___________________ 

ADVISORY OPINION 

IN THE MATTER OF 

ACA INTERNATIONAL 

FTC File No. P064803. Opinion, October 5, 2007 

Re: Whether the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 

(“FDCPA”) prohibits a debt collector from notifying a 

consumer who disputed a debt that the collector has 

ceased its collection efforts. 

Dear Mr. Beato: 

This is in response to ACA International’s (“ACA’s”) request for 

a Commission advisory opinion (“Request”) regarding whether the 

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) prohibits a debt 

collector from notifying a consumer who disputed a debt that the 

collector has ceased its collection efforts. ACA submitted the 

Request pursuant to Sections 1.1-1.4 of the Commission’s Rules of 

Practice, 16 C.F.R. §§ 1.1-1.4. As explained more fully below, the 

Commission concludes that a debt collector providing such a notice 

to a consumer would not violate the FDCPA. 

The Request focuses primarily on Section 809 of the FDCPA, 

15 U.S.C. § 1692g. Section 809(a) provides that, within five days 

after its initial communication with a consumer about a debt, a debt 

collector must send the consumer a written notice. Among other 

things, this notice must state that “if the consumer notifies the debt 

collector in writing within [thirty days after receipt of the notice] 

that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector 

will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against 

the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will be 

mailed to the consumer by the debt collector.” Section 809(b) 

provides that if a consumer provides such a notice, the debt collector 

must cease collection until it has obtained verification of the debt or 

a copy of the judgment and mailed it to the consumer. 
 

 

 

 

1444 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS 

VOLUME 144 

Advisory Opinion 

In July 2007, ACA amended its Code of Ethics and Code of 

Operations (“Ethics Code”). If a debt collector receives a written 

request for verification and is unable to verify the debt, the Ethics 

Code now requires “the cessation of all collection efforts, removal of 

the account from the consumer’s credit report or reporting the 

account as disputed, and prompt notification of the creditor or legal 

owner of the debt that collection activities have been terminated due 

to the inability to provide verification information.” Request at 3 

(emphasis added). ACA “also has considered amending the Ethics 

Code to promote the notification of a consumer that collection 

activity has been terminated if the debt collector is unable to verify 

the debt following the receipt of a written request for verification.” 

Id. (emphasis added). However, ACA has not yet amended its 

Ethics Code to include such a provision because of “concern that 

communication with the consumer following a request for 

verification might be construed as an attempt to collect, even though 

the intention merely is to inform the consumer that there will no 

further collections.” Id. at 2. 

We note first that courts have construed Section 809(b) as giving 

debt collectors two options when they receive a written dispute or a 

request for verification1

: (1) provide the requested verification and 

continue collection activities, or (2) cease all collection activities. If 

the debt collector ceases collection, it is not required to provide 

1

 Courts interpreting Section 809(b) have used the phrases “disputing the 

debt,” “requesting verification,” and “requesting validation” interchangeably. 

See, e.g., Jang v. A.M. Miller and Assocs., 122 F.3d 480, 482 (7th Cir. 1997) 

(collection agencies “ceased collection activities immediately upon receiving the 

requests for validation, in compliance with [Section 809(b)]”); Wilhelm v. 

Credico Inc., 426 F. Supp. 2d 1030, 1036 (D.N.D. 2006) (debt collector’s 

Section 809(b) obligations triggered “once a debt collector receives a request for 

verification”); Sambor v. Omnia Credit Servs., Inc., 183 F. Supp. 2d 1234, 1243 

(D. Haw. 2002) (debt collector’s Section 809(b) obligations triggered “[w]hen 

timely asked in writing to validate a debt”); see also Clark’s Jewelers v. Humble, 

823 P.2d 818, 821 (Kan. Ct. App. 1991) (a consumer need not use the word 

“dispute” to trigger the debt collector’s obligation to cease collection and provide 

verification of the debt, as long as the consumer’s notice makes clear that the debt 

is contested). 
 

 

 

ACA INTERNATIONAL 1445 

Advisory Opinion 

verification. See, e.g., Guerrero v. RJM Acquisitions LLC, 2007 

U.S. App. LEXIS 20072, at *35-36 (9th Cir. Aug. 23, 2007); Jang v. 

A.M. Miller & Assocs., 122 F.3d 480,483 (7th Cir. 1997); Wilhelm v. 

Credico Inc., 426 F. Supp. 2d 1030, 1036 (D.N.D. 2006); Zaborac v. 

Phillips and Cohen Assocs, 330 F. Supp. 2d 962, 966 (N.D. Ill. 

2004); Sambor v. Omnia Credit Servs., Inc., 183 F. Supp. 2d 1234, 

1243 (D. Haw. 2002). 

The Request poses the question of whether a debt collector that 

discontinues debt collection activities after receiving a written 

request for verification can inform the consumer that it has done so 

without violating the FDCPA. As noted above, Section 809(b) 

requires a debt collector to cease collection of a debt until the 

collector has provided verification of the debt to the consumer if the 

consumer, in writing within the thirty-day window, has either 

disputed the debt or requested verification. If a debt collector cannot 

provide such verification to the consumer, merely informing the 

consumer that debt collection efforts have been terminated is not an 

attempt to collect a debt and therefore does not violate the FDCPA.2 

We note that Congress enacted Section 809 to “eliminate the 

recurring problem of debt collectors dunning the wrong person or 

attempting to collect debts which the consumer has already paid.”3 

The provision allows a consumer who does not believe that he or she 

owes a debt to require that the debt collector obtain and provide 

verification prior to contacting the consumer again. The purpose of 

Section 809 therefore is to stop further calls and letters from 

collectors unless the consumer incurred and continues to owe the 

2

 The Request also raises the question whether a notice informing a consumer 

that collection efforts have ceased “might be construed as a 'communication’ in 

furtherance of collecting the debt.” Request at 5. Regardless of whether such a 

notice is a “communication” under 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(2), a debt collector telling 

a consumer that debt collection has ceased is not “in furtherance of collecting the 

debt.” 

3

 S. Rep. No. 95-382, at 4 (1977), reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1695, 

1698. 
 

 

1446 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS 

VOLUME 144 

Advisory Opinion 

debt. Interpreting Section 809 as allowing debt collectors to notify 

consumers that they have ceased collection efforts, without 

conveying any other message, is consistent with this purpose. A 

consumer receiving such a notice would benefit both from having 

the calls and letters from that collector stop and from knowing that 

the collector will not renew its collection efforts.4 

The only other FDCPA provision that could be implicated by the 

notification that ACA proposes to require of its members is Section 

805(c). That provision provides that, if a consumer notifies a debt 

collector in writing that he or she “refuses to pay a debtor . . . wishes 

the debt collector to cease further communication,” the debt 

collector is not permitted to communicate further with the consumer 

about the debt. However, Section 805(c) includes an express 

exception to its prohibition on communication that permits a debt 

collector to “advise the consumer that the debt collector’s further 

efforts are being terminated.” Thus, even if a consumer demands in 

writing that a debt collector cease communicating about a debt, the 

debt collector would not violate Section 805(c) if it notified the 

consumer that the collector’s collection efforts have ceased.5 

After reviewing the language of the FDCPA and its legislative 

history as well as information contained in the Request, the 

Commission concludes that a debt collector does not violate the 

FDCPA if, after receiving written notice of a dispute, it informs the 

consumer that it has ceased collection efforts. 

4 Even if, as the amended Ethics Code now requires, a debt collector that is 

unable to provide verification of a debt ceases collection efforts, closes the 

account, and notifies the credit grantor, client, or owner of legal title to the debt 

that collection activities have been terminated because the collector could not 

provide verification of the debt, the credit grantor, client, or debt owner might 

choose to refer the account to a different debt collector. Thus, although the 

consumer will no longer be contacted by the first debt collector, he or she might 

receive collection calls and letters from a different debt collector. 

5

 We note, however, that any such communication must not violate any other 

FDCPA provision. 
ACA INTERNATIONAL 1447 

Advisory Opinion