices than vendors 

typically make today).447 Debt collectors 

and vendors will bear costs to 

understand the requirements of the 

provision and to ensure that their 

systems generate notices that comply 

with the requirements, although these 

costs will be mitigated somewhat by the 

availability of a model notice. 

The validation information will 

require debt collectors to provide 

certain additional information about the 

debt, which will require that debt 

collectors receive and maintain certain 

data fields and incorporate them into 

the notices. The Bureau believes that the 

large majority of debt collectors already 

receive and maintain most data fields 

included in the final validation 

information. However, some 

respondents to the Debt Collection 

Operations Study reported that they do 

not receive from creditors information 

about post-default interest, fees, 

payments, and credits.448 These debt 

collectors will have to update their 

systems to track these fields. The 

Bureau understands that such system 

updates would be likely to cost less than 

$1,000 for each debt collector.449

At least one industry commenter 

asserted that one-time compliance costs 

would be significantly higher than 

$1,000, at least for collectors of medical 

debt. This commenter estimated costs of 

between $22,000 and $31,000 for 

implementation. The commenter noted 

that, for collectors of medical debt, an 

itemization of charges requires 

information about payments by the 

consumer’s health insurance, increasing 

the complexity and cost of tracking the 

necessary information. The Bureau 

acknowledges that costs may be higher 

for some debt collectors. However, the 

Bureau’s estimate is based on responses 

to the CFPB Debt Collection Operations 

Study, more than half of which came 

from debt collectors of medical debt. As 

such, the Bureau believes that, on 

average, its estimate of less than $1,000 

in one-time costs is reasonable. 

If debt collectors adjust their systems 

to produce notices including the new 

validation information, the Bureau does 

not expect there would be an increase 

in the ongoing costs of printing and 

sending validation notices. However, 

there could be ongoing costs related to 

the validation information requirements 

if the required data are not always 

available to debt collectors.450 The 

Bureau understands that some creditors 

do not currently track post-default 

charges and credits in a way that can be 

readily transferred to debt collectors. 

However, the Bureau’s understanding is 

that most creditors, including medical 

providers, do track this information, and 

many debt collectors already provide 

this information on validation notices. 

Further, debt collectors are already 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
5846 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

451See 23 NYCRR 1.2(b) (requiring debt collectors 

to provide an itemized accounting of the debt 

within five days after the initial communication 

with a consumer in connection with the collection 

of certain types of charged-off debt, such as credit 

card debt). The fact that debt collectors subject to 

New York’s requirements continue to operate and 

send validation notices in New York suggests that, 

although the itemization requirement may impose 

one-time adjustment costs on some creditors and 

debt collectors, ongoing costs are not prohibitive, at 

least for the types of debts for which New York has 

required itemization. 

452See, e.g., Bureau of Consumer Fin. Prot., 

CFPB, FTC, State, and Federal Law Enforcement 

Partners Announce Nationwide Crackdown on 

Phantom and Abusive Debt Collection (Sept. 29, 

2020), https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/ 

newsroom/cfpb-ftc-state-and-federal-lawenforcement-partners-announce-nationwidecrackdown-phantom-and-abusive-debt-collection. 

453While there is some evidence that consumers 

sometimes pay alleged debts even though they do 

not believe they owe them, such consumers may be 

motivated by factors, such as credit reporting 

concerns, that are not addressed by the validation 

notice itself. See Jeff Sovern et al., Validation and 

Verification Vignettes: More Results from an 

Empirical Study of Consumer Understanding of 

Debt Collection Validation Notices, at 46–47 (St. 

John’s U., Working Paper No. 18–0016, 2018), 

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_

id=3219171. 

required to disclose an itemization for 

some types of debt in at least one 

jurisdiction, New York State.451

In addition, as discussed in the 

section-by-section analysis of 

§ 1006.34(b)(3), the final rule’s 

itemization date definition permits debt 

collectors to select an itemization date 

that is feasible for the type of debt in 

collection and the information debt 

collectors receive. And 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(viii) requires itemization 

of fees, interest, and credits only 

subsequent to the selected itemization 

date. Thus, for example, if a debt 

collector selects the last statement date 

as the itemization date under 

§ 1006.34(b)(3), and if the creditor has 

recently issued a statement to the 

consumer, the debt collector need only 

obtain and provide to the consumer an 

itemization with fees, interest, and 

credits subsequent to that last statement 

date. And, as discussed in the sectionby-section analysis of § 1006.34(d)(2), a 

debt collector may provide the 

itemization on a separate page and 

retain the safe harbor for the rest of the 

validation notice. 

Industry commenters asserted that 

there would be additional printing and 

mailing costs of the provision due to the 

tear-off portion of the model notice, 

which is formatted for use with a return 

envelope. The commenters argued that 

many debt collectors do not currently 

include return envelopes with their 

validation notices and that including a 

return envelope would increase mailing 

costs. The Bureau disagrees that this 

would be a cost of the rule, as the rule 

does not require including a return 

envelope with a mailed validation 

notice, the format of the tear-off portion 

notwithstanding. Given that it is not 

required, the Bureau expects that debt 

collectors will only begin including 

return envelopes if they find, in their 

own analysis, that the benefit exceeds 

the additional costs. 

Several commenters discussed the 

potential for ongoing costs of providing 

the new validation information. One 

industry commenter expressed concern 

about the availability of the information 

required on the model validation notice 

for medical debt, as the commenter 

believed that the only available 

itemization date permitted by the 

proposal for these debts would be date 

of service (i.e., the transaction date), and 

the commenter stated that date of 

service was currently only available 

from 17.2 percent of its clients. Another 

industry commenter noted that there 

would be costs associated with 

providing updated itemization dates for 

a debt that transfers between debt 

collectors. 

Industry trade association 

commenters noted that there would be 

costs to creditors of providing the fields 

to debt collectors and that not all of the 

required fields are necessarily tracked 

by all creditors currently, particularly 

credit unions. The Bureau 

acknowledges that the FDCPA and this 

final rule may create indirect costs for 

creditors that use debt collectors, 

because the costs to debt collectors of 

complying with FDCPA requirements 

may be passed on to creditors and 

because debt collectors must receive 

certain information about debts in order 

to comply with FDCPA requirements. 

The information available to the Bureau 

does not suggest that any indirect costs 

to creditors of this provision will be 

large. 

Further, one industry commenter 

asserted that the itemization 

requirement could competitively harm 

collectors of medical debt. This 

commenter asserted that medical care 

providers are currently unable to 

provide the required itemization 

information, and rather than incurring 

costs to provide this information, would 

switch to using debt collectors who do 

not comply with the law. This would 

put compliant debt collectors at a 

competitive disadvantage. As noted 

above, the Bureau acknowledges that 

the provision may affect the costs to 

creditors, including medical care 

providers, of using FDCPA debt 

collectors, because creditors must 

provide debt collectors with the 

necessary information for the validation 

notice. It is also possible that in some 

cases a less sophisticated creditor may 

employ a debt collector who does not 

attempt to comply with the rule. 

However, the Bureau finds it unlikely 

that this provision of the rule would 

lead to widespread non-compliance, at 

the expense of debt collectors who 

comply with the requirements of the 

rule. The Bureau, the FTC, and other 

Federal and State law enforcement 

agencies have and will continue to 

maintain vigorous enforcement of the 

FDCPA.452 Any debt collector who 

obtained enough business through noncompliance with the rule to do material 

harm to debt collectors who comply 

with the rule would be likely to attract 

enforcement action from regulators. 

Moreover, the risk of reputational harm 

is likely to deter some medical 

providers from intentionally employing 

debt collectors who knowingly do not 

comply with the rule. 

Other potential costs to debt 

collectors could arise if changes to the 

validation information affect how 

consumers respond, particularly 

whether they dispute the debt. As 

discussed above, because the validation 

information would include more detail, 

consumers might be more likely to 

recognize the debt and less likely to 

mistakenly dispute debts that they owe. 

On the other hand, the new consumerresponse information would make it 

easier to dispute debts or request the 

name and address of the original 

creditor. Together with the additional 

information about consumers’ ability to 

dispute that will be provided, this could 

increase the number of consumers who 

dispute or request original-creditor 

information. Similarly, some industry 

commenters argued that the tear-off 

portion of the model notice would make 

disputes easier, resulting in more 

disputes. The overall impact on dispute 

rates is unclear. 

Any increases in dispute rates would 

not be likely to substantially reduce 

collection revenue, but increased 

dispute rates would increase debt 

collector costs. With respect to 

collections revenue, the Bureau expects 

that, with some fairly limited 

exceptions, consumers who choose to 

pay a debt are generally those who 

recognize that they owe the debt and 

want to pay it, and that in most cases 

the validation information would be 

unlikely to cause such consumers to 

dispute rather than pay.453 With respect 

to costs, the disclosures could lead 

consumers who do not recognize the 

debt or who believe there is a problem 

with the amount demanded to dispute 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 5847 

454CFPB Debt Collection Operations Study, supra 

note 37, at 31. The discussion in ‘‘Benefits to 

covered persons’’ above provides an illustration of 

the potential impact on debt collectors of a change 

in dispute rates. Using the assumptions in that 

illustration, if the net impact of the proposal were 

to increase industrywide disputes by 1 million 

disputes per year, it could imply increased industry 

costs totaling around $8.25 million per year. 

455 In 2013, 38.4 million residents in the United 

States aged five and older spoke Spanish at home. 

See U.S. Census Bureau, Facts for Features: 

Hispanic Heritage Month 2015 (Sept. 14, 2015), 

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/facts-forfeatures/2015/cb15-ff18.html. 

456See CFPB Debt Collection Operations Study, 

supra note 37, at 28. One large industry commenter, 

which does furnish to the CRAs, also confirmed 

that it almost always mails a validation notice 

before furnishing. To comply with the final rule, 

these debt collectors would also need to wait a 

reasonable period of time to allow for notifications 

of non-delivery, and only furnish if they don’t 

receive such notifications. The Bureau does not 

have information as to how many of these debt 

collectors currently take these additional steps. 

However, the Bureau expects that taking these 

additional steps would impose minimal costs on 

debt collectors that do not already take them. 

457 In the Bureau’s Operations Study, 53 of 58 

respondents said that they send a validation notice 

shortly after debt placement, and of those that do 

not, three respondents that said that they furnish 

data to CRAs. Id. During the meeting of the SBREFA 

Panel, only one small entity representative 

described additional burdens it would face as a 

result of a requirement to communicate with 

consumers before furnishing information to credit 

bureaus. 

the debt rather than ignoring it. 

Responding to disputes is a costly 

activity for debt collectors, so an 

increase in dispute rates would increase 

these costs. As discussed above, covered 

persons surveyed by the Bureau 

indicated that most disputes took 

between five minutes and one hour of 

staff time to resolve, with 15 to 30 

minutes being the most common 

amount of time.454

Alternative proposals to require 

Spanish-language disclosures. The 

Bureau considered proposals that would 

require debt collectors to provide a 

Spanish-language translation of the 

validation information under certain 

circumstances, such as on the reverse 

side of any English-language validation 

notice or if requested by a consumer. 

Consumers with limited English 

proficiency may benefit from 

translations of the validation 

information, and Spanish speakers 

represent the second-largest language 

group in the United States after English 

speakers.455

Requiring Spanish-language 

disclosures would impose costs on some 

debt collectors. A requirement to send a 

Spanish-language disclosure on the back 

of each validation notice could increase 

mailing costs for all validation notices 

that are sent by mail, because it would 

require information that would 

otherwise be printed on the back of 

validation notices, such as Statemandated disclosures, to be provided on 

a separate page. A requirement to 

provide Spanish-language validation 

notices upon request could lead to a 

smaller increase in mailing costs but 

could require debt collectors to develop 

and maintain systems for tracking a 

consumer’s language preference and 

responding to that preference. 

The Bureau understands that some 

debt collectors currently send validation 

notices in Spanish to some consumers. 

These debt collectors presumably 

believe that the increase in revenues 

from sending them to these consumers 

exceeds the costs of doing so. To the 

extent sending such notices is already 

prevalent, it would limit the consumer 

benefits of a provision that requires 

Spanish-language translations as well as 

the costs to debt collectors of such a 

provision, although there would still be 

costs associated with ensuring that such 

disclosures were made as required by 

regulation. 

Consumer advocate and academic 

commenters argued that the Bureau 

should have required that the validation 

notice be in the language of the original 

transaction, including languages other 

than English or Spanish. The 

commenters noted that procedural 

hurdles, such as a mismatch between 

the consumers’ primary language and 

the language of a disclosure, can have 

large effects on behavior. The Bureau 

notes that this alternative would impose 

significantly greater costs on debt 

collectors than the final rule, as they 

would need to maintain versions of the 

model notice for each such language. At 

the same time, the marginal benefit to 

consumers of the alternative suggested 

by commenters would be smaller, as 

fewer consumers communicate in 

languages other than English and 

Spanish. 

3. Required Actions Prior to Furnishing 

Information 

Section 1006.30(a)(1) prohibits a debt 

collector from furnishing information to 

a consumer reporting agency (CRA) 

about a debt before taking specific 

actions to contact the consumer about 

that debt. A debt collector can satisfy 

this requirement by: (i) Speaking to the 

consumer about the debt in person or by 

telephone; or (ii) placing a letter in the 

mail or sending an electronic message to 

the consumer about the debt and 

waiting a reasonable period of time to 

receive a notice of undeliverability, 

provided certain other conditions are 

satisfied. A validation notice is one type 

of letter or electronic communication 

debt collectors can use to satisfy 

§ 1006.30(a)(1)(ii). 

Potential benefits and costs to 

consumers. The final rule will help 

consumers to learn about an alleged 

debt before a debt collector furnishes 

adverse information to a CRA. If 

consumers believe that the information 

is incorrect, they will have an 

opportunity to dispute the debt. 

When debt collectors furnish 

information about unpaid debts to 

CRAs, that information can appear on 

consumer credit reports, potentially 

limiting consumers’ ability to obtain 

credit, employment, or housing. If 

consumers are unaware that information 

about a possible unpaid debt is being 

furnished to a CRA, then they may not 

realize that their ability to obtain credit, 

employment or housing may be affected 

by the debt’s presence on their credit 

reports. They may pay more for credit 

or lose out on employment or housing 

because they are unaware that their 

credit scores have been negatively 

affected or they may discover the 

adverse information only when they 

apply for credit, employment, or 

housing. 

To quantify the potential consumer 

benefits from the final rule, the Bureau 

would need to know: (1) How frequently 

consumers are unaware that debt 

collectors furnished information about 

their debts to CRAs but would become 

aware of it if debt collectors informed 

consumers prior to furnishing 

information; and (2) the benefit to these 

consumers of becoming aware they had 

a debt in collections. 

In many cases, consumers will not be 

affected by the provision because many 

debt collectors already take one of the 

actions required by the final rule before 

furnishing information to CRAs. Many 

other consumers will not be affected by 

the provision because not all debt 

collectors furnish information to CRAs 

about the debts on which they are 

seeking to recover. 

The Bureau understands that most 

debt collectors mail validation notices 

to consumers shortly after they receive 

accounts for collection.456 A minority of 

debt collectors sometimes or always 

mail validation notices only after 

speaking with consumers (whether 

contact was initiated by the debt 

collector or the consumer).457 The 

Bureau does not have representative 

data to estimate how often consumers 

would be affected by the provision, but 

the evidence suggests that a relatively 

small share of debt collectors furnish 

information to CRAs before providing a 

validation notice or taking one of the 

other actions required by the final rule. 

If, for example, debt collectors sent 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
5848 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

458This estimate assumes 140 million validation 

notices are sent each year, based on an estimated 

49 million consumers contacted by debt collectors 

each year and an assumption that each receives an 

average of approximately 2.8 notices during the 

year. 

459Fed. Trade Comm’n, Report to Congress under 

Section 319 of the Fair and Accurate Credit 

Transactions Act of 2003, (Dec. 2012) https://

www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/reports/ 

section-319-fair-and-accurate-credit-transactionsact-2003-fifth-interim-federal-trade-commission/ 

130211factareport.pdf (FTC Report to Congress). 

460CFPB Debt Collection Consumer Survey, supra 

note 292, at 24. 

461See FTC Report to Congress, supra note 459, 

at 43. 

462See Brian Bucks et al., Bureau of Consumer 

Fin. Prot., Collection of Telecommunication Debt, 

https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/ 

bcfp_consumer-credit-trends_collectiontelecommunications-debt_082018.pdf (Aug. 2018). 

463 In the Operations Study, 53 of 58 respondents 

said that they send a validation notice shortly after 

debt placement. CFPB Debt Collection Operations 

Study, supra note 37, at 28. To comply with the 

final rule, these debt collectors would also need to 

wait a reasonable period of time to allow for 

notifications of non-delivery, accept non-delivery 

notifications and only furnish if they don’t receive 

such notifications. The Bureau does not have 

information as to how many of these debt collectors 

currently take these additional steps. However, the 

Bureau expects that taking these additional steps 

would impose minimal costs on debt collectors that 

do not already take them. 

464 Id. at 19. 

465 Debt collectors who do not currently have 

systems in place for sending notices will face onetime compliance costs to implement those systems. 

466See CFPB Debt Collection Operations Study, 

supra note 37, at 32–33. One small entity 

representative on the Bureau’s SBREFA Panel 

indicated that, for about one-half of its accounts, it 

currently sends validation notices only after 

speaking with a consumer, and that, if it were 

required to send validation notices to all 

consumers, it would incur additional mailing costs 

of $0.63 per mailing for an estimated 400,000 

accounts per year. A small industry commenter 

asserted that mailing costs were significantly higher 

than $0.50–$0.80 per debt but did not provide an 

alternative figure. 

467 If debt collectors furnish information to CRAs 

less frequently this could make consumer reports 

less informative in general, which could have 

negative effects on the credit system by making it 

harder for creditors to assess credit risk. 

validation notices for an additional five 

percent of debts in collection, the 

provision could result in up to 

approximately seven million additional 

validation notices sent each year 

(assuming that no debt collectors would 

cease furnishing in response to the 

provision).458

Learning that a debt is in collections 

shortly after the collections process 

begins can help consumers prevent or 

mitigate harm from adverse information 

on their credit reports. This can be 

particularly important if the information 

about the debt is inaccurate because in 

those cases consumers who learn of the 

alleged debt can dispute the debt under 

the FDCPA or dispute the item of 

information under the FCRA. By 

informing consumers about the 

collection item before it is furnished to 

a CRA, the final rule will make it less 

likely that consumers learn about a 

collection item when they are in the 

process of applying for credit or other 

benefits, at which point they may feel 

pressure to resolve the item and may not 

have the opportunity to fully dispute 

the item. 

An FTC report addressed the 

prevalence of collections-related errors 

in credit reports.459 The FTC report 

analyzed data from a sample of 1,001 

consumers and identified errors in the 

credit records of three nationwide 

CRAs. The report found collectionsrelated errors in 4.9 percent of credit 

reports, and credit reports with 

documented errors contained, on 

average, 1.8 errors per report. The 

Bureau’s Debt Collection Consumer 

Survey also suggests that debt collectors 

make collection errors, finding that 53 

percent of consumers who said they had 

been contacted about one or more debts 

in collection said that these contacts 

included at least one debt the consumer 

thought was in error.460

Credit scores are based on a wide 

variety of information in consumer 

credit files. While many errors have 

only small effects on consumers’ credit 

scores,461 in some cases information in 

credit files about unpaid debts can have 

a reasonably large impact on credit 

scores. For example, analysis of 

telecommunications collection items in 

credit reports has shown that, while 

additional collection items have 

relatively small effects in some cases, 

they can have substantial effects for 

some consumers, with an average 

reduction in credit score of more than 

41 points for super-prime consumers.462

In some circumstances, these changes 

could lead to higher interest rates for 

consumers or denial of credit, 

particularly for borrowers with 

otherwise high credit scores. 

Potential benefits and costs to covered 

persons. The final rule will affect the 

practices of debt collectors who 

sometimes furnish information about 

consumers’ debts to CRAs before taking 

one of the required actions under the 

final rule. The Bureau understands that 

most debt collectors mail validation 

notices to consumers shortly after they 

receive the accounts for collections and 

before they furnish information on those 

accounts. These debt collectors either 

already would be in compliance with 

the final rule or could come into 

compliance with minimal additional 

cost.463 Forty-five out of 58 debt 

collectors responding to the Bureau’s 

Operations Study said that they furnish 

information to CRAs.464 Of these 

respondents, all but three said that they 

send a validation notice upon account 

placement, such that the final rule’s 

requirement would be satisfied as long 

as the debt collectors also wait a 

reasonable period of time to allow for 

notifications of non-delivery, and only 

furnish if they do not receive such 

notifications. These debt collectors will 

likely need to review their policies to 

ensure that validation notices are 

always sent (or validation information is 

provided in an initial communication) 

prior to reporting on the account, which 

the Bureau expects would involve a 

small one-time cost. Debt collectors that 

do not currently wait a reasonable 

period of time prior to furnishing to 

allow for notifications of non-delivery, 

accept non-delivery notifications, and 

only furnish if they do not receive such 

notifications would need to adopt these 

practices, but the Bureau expects this 

would impose minimal ongoing 

operational costs. Other debt collectors 

do not furnish information to CRAs at 

all and will not be affected by the 

requirement. 

Debt collectors who furnish 

information to CRAs prior to 

communicating with consumers but 

provide validation notices to consumers 

only after they have been in contact 

with consumers will need to change 

their practices and would face increased 

costs as a result of the final rule. 

Because these debt collectors are 

already required to provide validation 

notices to consumers (unless validation 

information is provided in an initial 

communication or the debt has been 

paid), the Bureau expects that many 

already have systems in place for 

sending notices and will not face onetime compliance costs greater than those 

of other debt collectors.465 However, 

these debt collectors will face ongoing 

costs from sending validation notices to 

more consumers than they otherwise 

would, at an estimated cost of $0.50 to 

$0.80 per debt if sent by mail.466 To the 

extent debt collectors take advantage of 

opportunities to send validation notices 

electronically, the marginal cost of 

sending each notice is likely to be 

approximately zero. Alternatively, these 

debt collectors could cease furnishing 

information to CRAs until after they 

take the specific steps identified in the 

final rule, which could impact the 

effectiveness of their collection 

efforts.467 Because debt collectors could 

choose the less burdensome of these 

options, the additional costs of 

delivering notices represent an upper 

bound on the burden of the provision 

for debt collectors. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 5849 

468See 84 FR 23274, 23389–91 (May 21, 2019). 469For example, one study found that additional 

State regulations on debt collectors’ conduct caused 

the rate at which a credit inquiry led to a successful 

account opening to decline by less than 0.02 

percentage points off a base rate of about 43 

percent. See id. at 23389–90. 

470 5 U.S.C. 603(a), 604(a). 

471 5 U.S.C. 604(a)(1). 

Commenters noted several specific 

situations in which the proposed 

provision could, in the commenters’ 

view, unduly burden debt collectors. 

One small industry commenter raised 

the concern that a bad address, which 

occurs in 15 percent of accounts at their 

agency, would stop collections. Another 

industry commenter noted that 3 

percent of its notices are returned as 

undeliverable and argued that 

attempting to deliver a validation notice 

should count as a communication and 

thus allow furnishing. Another industry 

commenter noted that some States are 

‘‘closed’’ in the sense that debt 

collectors based in other States are not 

allowed to deliver notices into those 

States. This commenter was concerned 

that the proposed provision would not 

allow furnishing of information about 

consumers in those States and argued 

that this will reduce credit report 

accuracy. A joint comment by an 

industry commenter and CRA argued 

that the proposed provision would be 

particularly problematic in the check 

verification space. The commenter 

noted that, in the case of bad checks, the 

debt collector generally does not have 

the consumer’s address or telephone 

number and cannot communicate with 

the consumer directly. In these cases, 

the debt collector would report the bad 

check to a check verification CRA, but 

this could be prohibited under the 

proposed provision. The commenter 

argued that the proposed provision 

could undermine the reliability of the 

check payment system by making it 

impossible to track check fraud, among 

other things. 

The Bureau agrees with some of the 

commenters with respect to these 

additional costs and has revised the 

final rule from the proposal to reduce or 

eliminate these costs. In particular, the 

Bureau has revised § 1006.30(a) to 

specify that, if a debt collector places a 

letter in the mail or sends an electronic 

message to the consumer about the debt, 

the debt collector must wait a 

reasonable period of time (with a safe 

harbor for waiting 14 consecutive days) 

before furnishing information about the 

debt to a CRA and, during that period, 

permit receipt of, and monitor for, 

notifications of undeliverability for mail 

and electronic messages. A debt 

collector who places a letter in the mail 

or sends an electronic message, does not 

receive a notice of undeliverability 

during that period, and furnishes 

information to a consumer reporting 

agency after the period ends has not 

violated the rule even if the debt 

collector subsequently receives a notice 

of undeliverability. Section 

1006.30(a)(2) of the final rule also 

specifies that § 1006.30(a)(1) does not 

apply to the furnishing of information 

about a debt to a specialty check 

verification CRA. The Bureau believes 

these changes will reduce or eliminate 

many of the costs cited by the 

commenters. 

H. Potential Reduction of Access by 

Consumers to Consumer Financial 

Products and Services 

Economic theory indicates that it is 

possible for changes in debt collection 

rules, such as those contained in this 

final rule, to affect consumers’ access to 

credit. Under economic theory, creditors 

should decide to extend credit based on 

the discounted expected value of the 

revenue stream from that extension of 

credit. This entails considering the 

possibility that the consumer will 

ultimately default and expected 

payments will decrease. If this final rule 

addressing disclosures were to increase 

collection costs or reduce revenue 

collected from delinquent debt, then 

this would reduce the return to lending, 

which in theory could lead lenders to 

increase the cost of lending, restrict 

availability of credit, or both. 

As discussed in the November 2020 

Final Rule, the Bureau has considered 

the available empirical data and 

research on the effect of State debt 

collection laws on the price and 

availability of credit.468 That research 

shows that State debt collection laws 

affect the price and availability of credit 

in ways that theory would predict, but 

that effects are relatively small even for 

changes in State laws that are likely 

more significant than the provisions in 

this final rule.469 In light of that 

research and the CCP analysis above, 

the Bureau concludes that the 

provisions in this final rule are unlikely 

to cause any significant reduction in 

access to consumer credit. 

I. Potential Specific Impacts of the Rule 

1. Depository Institutions and Credit 

Unions With $10 Billion or Less in Total 

Assets, as Described in Section 1026 

Depository institutions and credit 

unions are generally not debt collectors 

under the FDCPA and therefore would 

not be covered under the final rule. 

Creditors could experience indirect 

effects from the final rule to the extent 

they hire FDCPA debt collectors or sell 

debt in default to such debt collectors. 

Such creditors could experience higher 

costs if debt collectors’ costs increase 

and if debt collectors are able to pass 

those costs on to creditors. The Bureau 

understands that many depository 

institutions and credit unions with $10 

billion or less in total assets rely on 

FDCPA debt collectors to collect 

uncollected amounts, but the Bureau 

does not have data indicating whether 

such institutions are more or less likely 

than other creditors to do so. The 

Bureau did not receive any comments 

on this issue with respect to the 

provisions in this final rule. 

2. Impact of the Final Rule on 

Consumers in Rural Areas 

Consumers in rural areas may 

experience benefits from the final rule 

that are different in certain respects 

from the benefits experienced by 

consumers in general. For example, 

consumers in rural areas may be more 

likely to borrow from small local banks 

and credit unions that may be less likely 

to outsource debt collection to FDCPA 

debt collectors. 

The Bureau requested interested 

parties to provide data, research results, 

and other factual information on the 

impact of the proposed rule on 

consumers in rural areas, but the Bureau 

did not receive any comments on this 

subject. 

VIII. Final Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Analysis 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to conduct 

an Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (IRFA) and a Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) of any rule 

subject to notice-and-comment 

rulemaking requirements.470 Section 

604(a) of the RFA sets forth the required 

elements of the FRFA. Section 604(a)(1) 

requires a statement of the objectives of, 

and the legal basis for, the rule.471

Section 604(a)(2) requires a statement of 

the significant issues raised by the 

public comments in response to the 

initial regulatory flexibility analysis, a 

statement of the assessment of the 

agency of such issues, and a statement 

of any changes made in the proposed 

rule as a result of such comments. 

Section 604(a)(3) requires the response 

of the agency to any comments filed by 

the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration in 

response to the proposed rule and a 

detailed statement of any change made 

to the proposed rule in the final rule as 

a result of the comments. Section 

604(a)(4) requires a description of and, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
5850 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

472 5 U.S.C. 604(a)(4). 

473 5 U.S.C. 604(a)(5). 

474 5 U.S.C. 604(a)(6). 

475 Id. 

476See 15 U.S.C. 1692(e). 

477See id. 

478 15 U.S.C. 1692l(d). 

479 12 U.S.C. 5512(a). 

where feasible, an estimate of the 

number of small entities to which the 

rule will apply.472 Section 604(a)(5) 

requires a description of the projected 

reporting, recordkeeping, and other 

compliance requirements of the rule, 

including an estimate of the classes of 

small entities that will be subject to the 

requirement and the types of 

professional skills necessary for the 

preparation of the report or record.473

Section 604(a)(6) requires a description 

of any significant alternatives to the rule 

that accomplish the stated objectives of 

applicable statutes and that minimize 

any significant economic impact of the 

rule on small entities.474 Finally, section 

604(a)(7) requires a description of the 

steps the agency has taken to minimize 

any additional cost of credit for small 

entities.475

A. Statement of the Objectives of, and 

Legal Basis for, the Final Rule 

As discussed in part IV, the Bureau 

issues this rule pursuant to its authority 

under the FDCPA and the Dodd-Frank 

Act. The objectives of the final rule are 

to clarify and implement the FDCPA’s 

provisions and to further the FDCPA’s 

goals of eliminating abusive debt 

collection practices and ensuring that 

debt collectors who refrain from abusive 

debt collection practices are not 

competitively disadvantaged.476 As the 

first Federal agency with authority 

under the FDCPA to prescribe 

substantive rules with respect to the 

collection of debts by debt collectors, 

the Bureau is requiring consumer 

disclosure requirements to provide 

greater clarity for both consumers and 

industry participants as to the 

information debt collectors must 

provide consumers to comply with the 

law. The Bureau intends that these 

clarifications will help to eliminate 

abusive debt collection practices and 

ensure that debt collectors who refrain 

from abusive debt collection practices 

are not competitively disadvantaged.477

As amended by the Dodd-Frank Act, 

FDCPA section 814(d) provides that the 

Bureau may ‘‘prescribe rules with 

respect to the collection of debts by debt 

collectors,’’ as that term is defined in 

the FDCPA.478 Section 1022(a) of the 

Dodd-Frank Act provides that ‘‘[t]he 

Bureau is authorized to exercise its 

authorities under Federal consumer 

financial law to administer, enforce, and 

otherwise implement the provisions of 

Federal consumer financial law.’’ 479

‘‘Federal consumer financial law’’ 

includes title X of the Dodd-Frank Act 

and the FDCPA. The legal basis for the 

final rule is discussed in detail in the 

legal authority analysis in part IV and in 

the section-by-section analysis in part V. 

B. Significant Issues Raised by the 

Public Comments in Response to the 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

The Bureau received comments on the 

IRFA from the Acting Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration, which are discussed in 

the next section. The Bureau did not 

receive other comments that referenced 

the IRFA specifically; however, several 

commenters did raise issues about the 

burdens of the proposed rule’s 

provisions, and the Bureau’s response to 

these issues is discussed in parts V and 

VII above and in this part below. 

C. Response to Any Comments Filed by 

the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration 

The Acting Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration filed a public comment 

letter on the May 2019 proposed rule 

that discusses both the IRFA and certain 

of the proposed requirements (the ‘‘first 

SBA letter’’). The Acting Chief Counsel 

for Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration also filed a public 

comment letter on the February 2020 

supplemental proposed rule that 

discusses both the IRFA and the 

proposed requirements (the ‘‘second 

SBA letter’’). This section first responds 

to comments on the IRFA and then 

responds to the substantive comments 

on the proposed rule’s provisions. 

The first SBA letter notes that the 

proposed rule could impose costs to 

read and understand the rule and to 

train employees in new practices. The 

Bureau had discussed these costs in the 

context of some specific provisions but 

has added a more general discussion of 

these costs to section E of the FRFA, 

below. 

The first SBA letter also notes that the 

Bureau claims some provisions will 

cause no significant impact because 

those provisions are already part of debt 

collectors’ business practices, and 

argues that the Bureau should clarify 

what the benefit of such provisions is to 

consumers if they will not change debt 

collector practices. As discussed in part 

V above and the section 1022(b)(2) 

analysis of the proposed rule, the 

Bureau believes that, by clarifying the 

FDCPA’s requirements, the rule will 

benefit both consumers and debt 

collectors, including small entities. 

Many market participants have 

identified a need for greater clarity in 

interpreting many of the FDCPA’s 

provisions. For example, a trade group 

commenter emphasized that ambiguities 

in the FDCPA lead to unnecessary and 

costly litigation. The Bureau believes 

that there is a benefit to providing 

additional clarity about the FDCPA’s 

requirements even where the vast 

majority of debt collectors follow 

practices that meet those requirements. 

The additional clarity helps those debt 

collectors to avoid unnecessary 

litigation and to have confidence in 

what practices do and do not violate the 

FDCPA. The additional clarity also 

makes it easier to establish when less 

scrupulous debt collectors have violated 

the statute and to hold them 

accountable, which benefits consumers 

as well as debt collectors who do 

comply with the law. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 5851 

480 5 U.S.C. 601(6). 481The current SBA size standards are found on 

SBA’s website, http://www.sba.gov/content/tablesmall-business-size-standards. 482Small Business Review Panel Report, supra 

note 40, at 29. 483As defined by the U.S. Census Bureau, 

collection agencies include entities that collect only 

commercial debt, and the proposed rule would 

apply only to debt collectors of consumer debt. 

However, the Bureau understands that relatively 

few collection agencies collect only commercial 

debt. 

484The U.S. Census Bureau estimates average 

annual receipts of $95,000 per employee for 

collection agencies. Given this, the Bureau assumes 

that all firms with fewer than 100 employees and 

approximately one-half of the firms with 100 to 499 

employees are small entities, which implies 

approximately 3,800 firms. 

485The Receivables Management Association, the 

largest trade group for debt buyers, states that it has 

approximately 300 debt buyer members and 

believes that 90 percent of debt buyers are current 

members. 

486The Bureau understands that debt buyers are 

generally nondepositories that specialize in debt 

buying and, in some cases, debt collection. The 

Bureau expects that debt buyers that are not 

collection agencies would be classified by the U.S. 

Census Bureau under ‘‘all other nondepository 

credit intermediation’’ (NAICS Code 522298). 

The first SBA letter points out that the 

proposed rule’s Paperwork Reduction 

Act (PRA) section estimates 1,029,500 

burden hours and argues that this could 

translate into millions of dollars in 

recordkeeping and reporting costs. Most 

of this burden is not attributable to the 

rule itself but rather to the requirements 

of the FDCPA. As discussed in the 

supporting statement accompanying the 

Bureau’s information collection request, 

the PRA estimates include the burden 

not only of complying with the new 

requirements introduced by the final 

rule but also of complying with the 

FDCPA itself. These burdens had not 

previously been accounted for under the 

PRA. Thus, the large majority of the 

estimated burden hours represent the 

burden of complying with existing 

FDCPA provisions that exist 

independent of the rule, in particular 

the requirement to provide a validation 

notice under § 809(a) of the FDCPA and 

the requirement to respond to consumer 

disputes under § 809(b) of the FDCPA. 

There are, of course, burdens associated 

with other information collections that 

are being introduced or modified by the 

final rule, and those burdens are 

discussed in this FRFA as well as in the 

supporting statement. 

The SBA letters also expressed several 

concerns about specific provisions of 

the proposed rule and recommended 

changes to those provisions. These 

concerns and recommendations, and the 

Bureau’s response, are discussed in the 

section-by-section analysis of the 

relevant provisions in part V above. 

D. Description and, Where Feasible, 

Provision of an Estimate of the Number 

of Small Entities to Which the Final 

Rule Will Apply 

As discussed in the Small Business 

Review Panel Report, for the purposes 

of assessing the impacts of this final rule 

on small entities, ‘‘small entities’’ is 

defined in the RFA to include small 

businesses, small nonprofit 

organizations, and small government 

jurisdictions.480 A ‘‘small business’’ is 

determined by application of SBA 

regulations in reference to the North 

American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) classifications and size 

standards.481 Under such standards, the 

Small Business Review Panel (Panel) 

identified four categories of small 

entities that may be subject to the final 

rule: Collection agencies (NAICS 

561440) with annual receipts at or 

below the SBA size standard (currently 

$16.5 million), debt buyers (NAICS 

522298) with annual receipts at or 

below the size standard (currently $41.5 

million), collection law firms (NAICS 

541110) with annual receipts at or 

below the size standard (currently $12 

million), and servicers who acquire 

accounts in default. These servicers 

include depository institutions (NAICS 

522110, 522120, and 522130) with 

assets at or below the size standard 

(currently $600 million) or nondepository institutions (NAICS 522390) 

with annual receipts at or below the size 

standard (currently $22 million). The 

Panel did not meet with small nonprofit 

organizations or small government 

jurisdictions.482

The following table provides the 

Bureau’s estimate of the number and 

types of entities that may be affected by 

the final rule: 

TABLE 1—ESTIMATED NUMBER OF AFFECTED ENTITIES AND SMALL ENTITIES BY CATEGORY

Category NAICS Small-entity threshold 

Estimated 

total number 

of debt 

collectors 

within 

category 

Estimated 

number of 

small-entity 

debt 

collectors 

within 

category 

Collection agencies ... 561440 ...................................................... $16.5 million in annual receipts ................ 9,000 8,800 

Debt buyers ............... 522298 ...................................................... $41.5 million in annual receipts ................ 330 300 

Collection law firms ... 541110 ...................................................... $12.0 million in annual receipts ................ 1,000 950 

Loan servicers ........... 522110, 522120, and 522130 (depositories); 522390 (non-depositories).$600 million in annual receipts for depository institutions; $22.0 million or less 

for non-depositories.

700 200 

Descriptions of the four categories: 

Collection agencies. The Census 

Bureau defines ‘‘collection agencies’’ 

(NAICS code 561440) as 

‘‘establishments primarily engaged in 

collecting payments for claims and 

remitting payments collected to their 

clients.’’ 483 According to the Census 

Bureau, in 2012 (the most recent year 

for which detailed data are available), 

there were approximately 4,000 

collection agencies with paid employees 

in the United States. Of these, the 

Bureau estimates that 3,800 collection 

agencies have $16.5 million or less in 

annual receipts and are therefore small 

entities.484 Census Bureau estimates 

indicate that in 2012 there were also 

more than 5,000 collection agencies 

without employees, all of which are 

presumably small entities. 

Debt buyers. Debt buyers purchase 

delinquent accounts and attempt to 

collect amounts owed, either themselves 

or through agents. The Bureau estimates 

that there are approximately 330 debt 

buyers in the United States, and that a 

substantial majority of these are small 

entities.485 Many debt buyers— 

particularly those that are small 

entities—also collect debt on behalf of 

other debt owners.486

Collection law firms. The Bureau 

estimates that there are 1,000 law firms 

in the United States that either have as 

their principal purpose the collection of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
5852 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

487The primary trade association for collection 

attorneys, the National Creditors Bar Association 

(NCBA), states that it has approximately 600 law 

firm members, 95 percent of which are small 

entities. The Bureau estimates that approximately 

60 percent of law firms that collect debt are NCBA 

members and that a similar fraction of non-member 

law firms are small entities. 

488The Bureau expects that loan servicers are 

generally classified under NAICS code 522390, 

‘‘Other Activities Related to Credit Intermediation.’’ 

Some depository institutions (NAICS codes 522110, 

522120, and 522130) also service loans for others 

and may be covered by the final rule. 

489Based on the December 2015 Call Report data 

as compiled by SNL Financial (with respect to 

insured depositories) and December 2015 data from 

the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and 

Registry (with respect to non-depositories), the 

Bureau estimates that there are approximately 9,000 

small entities engaged in mortgage servicing, of 

which approximately 100 service more than 5,000 

loans. See 81 FR 72160, 72363 (Oct. 19, 2016). The 

Bureau’s estimate is based on the assumption that 

all those servicing more than 5,000 loans may 

acquire servicing of loans when loans are in default 

and that at most 100 of those servicing 5,000 loans 

or fewer acquire servicing of loans when loans are 

in default. 

490While the final rule does not include new 

recordkeeping requirements, the Bureau notes that, 

by introducing a new compliance requirement, the 

rule may increase the cost of complying with 

recordkeeping requirements of the November 2020 

Final Rule. This is because debt collectors would 

need to retain evidence of compliance with any 

additional compliance requirement. 

491 2020 FDCPA Annual Report, supra note 12, at 

7. 

492The estimated hourly cost is based on an 

estimated wage of $15 per hour and taxes, benefits, 

and incentives of $7 per hour. See CFPB Debt 

Collection Operations Study, supra note 37, at 17 

(describing estimated debt collector wages ranging 

from $10 to $20 per hour). 

493 5 U.S.C. 604(a)(6). 494 5 U.S.C. 603(d). 

consumer debt or regularly collect 

consumer debt owed to others, so that 

the proposed rule would apply to them. 

The Bureau estimates that 95 percent of 

such law firms are small entities.487

Loan servicers. Loan servicers would 

be covered by the final rule if they are 

covered by the FDCPA because, among 

other things, they acquire the right to 

service loans already in default.488 The 

Bureau believes that this is most likely 

to occur with regard to companies that 

service mortgage loans or student loans. 

The Bureau estimates that 

approximately 200 such mortgage 

servicers may be small entities and that 

few, if any, student loan servicers that 

would be covered by the final rule are 

small.489

E. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, 

and Other Compliance Requirements of 

the Rule, Including an Estimate of 

Classes of Small Entities That Will Be 

Subject to the Requirements and the 

Type of Professional Skills Necessary for 

the Preparation of the Report or Record 

The final rule will not impose new 

reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements, but it will impose new 

compliance requirements on small 

entities subject to the rule.490 The 

requirements and the costs associated 

with them are discussed below. In 

addition to the specific costs discussed 

below, all small entities will incur costs 

to read the rule and incorporate its 

provisions into their policies and 

procedures, and small entities with 

employees will need to train employees 

in new policies and procedures. The 

extent of training required will depend 

on debt collectors’ existing practices 

and on the roles performed by 

individual employees. Debt collectors 

employ an estimated 123,000 

workers.491 If, on average, the rule 

required an additional hour of training 

for each of these employees, at an 

average cost of $22 per hour, the total 

training cost would be approximately 

$2,700,000.492

In evaluating the potential impacts of 

the rule on small entities, the Bureau 

takes as a baseline conduct in debt 

collection markets under the current 

legal framework governing debt 

collection. This includes debt collector 

practices as they currently exist, 

responding to the requirements of the 

FDCPA as currently interpreted by 

courts and law enforcement agencies, 

other Federal laws, and the rules and 

statutory requirements promulgated by 

the States. This baseline represents the 

status quo from which the impacts of 

this rule will be evaluated. 

The Bureau requested that interested 

parties provide data and quantitative 

analysis of the benefits, costs, or 

impacts of the proposed rule on small 

entities but did not receive any 

comments on this subject. 

The Bureau believes that, except 

where otherwise noted, the impacts 

discussed in part VII would apply to 

small entities to the same extent as to 

larger entities. 

F. Description of Any Significant 

Alternatives to the Rule That 

Accomplish the Stated Objectives of the 

Applicable Statutes and Minimize Any 

Significant Economic Impact of the Rule 

on Small Entities 

Section 604(a)(6) of the RFA requires 

the Bureau to describe in the FRFA any 

significant alternatives to the rule that 

accomplish the stated objectives of 

applicable statutes and that minimize 

any significant economic impact of the 

rule on small entities.493 In developing 

the rule, the Bureau has considered 

alternative provisions and believes that 

none of the alternatives considered 

would be as effective at accomplishing 

the stated objectives of the FDCPA and 

the applicable provisions of title X of 

the Dodd-Frank Act while minimizing 

the impact of the rule on small entities. 

Some of these alternatives are discussed 

in part V, above. 

G. Discussion of Impact on Cost of 

Credit for Small Entities 

Section 603(d) of the RFA requires the 

Bureau to consult with small entities 

regarding the potential impact of the 

proposed rule on the cost of credit for 

small entities and related matters.494 To 

satisfy these statutory requirements, the 

Bureau provided notification to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration (Chief 

Counsel) that the Bureau would collect 

the advice and recommendations of the 

same small entity representatives 

identified in consultation with the Chief 

Counsel through the SBREFA process 

concerning any projected impact of the 

proposed rule on the cost of credit for 

small entities. The Bureau sought to 

collect the advice and recommendations 

of the small entity representatives 

during the Small Business Review Panel 

meeting regarding the potential impact 

on the cost of business credit because, 

as small debt collectors with credit 

needs, the small entity representatives 

could provide valuable input on any 

such impact related to the proposed 

rule. 

The Bureau’s Small Business Review 

Panel Outline asked small entity 

representatives to comment on how the 

proposals under consideration would 

affect the cost of credit to small entities. 

During the SBREFA process, several 

small entity representatives said that the 

proposals under consideration at that 

time, which included time-barred debt 

disclosures among several other 

proposals, could have an impact on the 

cost of credit for them and for their 

small business clients. Some small 

entity representatives said that they use 

lines of credit in their business and that 

regulations that raise their costs or 

reduce their revenue could mean they 

are unable to meet covenants in their 

loan agreements, causing lenders to 

reduce access to capital or increase their 

borrowing costs. 

The Bureau believes that the 

disclosures in the final rule will have 

little impact on the cost of credit to 

small entities. The Bureau does 

recognize that consumer credit could 

become more expensive and less 

available as a result of requirements that 

restrict the collection of debt; however, 

the Bureau does not anticipate that the 

requirements of this final rule will have 

any significant impact on the cost or 

availability of consumer credit. Many 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 5853 

495 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 

496The Bureau shares enforcement authority 

under the FDCPA with the Federal Trade 

Commission. To avoid double-counting, the Bureau 

allocates to itself half of the estimated paperwork 

burden under the final rule by dividing the burden 

hours even between the agencies. However, since 

the Bureau has joint authority over the respondents 

themselves, the Bureau retains the entity count of 

all affected respondents as shown above. 497 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. 

small entities affected by the disclosures 

in the final rule use consumer credit as 

a source of credit and may, therefore, 

see costs rise if consumer credit 

availability decreases. The Bureau does 

not expect this to be a large effect and 

does not anticipate measurable impact. 

IX. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (PRA),495 Federal agencies are 

generally required to seek approval from 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for information collection 

requirements prior to implementation. 

Under the PRA, the Bureau may not 

conduct or sponsor, and, 

notwithstanding any other provision of 

law, a person is not required to respond 

to, an information collection unless the 

information collection displays a valid 

control number assigned by OMB. 

As part of its continuing effort to 

reduce paperwork and respondent 

burden, the Bureau conducts a 

preclearance consultation program to 

provide the general public and Federal 

agencies with an opportunity to 

comment on the information collection 

requirements in accordance with the 

PRA. This helps ensure that the public 

understands the Bureau’s requirements 

or instructions, respondents can provide 

the requested data in the desired format, 

reporting burden (time and financial 

resources) is minimized, collection 

instruments are clearly understood, and 

the Bureau can properly assess the 

impact of collection requirements on 

respondents. 

The final rule amends 12 CFR part 

1006 (Regulation F), which implements 

the FDCPA. The Bureau’s OMB control 

number for Regulation F is 3170–0056; 

it expires April 30, 2022. This final rule 

along with the November 2020 Final 

Rule would revise the information 

collection requirements contained in 

Regulation F that OMB has approved 

under that OMB control number. 

Under the final rule, the Bureau 

requires two information collection 

requirements in Regulation F beyond 

those required by the November 2020 

Final Rule: 

1. Validation notices (final rule 

§ 1006.34). 

2. Communication with consumers 

prior to furnishing information (final 

rule § 1006.30(a)). 

These information collections are 

required to provide benefits for 

consumers and will be mandatory. 

Because the Bureau does not collect any 

information, no issue of confidentiality 

arises. The likely respondents are forprofit businesses that are FDCPA debt 

collectors. 

The collections of information 

contained in this rule, and identified as 

such, as well as the information 

collections contained in the November 

2020 final rule have been submitted to 

OMB for review under section 3507(d) 

of the PRA. A complete description of 

the information collection requirement, 

including the burden estimate methods, 

is provided in the information 

collection request (ICR) supporting 

statement that the Bureau has submitted 

to OMB under the requirements of the 

PRA. The Bureau will publish a separate 

notice in the Federal Register when 

these information collections have been 

approved by OMB. 

Please send your comments to the 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, OMB, Attention: Desk Officer 

for the Bureau of Consumer Financial 

Protection. Send these comments by 

email to oira_submission@omb.eop.gov 

or by fax to (202) 395–6974. If you wish 

to share your comments with the 

Bureau, please send a copy of these 

comments as described in the 

ADDRESSES section above. The ICR 

submitted to OMB requesting approval 

under the PRA for the information 

collection requirements contained 

herein is available at 

www.regulations.gov as well as on 

OMB’s public-facing docket at 

www.reginfo.gov. 

Title of Collection: Regulation F: Fair 

Debt Collection Practices Act. 

OMB Control Number: 3170–0056. 

Type of Review: Revision of a 

currently approved collection. 

Affected Public: Private Sector. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

12,027.496

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 881,000. 

The Bureau has a continuing interest 

in the public’s opinion of its collections 

of information. At any time, comments 

regarding the burden estimate, or any 

other aspect of the information 

collection, including suggestions for 

reducing the burden, may be sent to the 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 

(Attention: PRA Office), 1700 G Street 

NW, Washington, DC 20552, or by email 

to CFPB_PRA@cfpb.gov. 

Where applicable, the Bureau will 

display the control number assigned by 

OMB to any documents associated with 

any information collection requirements 

adopted in this rule. 

X. Congressional Review Act 

Pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act,497 the Bureau will submit a report 

containing this rule and other required 

information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. 

House of Representatives, and the 

Comptroller General of the United 

States at least 60 days prior to the rule’s 

published effective date. The Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs has 

designated this rule as a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

XI. Signing Authority 

The Director of the Bureau, Kathleen 

L. Kraninger, having reviewed and 

approved this document, is delegating 

the authority to electronically sign this 

document to Grace Feola, a Bureau 

Federal Register Liaison, for purposes of 

publication in the Federal Register. 

List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 1006 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Consumer protection, Credit, 

Debt collection, Intergovernmental 

relations. 

Authority and Issuance 

For the reasons set forth above, the 

Bureau is further amending Regulation 

F, 12 CFR part 1006, as revised on 

November 30, 2020, at 85 FR 76734, 

effective November 30, 2021, as set forth 

below: 

PART 1006—DEBT COLLECTION 

PRACTICES (REGULATION F) 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1006 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 5512, 5514(b), 5532; 

15 U.S.C. 1692l(d), 1692o, 7004. 

Subpart A—General 

■ 2. Section 1006.1 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(2) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1006.1 Authority, purpose, and coverage. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) Section 1006.34(c)(2)(iii) and 

(c)(3)(iv) applies to debt collectors only 

when they are collecting debt related to 

a consumer financial product or service 

as defined in § 1006.2(f). 

■ 3. Section 1006.2 is amended by 

revising paragraph (e) and adding 

paragraph (f) to read as follows: 

§ 1006.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
5854 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

(e) Consumer means any natural 

person, whether living or deceased, 

obligated or allegedly obligated to pay 

any debt. For purposes of § 1006.6, the 

term consumer includes the persons 

described in § 1006.6(a). 

(f) Consumer financial product or 

service has the same meaning given to 

it in section 1002(5) of the Dodd-Frank 

Act (12 U.S.C. 5481(5)). 

* * * * * 

Subpart B—Rules for FDCPA Debt 

Collectors 

■ 4. Section 1006.26 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 1006.26 Collection of time-barred debts. 

(a) Definitions. For purposes of this 

section: 

(1) Statute of limitations means the 

period prescribed by applicable law for 

bringing a legal action against the 

consumer to collect a debt. 

(2) Time-barred debt means a debt for 

which the applicable statute of 

limitations has expired. 

(b) Legal actions and threats of legal 

actions prohibited. A debt collector 

must not bring or threaten to bring a 

legal action against a consumer to 

collect a time-barred debt. This 

paragraph (b) does not apply to proofs 

of claim filed in connection with a 

bankruptcy proceeding. 

■ 5. Section 1006.30 is amended by 

adding paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 1006.30 Other prohibited practices. 

(a) Required actions prior to 

furnishing information—(1) In general. 

Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) 

of this section, a debt collector must not 

furnish to a consumer reporting agency, 

as defined in section 603(f) of the Fair 

Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 

1681a(f)), information about a debt 

before the debt collector: 

(i) Speaks to the consumer about the 

debt in person or by telephone; or 

(ii) Places a letter in the mail or sends 

an electronic message to the consumer 

about the debt and waits a reasonable 

period of time to receive a notice of 

undeliverability. During the reasonable 

period, the debt collector must permit 

receipt of, and monitor for, notifications 

of undeliverability from 

communications providers. If the debt 

collector receives such a notification 

during the reasonable period, the debt 

collector must not furnish information 

about the debt to a consumer reporting 

agency until the debt collector 

otherwise satisfies this paragraph (a)(1). 

(2) Special rule—information 

furnished to certain specialty consumer 

reporting agencies. Paragraph (a)(1) of 

this section does not apply to a debt 

collector’s furnishing of information 

about a debt to a nationwide specialty 

consumer reporting agency that 

compiles and maintains information on 

a consumer’s check writing history, as 

described in section 603(x)(3) of the Fair 

Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 

1681a(x)(3)). 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Section 1006.34 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 1006.34 Notice for validation of debts. 

(a) Validation information required— 

(1) In general. Except as provided in 

paragraph (a)(2) of this section, a debt 

collector must provide a consumer with 

the validation information required by 

paragraph (c) of this section either: 

(i) By sending the consumer a 

validation notice in the manner required 

by § 1006.42: 

(A) In the initial communication, as 

defined in paragraph (b)(2) of this 

section; or 

(B) Within five days of that initial 

communication; or 

(ii) By providing the validation 

information orally in the initial 

communication. 

(2) Exception. A debt collector who 

otherwise would be required to send a 

validation notice pursuant to paragraph 

(a)(1)(i)(B) of this section is not required 

to do so if the consumer has paid the 

debt prior to the time that paragraph 

(a)(1)(i)(B) of this section would require 

the validation notice to be sent. 

(b) Definitions. For purposes of this 

section: 

(1) Clear and conspicuous means 

readily understandable. In the case of 

written and electronic disclosures, the 

location and type size also must be 

readily noticeable and legible to 

consumers, although no minimum type 

size is mandated. In the case of oral 

disclosures, the disclosures also must be 

given at a volume and speed sufficient 

for the consumer to hear and 

comprehend them. 

(2) Initial communication means the 

first time that, in connection with the 

collection of a debt, a debt collector 

conveys information, directly or 

indirectly, regarding the debt to the 

consumer, other than a communication 

in the form of a formal pleading in a 

civil action, or any form or notice that 

does not relate to the collection of the 

debt and is expressly required by: 

(i) The Internal Revenue Code of 1986 

(26 U.S.C. 1 et seq.); 

(ii) Title V of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley 

Act (15 U.S.C. 6801 through 6827); or 

(iii) Any provision of Federal or State 

law or regulation mandating notice of a 

data security breach or privacy risk. 

(3) Itemization date means any one of 

the following five reference dates for 

which a debt collector can ascertain the 

amount of the debt: 

(i) The last statement date, which is 

the date of the last periodic statement or 

written account statement or invoice 

provided to the consumer by a creditor; 

(ii) The charge-off date, which is the 

date the debt was charged off; 

(iii) The last payment date, which is 

the date the last payment was applied 

to the debt; 

(iv) The transaction date, which is the 

date of the transaction that gave rise to 

the debt; or 

(v) The judgment date, which is the 

date of a final court judgment that 

determines the amount of the debt owed 

by the consumer. 

(4) Validation notice means a written 

or electronic notice that provides the 

validation information required by 

paragraph (c) of this section. 

(5) Validation period means the 

period starting on the date that a debt 

collector provides the validation 

information required by paragraph (c) of 

this section and ending 30 days after the 

consumer receives or is assumed to 

receive the validation information. For 

purposes of determining the end of the 

validation period, the debt collector 

may assume that a consumer receives 

the validation information on any date 

that is at least five days (excluding legal 

public holidays identified in 5 U.S.C. 

6103(a), Saturdays, and Sundays) after 

the debt collector provides it. 

(c) Validation information. Pursuant 

to paragraph (a)(1) of this section, a debt 

collector must provide the following 

validation information. 

(1) Debt collector communication 

disclosure. The statement required by 

§ 1006.18(e). 

(2) Information about the debt. Except 

as provided in paragraph (c)(5) of this 

section: 

(i) The debt collector’s name and the 

mailing address at which the debt 

collector accepts disputes and requests 

for original-creditor information. 

(ii) The consumer’s name and mailing 

address. 

(iii) If the debt collector is collecting 

a debt related to a consumer financial 

product or service as defined in 

§ 1006.2(f), the name of the creditor to 

whom the debt was owed on the 

itemization date. 

(iv) The account number, if any, 

associated with the debt on the 

itemization date, or a truncated version 

of that number. 

(v) The name of the creditor to whom 

the debt currently is owed. 

(vi) The itemization date. 

(vii) The amount of the debt on the 

itemization date. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 5855 

(viii) An itemization of the current 

amount of the debt reflecting interest, 

fees, payments, and credits since the 

itemization date. A debt collector may 

disclose the itemization on a separate 

page provided in the same 

communication with a validation 

notice, if the debt collector includes on 

the validation notice, where the 

itemization would have appeared, a 

statement referring to that separate page. 

(ix) The current amount of the debt. 

(3) Information about consumer 

protections. (i) The date that the debt 

collector will consider the end date of 

the validation period and a statement 

that, if the consumer notifies the debt 

collector in writing on or before that 

date that the debt, or any portion of the 

debt, is disputed, the debt collector 

must cease collection of the debt, or the 

disputed portion of the debt, until the 

debt collector sends the consumer either 

verification of the debt or a copy of a 

judgment. 

(ii) The date that the debt collector 

will consider the end date of the 

validation period and a statement that, 

if the consumer requests in writing on 

or before that date the name and address 

of the original creditor, the debt 

collector must cease collection of the 

debt until the debt collector sends the 

consumer the name and address of the 

original creditor, if different from the 

current creditor. 

(iii) The date that the debt collector 

will consider the end date of the 

validation period and a statement that, 

unless the consumer contacts the debt 

collector to dispute the validity of the 

debt, or any portion of the debt, on or 

before that date, the debt collector will 

assume that the debt is valid. 

(iv) If the debt collector is collecting 

debt related to a consumer financial 

product or service as defined in 

§ 1006.2(f), a statement that informs the 

consumer that additional information 

regarding consumer protections in debt 

collection is available on the Bureau’s 

website at www.cfpb.gov/debtcollection. 

(v) If the debt collector sends the 

validation notice electronically, a 

statement explaining how a consumer 

can, as described in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) 

and (ii) of this section, dispute the debt 

or request original-creditor information 

electronically. 

(4) Consumer-response information. 

The following information, segregated 

from the validation information 

required by paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) 

of this section and from any optional 

information included pursuant to 

paragraphs (d)(3)(i) and (ii), 

(d)(3)(iii)(A), (d)(3)(iv) and (v), 

(d)(3)(vi)(A), and (d)(3)(vii) and (viii) of 

this section, and, if provided on a 

validation notice, located at the bottom 

of the notice under the headings, ‘‘How 

do you want to respond?’’ and ‘‘Check 

all that apply:’’: 

(i) Dispute prompts. The following 

statements, listed in the following order, 

and using the following phrasing or 

substantially similar phrasing, each next 

to a prompt: 

(A) ‘‘I want to dispute the debt 

because I think:’’; 

(B) ‘‘This is not my debt.’’; 

(C) ‘‘The amount is wrong.’’; and 

(D) ‘‘Other (please describe on reverse 

or attach additional information).’’ 

(ii) Original-creditor information 

prompt. The statement, ‘‘I want you to 

send me the name and address of the 

original creditor.’’, using that phrase or 

a substantially similar phrase, next to a 

prompt. 

(iii) Mailing addresses. Mailing 

addresses for the consumer and the debt 

collector, which are the debt collector’s 

and the consumer’s names and mailing 

addresses as disclosed pursuant to 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(i) and (ii). 

(5) Special rule for certain residential 

mortgage debt. For residential mortgage 

debt, if a periodic statement is required 

under Regulation Z, 12 CFR 1026.41, at 

the time a debt collector provides the 

validation notice, a debt collector need 

not provide the validation information 

required by paragraphs (c)(2)(vi) 

through (viii) of this section if the debt 

collector: 

(i) Provides the consumer, in the same 

communication with the validation 

notice, a copy of the most recent 

periodic statement provided to the 

consumer under Regulation Z, 12 CFR 

1026.41(b); and 

(ii) Includes on the validation notice, 

where the validation information 

required by paragraphs (c)(2)(vi) 

through (viii) of this section would have 

appeared, a statement referring to that 

periodic statement. 

(d) Form of validation information— 

(1) In general. The validation 

information required by paragraph (c) of 

this section must be clear and 

conspicuous. 

(2) Safe harbor—(i) In general. Model 

Form B–1 in appendix B to this part 

contains the validation information 

required by paragraph (c) of this section 

and certain optional disclosures 

permitted by paragraph (d)(3) of this 

section. A debt collector who uses 

Model Form B–1 complies with the 

information and form requirements of 

paragraphs (c) and (d)(1) of this section, 

including if the debt collector: 

(A) Omits any or all of the optional 

disclosures shown on Model Form B–1; 

or 

(B) Adds any or all of the optional 

disclosures described in paragraph 

(d)(3) of this section that are not shown 

on Model Form B–1, provided that any 

such optional disclosures are no more 

prominent than any of the validation 

information required by paragraph (c) of 

this section. 

(ii) Certain disclosures on a separate 

page. A debt collector who uses Model 

Form B–1 as described in paragraph 

(d)(2)(i) of this section and who, 

pursuant to paragraph (c)(2)(viii) or 

(c)(5) of this section, includes certain 

disclosures on a separate page in the 

same communication with the 

validation notice and, on the notice, the 

required statement referring to those 

disclosures, receives a safe harbor for 

compliance with the information and 

form requirements of paragraphs (c) and 

(d)(1) of this section except with respect 

to the disclosures on the separate page. 

(iii) Substantially similar form. A debt 

collector who uses Model Form B–1 as 

described in paragraph (d)(2)(i) or (ii) of 

this section may make changes to the 

form and retain a safe harbor for 

compliance with the information and 

form requirements of paragraphs (c) and 

(d)(1) of this section provided that the 

form remains substantially similar to 

Model Form B–1. 

(3) Optional disclosures. A debt 

collector may include any of the 

following information when providing 

the validation information required by 

paragraph (c) of this section. A debt 

collector who includes any of the 

following information receives the safe 

harbor described in paragraph (d)(2) of 

this section, provided that the debt 

collector otherwise uses Model Form B– 

1 in appendix B to this part, or a 

variation of Model Form B–1, as 

described in paragraph (d)(2) of this 

section. 

(i) Telephone contact information. 

The debt collector’s telephone contact 

information. 

(ii) Reference code. A number or code 

that the debt collector uses to identify 

the debt or the consumer. 

(iii) Payment disclosures. Either or 

both of the following phrases: 

(A) The statement, ‘‘Contact us about 

your payment options.’’, using that 

phrase or a substantially similar phrase; 

and 

(B) Below the consumer-response 

information required by paragraphs 

(c)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section, the 

statement, ‘‘I enclosed this amount:’’, 

using that phrase or a substantially 

similar phrase, payment instructions 

after that statement, and a prompt. 

(iv) Disclosures under applicable 

law—(A) Disclosures on the reverse of 

the validation notice. On the reverse of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
5856 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

the validation notice, any disclosures 

that are specifically required by, or that 

provide safe harbors under, applicable 

law and, if any such disclosures are 

included, a statement on the front of the 

validation notice referring to those 

disclosures. Any such disclosures must 

not appear directly on the reverse of the 

consumer-response information 

required by paragraph (c)(4) of this 

section. 

(B) Disclosures on the front of the 

validation notice. If a debt collector is 

collecting time-barred debt, on the front 

of the validation notice below the 

disclosure required by paragraph 

(c)(2)(ix) of this section, any time-barred 

debt disclosure that is specifically 

required by, or that provides a safe 

harbor under, applicable law, provided 

that applicable law specifies the content 

of the disclosure. 

(v) Information about electronic 

communications. The following 

information: 

(A) The debt collector’s website and 

email address. 

(B) If the validation information is not 

provided electronically, a statement 

explaining how a consumer can, as 

described in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) and (ii) 

of this section, dispute the debt or 

request original-creditor information 

electronically. 

(vi) Spanish-language translation 

disclosures. Either or both of the 

following disclosures regarding a 

consumer’s ability to request a Spanishlanguage translation of a validation 

notice: 

(A) The statement, ‘‘Po ́ngase en 

contacto con nosotros para solicitar una 

copia de este formulario en espan ̃ ol’’ 

(which means ‘‘Contact us to request a 

copy of this form in Spanish’’), using 

that phrase or a substantially similar 

phrase in Spanish. If providing this 

optional disclosure, a debt collector may 

include supplemental information in 

Spanish that specifies how a consumer 

may request a Spanish-language 

validation notice. 

(B) With the consumer-response 

information required by paragraph (c)(4) 

of this section, the statement ‘‘Quiero 

este formulario en espan ̃ ol’’ (which 

means ‘‘I want this form in Spanish’’), 

using that phrase or a substantially 

similar phrase in Spanish, next to a 

prompt. 

(vii) The merchant brand, affinity 

brand, or facility name, if any, 

associated with the debt. 

(viii) If a debt collector is collecting 

debt other than debt related to a 

consumer financial product or service as 

defined in § 1006.2(f), the information 

specified in paragraph (c)(2)(iii) or 

(c)(3)(iv) of this section. 

(4) Validation notices delivered 

electronically. If a debt collector 

delivers a validation notice 

electronically, a debt collector may, at 

its option, format the validation notice 

as follows: 

(i) Prompts. Any prompt required by 

paragraph (c)(4)(i) or (ii) or paragraph 

(d)(3)(iii)(B) or (d)(3)(vi)(B) of this 

section may be displayed electronically 

as a fillable field. 

(ii) Hyperlinks. Hyperlinks may be 

embedded that, when clicked: 

(A) Connect a consumer to the debt 

collector’s website; 

(B) Connect a consumer to the 

Bureau’s debt collection website as 

disclosed pursuant to paragraph 

(c)(3)(iv) of this section; or 

(C) Permit a consumer to respond to 

the dispute and original-creditor 

information prompts required by 

paragraphs (c)(4)(i) and (ii) of this 

section. 

(e) Translation into other languages— 

(1) In general. A debt collector may send 

a consumer a validation notice 

completely and accurately translated 

into any language if the debt collector: 

(i) Sends the consumer an Englishlanguage validation notice in the same 

communication as the translated 

validation notice; or 

(ii) Previously provided the consumer 

an English-language validation notice, 

in which case the debt collector need 

not send the consumer an Englishlanguage validation notice in the same 

communication as the translated 

validation notice. 

(2) Spanish-language validation 

notice—requirement to provide after 

optional disclosure. A debt collector 

who includes in the validation 

information either or both of the 

optional disclosures described in 

paragraph (d)(3)(vi) of this section, and 

who thereafter receives a request from 

the consumer for a Spanish-language 

validation notice, must provide the 

consumer a validation notice 

completely and accurately translated 

into Spanish. 

■ 7. Section 1006.38 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a)(2), (b), and (c) to 

read as follows: 

§ 1006.38 Disputes and requests for 

original-creditor information. 

(a) * * * 

(2) Validation period has the same 

meaning given to it in § 1006.34(b)(5). 

(b) Overshadowing of rights to dispute 

or request original-creditor 

information—(1) Prohibition. During the 

validation period, a debt collector must 

not engage in any collection activities or 

communications that overshadow or are 

inconsistent with the disclosure of the 

consumer’s rights to dispute the debt 

and to request the name and address of 

the original creditor. 

(2) Safe harbor. A debt collector who 

uses Model Form B–1 in appendix B to 

this part in a manner described in 

§ 1006.34(d)(2) has not thereby violated 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section. 

(c) Requests for original-creditor 

information. Upon receipt of a request 

for the name and address of the original 

creditor submitted by the consumer in 

writing within the validation period, a 

debt collector must cease collection of 

the debt until the debt collector: 

(1) In general. Sends the name and 

address of the original creditor to the 

consumer in writing or electronically in 

the manner required by § 1006.42; or 

(2) Special rule if the current creditor 

and the original creditor are the same. 

In lieu of taking the actions described in 

paragraph (c)(1) of this section, 

reasonably determines that the original 

creditor is the same as the current 

creditor, notifies the consumer of that 

fact in writing or electronically in the 

manner required by § 1006.42, and 

refers the consumer to the validation 

information previously provided 

pursuant to § 1006.34(a)(1). 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Section 1006.42 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (b) to read 

as follows: 

§ 1006.42 Sending required disclosures. 

(a) * * * 

(2) Exceptions. A debt collector need 

not comply with paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section when sending the disclosure 

required by § 1006.6(e) or § 1006.18(e) 

in writing or electronically, unless the 

disclosure is included on a notice 

required by § 1006.34(a)(1)(i) or 

§ 1006.38(c) or (d)(2). 

(b) Requirements for certain 

disclosures sent electronically. To 

comply with paragraph (a) of this 

section, a debt collector who sends the 

notice required by § 1006.34(a)(1)(i)(B), 

or the disclosures described in 

§ 1006.38(c) or (d)(2)(i), electronically 

must do so in accordance with section 

101(c) of the Electronic Signatures in 

Global and National Commerce Act (E– 

SIGN Act) (15 U.S.C. 7001(c)). 

■ 9. Appendix B to part 1006 is added 

to read as follows: 

Appendix B to Part 1006—Model Forms 

B–1 Model Form for Validation Notice 

BILLING CODE 4810–AM–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 5857 

BILLING CODE 4810–AM–C 

■ 10. In supplement I to part 1006: 

■ a. Under Section 1006.30—Other 

Prohibited Practices, the headings 30(a) 

Required actions prior to furnishing 

information, and 30(a)(1) In general, 

and paragraphs 1 and 2 are added. 

■ b. Section 1006.34—Notice for 

Validation of Debts is added. 

■ c. Under Section 1006.38—Disputes 

and Requests for Original-Creditor 

Information, the introductory text before 

38(a) Definitions is revised. 

■ d. Under Section 1006.100—Record 

Retention, 100(a) In general, including 

the heading, is revised. 

■ e. Section 1006.104—Relation to State 

Laws is added. 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

Supplement I to Part 1006—Official 

Interpretations 

* * * * * 

Subpart B—Rules for FDCPA Debt 

Collectors 

* * * * * 

Section 1006.30—Other Prohibited 

Practices 

30(a) Required actions prior to 

furnishing information. 

30(a)(1) In general. 

1. About the debt. Section 

1006.30(a)(1) provides, in relevant part, 

that a debt collector must not furnish to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8ER19JA21.028</GPH>
5858 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

a consumer reporting agency, as defined 

in section 603(f) of the Fair Credit 

Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681a(f)), 

information about a debt before taking 

one of the actions described in 

§ 1006.30(a)(1)(i) or (ii). Each of the 

actions includes conveying information 

‘‘about the debt’’ to the consumer. The 

validation information required by 

§ 1006.34(c), including such information 

if provided in a validation notice, is 

information ‘‘about the debt.’’ 

2. Reasonable period of time. Section 

1006.30(a)(1)(ii) provides, in relevant 

part, that a debt collector who places a 

letter about a debt in the mail, or who 

sends an electronic message about a 

debt to the consumer, must wait a 

reasonable period of time to receive a 

notice of undeliverability before 

furnishing information about the debt to 

a consumer reporting agency. The 

reasonable period of time begins on the 

date that the debt collector places the 

letter in the mail or sends the electronic 

message. A period of 14 consecutive 

days after the date that the debt 

collector places a letter in the mail or 

sends an electronic message is a 

reasonable period of time. 

3. Notices of undeliverability. Section 

1006.30(a)(1)(ii) provides, in relevant 

part, that, if a debt collector who places 

a letter about a debt in the mail, or who 

sends an electronic message about a 

debt to the consumer, receives a notice 

of undeliverability during the 

reasonable period of time, the debt 

collector must not furnish information 

about the debt to a consumer reporting 

agency until the debt collector 

otherwise satisfies paragraph (a)(1) of 

this section. A debt collector who does 

not receive a notice of undeliverability 

during the reasonable period and who 

thereafter furnishes information about 

the debt to a consumer reporting agency 

does not violate paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section even if the debt collector 

subsequently receives a notice of 

undeliverability. The following 

examples illustrate the rule: 

i. Assume that, on May 1, a debt 

collector mails the consumer a 

validation notice as described in 

§ 1006.34(a)(1)(i)(A). On May 10, the 

debt collector receives a notice of 

undeliverability and, without taking any 

additional action described in 

§ 1006.30(a)(1), subsequently furnishes 

information regarding the debt to a 

consumer reporting agency. The debt 

collector has violated § 1006.30(a)(1). 

ii. Assume that, on May 1, a debt 

collector mails the consumer a 

validation notice as described in 

§ 1006.34(a)(1)(i)(A). On May 10, the 

debt collector receives a notice of 

undeliverability. On May 11, the debt 

collector mails the consumer another 

validation notice as described in 

§ 1006.34(a)(1)(i)(A). From May 11 to 

May 24, the debt collector permits 

receipt of, monitors for, and does not 

receive, a notice of undeliverability and 

thereafter furnishes information 

regarding the debt to a consumer 

reporting agency. The debt collector has 

not violated § 1006.30(a)(1). 

iii. Assume that, on May 1, a debt 

collector mails the consumer a 

validation notice as described in 

§ 1006.34(a)(1)(i)(A). From May 1 to 

May 14, the debt collector permits 

receipt of, monitors for, and does not 

receive, a notice of undeliverability and 

thereafter furnishes information 

regarding the debt to a consumer 

reporting agency. After furnishing the 

information, the debt collector receives 

a notice of undeliverability. The debt 

collector has not violated § 1006.30(a)(1) 

and, without taking any further action, 

may furnish additional information 

about the debt to a consumer reporting 

agency. 

* * * * * 

Section 1006.34—Notice for Validation 

of Debts 

34(a) Validation information required. 

34(a)(1) In general. 

1. Deceased consumers. Section 

1006.34(a)(1) generally requires a debt 

collector to provide the validation 

information required by § 1006.34(c) 

either by sending the consumer a 

validation notice in the manner required 

by § 1006.42, or by providing the 

information orally in the debt collector’s 

initial communication. If the debt 

collector knows or should know that the 

consumer is deceased, and if the debt 

collector has not previously provided 

the validation information to the 

deceased consumer, a person who is 

authorized to act on behalf of the 

deceased consumer’s estate operates as 

the consumer for purposes of 

§ 1006.34(a)(1). In such circumstances, 

to comply with § 1006.34(a)(1), a debt 

collector must provide the validation 

information to an individual that the 

debt collector identifies by name who is 

authorized to act on behalf of the 

deceased consumer’s estate. 

34(b) Definitions. 

34(b)(2) Initial communication. 

1. Bankruptcy proofs of claim. Section 

1006.34(b)(2) defines initial 

communication and states that the term 

does not include a communication in 

the form of a formal pleading in a civil 

action. A proof of claim that a debt 

collector files in a bankruptcy 

proceeding in accordance with the 

requirements of the United States 

Bankruptcy Code (Title 11 of the U.S. 

Code) is a communication in the form 

of a formal pleading in a civil action and 

therefore is not an initial 

communication for purposes of 

§ 1006.34. 

34(b)(3) Itemization date. 

1. In general. Section 1006.34(b)(3) 

defines itemization date for purposes of 

§ 1006.34. Section 1006.34(b)(3) states 

that the itemization date is any one of 

five reference dates for which a debt 

collector can ascertain the amount of the 

debt. The reference dates are the last 

statement date, the charge-off date, the 

last payment date, the transaction date, 

and the judgment date. A debt collector 

may select any of these dates as the 

itemization date to comply with 

§ 1006.34. Once a debt collector uses a 

reference date for a debt in a 

communication with a consumer, the 

debt collector must use that reference 

date for that debt consistently when 

providing the information required by 

§ 1006.34(c) to that consumer. For 

example, if a debt collector uses the last 

statement date to determine and 

disclose the account number associated 

with the debt pursuant to 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(iv), the debt collector 

may not use the charge-off date to 

determine and disclose the amount of 

the debt pursuant to § 1006.34(c)(2)(vii). 

2. Subsequent debt collectors. When 

selecting an itemization date pursuant 

to § 1006.34(b)(3), a debt collector may 

use a different reference date than a 

prior debt collector who attempted to 

collect the debt. 

Paragraph 34(b)(3)(i). 

1. Last statement date. Under 

§ 1006.34(b)(3)(i), the last statement date 

is the date of the last periodic statement 

or written account statement or invoice 

provided to the consumer by a creditor. 

For purposes of § 1006.34(b)(3)(i), the 

last statement may be provided by a 

creditor or a third party acting on the 

creditor’s behalf, including a creditor’s 

service provider. However, a statement 

or invoice provided by a debt collector 

is not a last statement for purposes of 

§ 1006.34(b)(3)(i), unless the debt 

collector is also a creditor. 

Paragraph 34(b)(3)(iii). 

1. Last payment date. Under 

§ 1006.34(b)(3)(iii), the last payment 

date is the date the last payment was 

applied to the debt. A third-party 

payment applied to the debt, such as a 

payment from an auto repossession 

agent or an insurance company, can be 

a last payment for purposes of 

§ 1006.34(b)(3)(iii). 

Paragraph 34(b)(3)(iv). 

1. Transaction date. Section 

1006.34(b)(3)(iv) provides that the 

itemization date may be the date of the 

transaction that gave rise to the debt. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 5859 

The transaction date is the date that the 

good or service that gave rise to the debt 

was provided or made available to the 

consumer. For example, the transaction 

date for a debt arising from a medical 

procedure may be the date the medical 

procedure was performed, and the 

transaction date for a consumer’s gym 

membership may be the date the 

membership contract was executed. In 

some cases, a debt may have more than 

one transaction date. This could occur, 

for example, if a contract for a service 

is executed on one date and the service 

is performed on another date. If a debt 

has more than one transaction date, a 

debt collector may use any such date as 

the transaction date for purposes of 

§ 1006.34(b)(3)(iv), but the debt collector 

must use whichever transaction date is 

selected consistently, as described in 

comment 34(b)(3)–1. 

34(b)(5) Validation period. 

1. Assumed receipt of validation 

information. Section 1006.34(b)(5) 

defines the validation period as the 

period starting on the date that a debt 

collector provides the validation 

information required by § 1006.34(c) 

and ending 30 days after the consumer 

receives or is assumed to receive it. 

Section 1006.34(c)(3)(i) through (iii) 

requires statements that specify the end 

date of the validation period. If a debt 

collector provides the validation 

information in writing or electronically, 

then, at the time that the debt collector 

calculates the validation period end 

date, the debt collector will know only 

the date on which the consumer is 

assumed to receive the validation 

information. In such cases, the debt 

collector may use that date to calculate 

the validation period end date even if 

the debt collector later learns that the 

consumer received the validation 

information on a different date. 

2. Updated validation period. If a debt 

collector sends a subsequent validation 

notice to a consumer because the 

consumer did not receive the original 

validation notice and the consumer has 

not otherwise received the validation 

information required by § 1006.34(c), 

the debt collector must calculate the end 

date of the validation period specified 

in the § 1006.34(c)(3) disclosures based 

on the date the consumer receives or is 

assumed to receive the subsequent 

validation notice. For example, assume 

a debt collector sends a consumer a 

validation notice on January 1, and that 

notice is returned as undeliverable. 

After obtaining accurate location 

information, the debt collector sends the 

consumer a subsequent validation 

notice on January 15. Pursuant to 

§ 1006.34(b)(5), the end date of the 

validation period specified in the 

§ 1006.34(c)(3) disclosures is based on 

the date the consumer receives or is 

assumed to receive the validation notice 

sent on January 15. 

34(c) Validation information. 

34(c)(1) Debt collector communication 

disclosure. 

1. Statement required by § 1006.18(e). 

Section 1006.34(c)(1) provides that 

validation information includes the 

statement required by § 1006.18(e). 

Section 1006.18(e)(1) requires a debt 

collector to disclose in its initial 

communication that the debt collector is 

attempting to collect a debt and that any 

information obtained will be used for 

that purpose. Section 1006.18(e)(2) 

requires a debt collector to disclose in 

each subsequent communication that 

the communication is from a debt 

collector. A debt collector who provides 

a validation notice as described in 

§ 1006.34(a)(1)(i)(A) complies with 

§ 1006.34(c)(1) by providing on the 

validation notice the disclosure required 

by § 1006.18(e)(1). A debt collector who 

provides a validation notice as 

described in § 1006.34(a)(1)(i)(B) 

complies with § 1006.34(c)(1) by 

providing either the disclosure required 

by § 1006.18(e)(1) or the disclosure 

required by § 1006.18(e)(2). The 

following example illustrates the rule: 

i. ABC debt collector has an initial 

communication with the consumer by 

telephone. Within five days of that 

initial communication, ABC debt 

collector sends the consumer a 

validation notice using Model Form 

B–1 in appendix B to this part. ABC 

debt collector has complied with 

§ 1006.34(c)(1) even though Model Form 

B–1 includes the disclosure described in 

§ 1006.18(e)(1) rather than the 

disclosure described in § 1006.18(e)(2). 

34(c)(2) Information about the debt. 

Paragraph 34(c)(2)(i). 

1. Debt collector’s name. Section 

1006.34(c)(2)(i) provides, in part, that 

validation information includes the debt 

collector’s name. A debt collector may 

disclose its trade or doing-business-as 

name, instead of its legal name. 

2. Debt collector’s mailing address. 

Section 1006.34(c)(2)(i) provides, in 

part, that validation information 

includes the mailing address at which 

the debt collector accepts disputes and 

requests for original-creditor 

information. A debt collector may 

disclose a vendor’s mailing address, if 

that is an address at which the debt 

collector accepts disputes and requests 

for original-creditor information. 

Paragraph 34(c)(2)(ii). 

1. Consumer’s name. Section 

1006.34(c)(2)(ii) provides, in part, that 

validation information includes the 

consumer’s name. To satisfy the 

requirement to provide this validation 

information, a debt collector must 

disclose the version of the consumer’s 

name that the debt collector reasonably 

determines is the most complete and 

accurate version of the name about 

which the debt collector has knowledge. 

A debt collector does not disclose the 

most complete and accurate version of 

the consumer’s name if the debt 

collector omits known name 

information in a manner that creates a 

false, misleading, or confusing 

impression about the consumer’s 

identity. For example, assume the 

creditor provides the consumer’s first 

name, middle name, last name, and 

name suffix to the debt collector. In this 

scenario, the debt collector would 

reasonably determine that the most 

complete and accurate version of the 

consumer’s name about which the debt 

collector has knowledge includes the 

first name, middle name, last name, and 

name suffix. If the debt collector omits 

any of this information, the debt 

collector has not satisfied the 

requirement to provide the consumer’s 

name pursuant to § 1006.34(c)(2)(ii). 

Paragraph 34(c)(2)(iii). 

1. Creditor’s name. Section 

1006.34(c)(2)(iii) provides that, if a debt 

collector is collecting debt related to a 

consumer financial product or service as 

defined in § 1006.2(f), validation 

information includes the name of the 

creditor to whom the debt was owed on 

the itemization date. Pursuant to 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(iii), a debt collector may 

disclose this creditor’s trade or doingbusiness-as name, instead of its legal 

name. 

Paragraph 34(c)(2)(iv). 

1. Account number truncation. 

Section 1006.34(c)(2)(iv) provides that 

validation information includes the 

account number, if any, associated with 

the debt on the itemization date, or a 

truncated version of that number. If a 

debt collector uses a truncated account 

number, the account number must 

remain recognizable. For example, a 

debt collector may truncate a credit card 

account number so that only the last 

four digits are provided. 

Paragraph 34(c)(2)(v). 

1. Creditor’s name. Section 

1006.34(c)(2)(v) provides that validation 

information includes the name of the 

creditor to whom the debt currently is 

owed. A debt collector may disclose this 

creditor’s trade or doing-business-as 

name, instead of its legal name. 

Paragraph 34(c)(2)(vii). 

1. Amount of the debt on the 

itemization date. Section 

1006.34(c)(2)(vii) provides that 

validation information includes the 

amount of the debt on the itemization 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
5860 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

date. The amount of the debt on the 

itemization date includes any fees, 

interest, or other charges owed as of that 

date. 

Paragraph 34(c)(2)(viii). 

1. Itemization of the debt. Section 

1006.34(c)(2)(viii) provides that 

validation information includes an 

itemization of the current amount of the 

debt reflecting interest, fees, payments, 

and credits since the itemization date. If 

providing a validation notice, a debt 

collector must include fields in the 

notice for all of these items even if none 

of the items have been assessed or 

applied to the debt since the itemization 

date. A debt collector may indicate that 

the value of a required field is ‘‘0,’’ 

‘‘none,’’ or may state that no interest, 

fees, payments, or credits have been 

assessed or applied to the debt; a debt 

collector may not leave a required field 

blank. 

2. Itemization required by other 

applicable law. If a debt collector is 

required by other applicable law to 

provide an itemization of the current 

amount of the debt with the validation 

information, the debt collector may 

comply with § 1006.34(c)(2)(viii) by 

disclosing the itemization required by 

other applicable law in lieu of the 

itemization described in 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(viii), if the itemization 

required by other applicable law is 

substantially similar to the itemization 

that appears on Model Form B–1 in 

appendix B to this part. 

3. Itemization on a separate page. 

Section 1006.34(c)(2)(viii) provides that 

a debt collector may disclose the 

itemization of the current amount of the 

debt on a separate page provided in the 

same communication with a validation 

notice if the debt collector includes on 

the validation notice, where the 

itemization would have appeared, a 

statement referring to that separate page. 

A debt collector may comply with the 

requirement to refer to the separate page 

by, for example, including on the 

validation notice the statement, ‘‘See the 

enclosed separate page for an 

itemization of the debt,’’ situated next to 

the information about the current 

amount of the debt required by 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(ix). 

4. Debt collectors collecting multiple 

debts. A debt collector who combines 

multiple debts on a single validation 

notice complies with 

§ 1006.34(c)(2)(viii) by disclosing either 

a single, cumulative itemization on the 

validation notice or a separate 

itemization of each debt on a separate 

page or pages provided in the same 

communication as the validation notice. 

Paragraph 34(c)(2)(ix). 

1. Current amount of the debt. Section 

1006.34(c)(2)(ix) provides that 

validation information includes the 

current amount of the debt (i.e., the 

amount as of when the validation 

information is provided). For residential 

mortgage debt subject to Regulation Z, 

12 CFR 1026.41, a debt collector may 

comply with the requirement to provide 

the current amount of the debt by 

providing the consumer the total 

balance of the outstanding mortgage, 

including principal, interest, fees, and 

other charges. 

2. Debt collectors collecting multiple 

debts. A debt collector who combines 

multiple debts on a single validation 

notice complies with § 1006.34(c)(2)(ix) 

by disclosing on the validation notice a 

single cumulative figure that is the sum 

of the current amount of all the debts. 

34(c)(3) Information about consumer 

protections. 

Paragraph 34(c)(3)(v). 

1. Electronic communication media. 

Section 1006.34(c)(3)(v) provides that, if 

the debt collector provides the 

validation notice electronically, 

validation information includes a 

statement explaining how a consumer 

can, as described in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) 

and (ii) of this section, dispute the debt 

or request original-creditor information 

electronically. A debt collector may 

provide the information required by 

§ 1006.34(c)(3)(v) by including the 

statements, ‘‘We accept disputes 

electronically at,’’ using that phrase or 

a substantially similar phrase, followed 

by an email address or website portal 

that a consumer can use to take the 

action described in § 1006.34(c)(4)(i), 

and ‘‘We accept original creditor 

information requests electronically,’’ 

using that phrase or a substantially 

similar phrase, followed by an email 

address or website portal that a 

consumer can use to take the action 

described in § 1006.34(c)(4)(ii). If a debt 

collector accepts electronic 

communications from consumers 

through more than one medium, such as 

by email and through a website portal, 

the debt collector is required to provide 

information regarding only one of these 

media but may provide information on 

any additional media. 

34(c)(4) Consumer-response 

information. 

1. Prompts. If the validation 

information is provided in writing or 

electronically, a prompt required by 

§ 1006.34(c)(4) may be formatted as a 

checkbox as in Model Form B–1 in 

appendix B to this part. 

34(c)(5) Special rule for certain 

residential mortgage debt. 

1. In general. Section 1006.34(c)(5) 

provides that, for residential mortgage 

debt, if a periodic statement is required 

under Regulation Z, 12 CFR 1026.41, at 

the time a debt collector provides the 

validation notice, a debt collector need 

not provide the validation information 

required by § 1006.34(c)(2)(vi) through 

(viii) if the debt collector provides the 

consumer, in the same communication 

with the validation notice, a copy of the 

most recent periodic statement provided 

to the consumer under 12 CFR 

1026.41(b), and the debt collector 

includes on the validation notice, where 

the validation information required by 

paragraphs (c)(2)(vi) through (viii) of 

this section would have appeared, a 

statement referring to that periodic 

statement. A debt collector may comply 

with the requirement to refer to the 

periodic statement in the validation 

notice by, for example, including on the 

validation notice the statement, ‘‘See the 

enclosed periodic statement for an 

itemization of the debt.’’ 

34(d) Form of validation information. 

34(d)(2) Safe harbor. 

1. In general. A debt collector who 

provides a validation notice that is 

neither a notice described in 

§ 1006.34(d)(2)(i) or (ii), nor a 

substantially similar notice as described 

in § 1006.34(d)(2)(iii), does not receive a 

safe harbor for compliance with the 

information and form requirements of 

§ 1006.34(c) and (d)(1). 

34(d)(2)(i) In general. 

1. Disclosure required by § 1006.18(e). 

Section 1006.18(e)(1) requires a debt 

collector to disclose in its initial 

communication that the debt collector is 

attempting to collect a debt and that any 

information obtained will be used for 

that purpose. Section 1006.18(e)(2) 

requires a debt collector to disclose in 

each subsequent communication that 

the communication is from a debt 

collector. Model Form B–1 in appendix 

B to this part includes the disclosure 

required by § 1006.18(e)(1). A debt 

collector who uses Model Form B–1 to 

provide a validation notice as described 

in § 1006.34(a)(1)(i)(B) may replace the 

disclosure required by § 1006.18(e)(1) 

with the disclosure required by 

§ 1006.18(e)(2) without losing the safe 

harbor described in § 1006.34(d)(2). See 

comment 34(c)(1)–1 for further guidance 

related to providing the disclosure 

required by § 1006.18(e) on a validation 

notice. 

34(d)(2)(iii) Substantially similar 

form. 

1. Substantially similar form. 

Pursuant to § 1006.34(d)(2)(iii), a debt 

collector who uses Model Form B–1 as 

described in § 1006.34(d)(2)(i) may 

make changes to the form and retain the 

safe harbor for compliance with the 

information and form requirements of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 5861 

§ 1006.34(c) and (d)(1) provided that the 

form remains substantially similar in 

substance, clarity, and meaningful 

sequence to Model Form B–1. 

Permissible changes include, for 

example: 

i. Modifications to remove language 

that could suggest liability for the debt 

if such language is not applicable. For 

example, if a debt collector sends a 

validation notice to a person who is 

authorized to act on behalf of the 

deceased consumer’s estate (see 

comment 34(a)(1)–1), and that person is 

not liable for the debt, the debt collector 

may use the name of the deceased 

consumer instead of ‘‘you’’; 

ii. Relocating the consumer-response 

information required by § 1006.34(c)(4) 

to facilitate mailing; 

iii. Adding barcodes or QR codes, as 

long as the inclusion of such items does 

not violate § 1006.38(b); 

iv. Adding the date the form is 

generated; and 

v. Embedding hyperlinks, if 

delivering the form electronically. 

34(d)(3) Optional disclosures. 

34(d)(3)(i) Telephone contact 

information. 

1. In general. Section 1006.34(d)(3)(i) 

permits a debt collector to include 

telephone contact information. 

Telephone contact information may 

include, for example, a telephone 

number as well as the times that the 

debt collector accepts consumer 

telephone calls. 

34(d)(3)(iv) Disclosures under 

applicable law. 

34(d)(3)(iv)(A) Disclosures on the 

reverse of the validation notice. 

1. In general. Section 

1006.34(d)(3)(iv)(A) permits, in relevant 

part, a debt collector to include on the 

reverse of the validation notice any 

disclosures that are specifically required 

by, or that provide safe harbors under, 

applicable law. If a debt collector 

provides a validation notice in the body 

of an email, the debt collector may, in 

lieu of including the disclosures 

permitted by § 1006.34(d)(3)(iv)(A) on 

the reverse of the validation notice, 

include them in the same 

communication below the content of the 

validation notice. Disclosures permitted 

by § 1006.34(d)(3)(iv)(A) include, for 

example, specific disclosures required 

by Federal, State, or municipal statutes 

or regulations, and specific disclosures 

required by judicial or administrative 

decisions or orders, including 

administrative consent orders. Such 

disclosures could include, for example, 

time-barred debt disclosures and 

disclosures that the current amount of 

the debt may increase or vary due to 

interest, fees, or other charges, provided 

that such disclosures are specifically 

required by applicable law. 

2. Statement referring to disclosures. 

If a debt collector includes disclosures 

pursuant to § 1006.34(d)(3)(iv)(A), the 

debt collector must include a statement 

on the front of the validation notice 

referring to those disclosures. A debt 

collector may comply with the 

requirement to refer to the disclosures 

by including on the front of the 

validation notice the statement, ‘‘Notice: 

See reverse side for important 

information,’’ or a substantially similar 

statement. If, as permitted by comment 

34(d)(3)(iv)(A)–1, a debt collector places 

the disclosures below the content of the 

validation notice, the debt collector may 

comply with the requirement to refer to 

the disclosures by stating, ‘‘Notice: See 

below for important information,’’ or a 

substantially similar statement. 

34(d)(3)(iv)(B) Disclosures on the front 

of the validation notice. 

1. In general. Section 

1006.34(d)(3)(iv)(B) provides, in 

relevant part that, if a debt collector is 

collecting time-barred debt, the debt 

collector may include on the front of the 

validation notice any time-barred debt 

disclosure that is specifically required 

by, or that provides a safe harbor under, 

applicable law, provided that applicable 

law specifies the content of the 

disclosure. For example, if applicable 

State law requires a debt collector who 

is collecting time-barred debt to disclose 

to the consumer that the law limits how 

long a consumer can be sued on a debt 

and that the debt collector cannot or 

will not sue the consumer to collect it, 

the debt collector may include that 

disclosure on the front of the validation 

notice. See § 1006.26(a)(2) for the 

definition of time-barred debt. For 

purposes of § 1006.34(d)(3)(iv)(B), timebarred debt disclosures may include 

disclosures about revival of debt 

collectors’ right to bring a legal action to 

enforce the debt. 

34(d)(3)(vi) Spanish-language 

translation disclosures. 

Paragraph 34(d)(3)(vi)(A). 

1. Supplemental information in 

Spanish. Section 1006.34(d)(3)(vi)(A) 

permits a debt collector to include 

supplemental information in Spanish 

that specifies how a consumer may 

request a Spanish-language validation 

notice. For example, a debt collector 

may include a statement in Spanish that 

a consumer can request a Spanishlanguage validation notice by telephone 

or email, if the debt collector accepts 

consumer requests through those 

communication media. 

Paragraph 34(d)(3)(vii). 

1. Merchant brand. Section 

1006.34(d)(3)(vii) permits a debt 

collector to include the merchant brand, 

if any, associated with debt. For 

example, assume that a debt collector is 

attempting to collect a consumer’s credit 

card debt. The credit card was issued by 

ABC Bank and was co-branded XYZ 

Store. ‘‘XYZ Store’’ is the merchant 

brand. 

2. Affinity brand. Section 

1006.34(d)(3)(vii) permits a debt 

collector to include the affinity brand, if 

any, associated with the debt. For 

example, assume that a debt collector is 

attempting to collect a consumer’s credit 

card debt. The credit card was issued by 

ABC Bank, and the logo for the College 

of Columbia appears on the credit card. 

‘‘College of Columbia’’ is the affinity 

brand. 

3. Facility name. Section 

1006.34(d)(3)(vii) permits a debt 

collector to include the facility name, if 

any, associated with the debt. For 

example, assume that a debt collector is 

attempting to collect a consumer’s 

medical debt. The medical debt relates 

to a treatment that the consumer 

received at ABC Hospital. ‘‘ABC 

Hospital’’ is the facility name. 

34(e) Translation into other 

languages. 

1. Safe harbor for complete and 

accurate translation. Section 1006.34(e) 

provides, among other things, that, if a 

debt collector sends a consumer a 

validation notice translated into a 

language other than English, the 

translation must be complete and 

accurate. The language of a validation 

notice that a debt collector obtains from 

the Bureau’s website is considered a 

complete and accurate translation. Debt 

collectors are permitted to use other 

validation notice translations if they are 

complete and accurate. 

Section 1006.38—Disputes and Requests 

for Original-Creditor Information 

1. In writing. Section 1006.38 contains 

requirements related to a dispute or 

request for the name and address of the 

original creditor timely submitted in 

writing by the consumer. A consumer 

has disputed the debt or requested the 

name and address of the original 

creditor in writing for purposes of 

§ 1006.38(c) or (d)(2) if the consumer, 

for example: 

i. Mails the written dispute or request 

to the debt collector; 

ii. Returns to the debt collector the 

consumer-response form that 

§ 1006.34(c)(4) requires to appear on the 

validation notice and indicates on the 

form the dispute or request; 

iii. Provides the dispute or request to 

the debt collector using a medium of 

electronic communication through 

which the debt collector accepts 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8
5862 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

electronic communications from 

consumers, such as an email address or 

a website portal; or 

iv. Delivers the written dispute or 

request in person or by courier to the 

debt collector. 

* * * * * 

3. Deceased consumers. If the debt 

collector knows or should know that the 

consumer is deceased, and if the 

consumer has not previously disputed 

the debt or requested the name and 

address of the original creditor, a person 

who is authorized to act on behalf of the 

deceased consumer’s estate operates as 

the consumer for purposes of § 1006.38. 

In such circumstances, to comply with 

§ 1006.38(c) or (d)(2), respectively, a 

debt collector must respond to a request 

for the name and address of the original 

creditor or to a dispute timely submitted 

in writing by a person who is authorized 

to act on behalf of the deceased 

consumer’s estate. 

* * * * * 

Subpart D—Miscellaneous 

Section 1006.100—Record Retention 

* * * * * 

100(a) In general. 

1. Records that evidence compliance. 

Section 1006.100(a) provides, in part, 

that a debt collector must retain records 

that are evidence of compliance or 

noncompliance with the FDCPA and 

this part. Thus, under § 1006.100(a), a 

debt collector must retain records that 

evidence that the debt collector 

performed the actions and made the 

disclosures required by the FDCPA and 

this part, as well as records that 

evidence that the debt collector 

refrained from conduct prohibited by 

the FDCPA and this part. If a record is 

of a type that could evidence 

compliance or noncompliance 

depending on the conduct of the debt 

collector that is revealed within the 

record, then the record is one that is 

evidence of compliance or 

noncompliance, and the debt collector 

must retain it. Such records include, but 

are not limited to, records that evidence 

that the debt collector’s 

communications and attempts to 

communicate in connection with the 

collection of a debt complied (or did not 

comply) with the FDCPA and this part. 

For example, a debt collector must 

retain: 

i. Telephone call logs as evidence of 

compliance or noncompliance with the 

prohibition against harassing telephone 

calls in § 1006.14(b)(1); and 

ii. Copies of documents provided to 

consumers as evidence that the debt 

collector provided the information 

required by §§ 1006.34 and 1006.38 and 

met the delivery requirements of 

§ 1006.42. 

* * * * * 

Section 1006.104—Relation to State 

Laws 

1. State law disclosure requirements. 

The Act and the corresponding 

provisions of Regulation F do not annul, 

alter, or affect, or exempt any person 

subject to these requirements from 

complying with a disclosure 

requirement under applicable State law 

that describes additional protections 

under State law that are not inconsistent 

with the Act and Regulation F. A 

disclosure required by State law is not 

inconsistent with the FDCPA or 

Regulation F if the disclosure describes 

a protection that such law affords any 

consumer that is greater than the 

protection provided by the FDCPA or 

Regulation F. 

Dated: December 18, 2020. 

Grace Feola, 

Federal Register Liaison, Bureau of Consumer 

Financial Protection. 

[FR Doc. 2020–28422 Filed 1–15–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–AM–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES8