Debt Collection and the FDCPA: What Collectors May Do and What You Can Do About It

Summary. Debt collection is one of the few areas of American law where an ordinary person holds substantial procedural leverage and almost never uses it. This article explains the architecture: who counts as a debt collector and who does not, the validation and dispute rights that shift the burden to the collector, the conduct rules and the standard courts apply to judge them, and the private right of action with fee shifting that makes those rules enforceable. It covers Regulation F's limits on contact frequency and social media, time-barred debt and the traps in acknowledging it, credit reporting disputes, and the judgment-collection stage where exemptions determine what a creditor can actually take.

A woman receives a letter demanding $4,318 on a credit card she closed in 2014. She does not recognize the company sending it. She is not sure the balance is right. She is quite sure she has not made a payment in nine years.

Here is what most people in her position do: nothing, then panic when a summons arrives, then nothing again, and then discover a garnishment on a paycheck.

Here is what the law makes available to her, at a cost of one stamp: within thirty days of that first communication, she may dispute the debt in writing. The collector must then stop collecting until it mails her verification. It may not sue, may not call, may not report — until it produces documentation many debt buyers, having purchased the account in a spreadsheet with no underlying records, simply cannot produce.

Roughly seventy percent of debt collection lawsuits end in default judgment, because the defendant never appears. In the small fraction that are contested, plaintiffs frequently dismiss. That asymmetry — enormous leverage, almost never used — is the subject of this article.

Part I: Who the statute covers, and who it does not

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 and following, does not regulate everyone who asks you for money.

A "debt collector" is generally one who uses interstate commerce or the mails in a business the principal purpose of which is collecting debts, or who regularly collects debts owed to another. That last phrase is the operative one.

A "creditor" collecting its own debt in its own name is generally not covered by the FDCPA. The bank that issued your card and services it in-house is a creditor. This is the single most important limitation in the statute, and it explains why the same conduct may be actionable against a collection agency and not against the original lender.

Three Supreme Court cases fix the boundaries:

Heintz v. Jenkins, 514 U.S. 291 (1995), held that lawyers who regularly collect consumer debts through litigation are debt collectors under the Act. Filing a lawsuit is collection activity, and the litigating attorney is subject to the statute.

Henson v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., 582 U.S. 79 (2017), held that a company that purchases debt and collects it for itself is not, on that basis alone, collecting "debts owed to another" — so a debt buyer collecting its own purchased accounts may fall outside that definitional prong. The Court expressly left open whether such a company might still qualify under the "principal purpose" prong, and most debt buyers do, since collecting purchased receivables is precisely their principal purpose. The practical lesson is to plead both prongs.

Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich LPA, 559 U.S. 573 (2010), held that the Act's bona fide error defense does not extend to mistakes of law. A collector who misreads the statute is liable; the defense covers clerical and factual errors accompanied by reasonable procedures, not legal misjudgment.

Rotkiske v. Klemm, 589 U.S. 8 (2019), held that the FDCPA's one-year limitations period runs from the date of the violation, not from the date of discovery — declining to read a general discovery rule into the statute, while leaving equitable tolling for fraudulent concealment available. File within one year.

What fills the gap for creditors. Where the FDCPA does not reach, three other regimes often do: the UDAAP prohibition at 12 U.S.C. § 5531; state debt collection statutes, many of which cover original creditors expressly; and state unfair and deceptive trade practices acts. See Consumer Financial Protection Statutes.

Part II: The validation notice and the dispute right

This is the machinery that gives a consumer leverage, and it operates on a thirty-day clock.

Within five days of the initial communication, the collector must send a written validation notice containing the amount of the debt, the name of the creditor, and a statement of the consumer's rights to dispute and to request the name of the original creditor. 15 U.S.C. § 1692g.

Regulation F, 12 C.F.R. Part 1006, effective in 2021, prescribes far more detail than the statute alone: an itemization of the debt from an itemization date, showing the amount then owed and all interest, fees, payments, and credits since; the creditor's name as of the itemization date and currently; tear-off dispute forms; and a specific statement about the effect of a dispute. A model validation notice is provided, and use of it confers a safe harbor.

The consumer's move. Within thirty days of receiving the validation notice, dispute the debt in writing. The consequences are immediate and mandatory:

The collector must cease collection of the debt until it obtains verification and mails it to the consumer.
"Cease collection" means no calls, no letters, no lawsuit, and no continued credit reporting of the disputed amount without noting the dispute.

What verification actually requires has divided the courts. The majority position is that the collector must obtain something from the creditor confirming the amount and the identity of the debtor — not necessarily a full account history, and not an audit. But Regulation F's itemization requirements have raised the practical floor considerably, and a debt buyer several assignments removed from origination often cannot produce even that.

Why this matters more than anything else in the statute. A dispute costs a stamp. It stops collection. It forces the collector to go back to the seller and ask for documents. And a meaningful share of accounts simply die there, because obtaining records on a nine-year-old charged-off account from a bank that has changed core systems twice is not economical for a portfolio purchased at four cents on the dollar.

The parallel right: cease communication. Under 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(c), a consumer may notify a collector in writing to stop communicating. The collector must then stop, except to say it is ceasing, to state a remedy it may invoke, or to notify the consumer it intends to invoke a specific remedy. Use this carefully. It stops the calls; it does not stop a lawsuit, and it removes the channel through which a settlement might be negotiated. For an unrecognized or disputed debt, dispute first. For a valid debt you intend to settle, keep the channel open.

Part III: The conduct rules

The FDCPA prohibits three categories of conduct, and courts judge them from the perspective of the "least sophisticated consumer" — an objective standard designed to protect the naive without countenancing bizarre readings. A handful of circuits use an "unsophisticated consumer" formulation that is functionally similar.

Harassment or abuse — 15 U.S.C. § 1692d:

Threats of violence
Obscene or profane language
Publishing lists of debtors
Telephoning repeatedly with intent to annoy or harass
Calling without meaningful disclosure of identity

False or misleading representations — 15 U.S.C. § 1692e. The longest and most litigated section:

Falsely implying government affiliation or attorney involvement
Misrepresenting the character, amount, or legal status of the debt
Threatening action that cannot legally be taken or is not intended
Falsely implying that nonpayment will result in arrest
Using a business name other than the collector's true name
Communicating credit information known to be false, including failing to state that a debt is disputed
Simulating legal process
Failing to disclose in the initial communication that the collector is attempting to collect a debt and that information obtained will be used for that purpose — the "mini-Miranda"

Unfair practices — 15 U.S.C. § 1692f:

Collecting any amount not expressly authorized by the agreement or permitted by law
Depositing a postdated check early
Threatening to take nonjudicial action to dispossess property where there is no present right to do so
Communicating by postcard, or using symbols on an envelope indicating a debt collection

Communication restrictions — 15 U.S.C. § 1692c:

No contact before 8:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m. in the consumer's time zone
No contact at work if the collector knows the employer prohibits it
No contact at all once the collector knows the consumer is represented by an attorney — one of the most frequently violated provisions and the easiest to prove
No disclosure of the debt to third parties, other than limited location information

Regulation F added operational limits the statute did not contain:

A presumption of harassment from more than seven telephone calls within seven consecutive days to a particular debt, or a call within seven days after a telephone conversation about that debt.
Rules for electronic communications — email and text — requiring a reasonable opt-out method in each.
Social media: private messages are permitted with opt-out; public posts visible to others are prohibited.
A prohibition on suing or threatening to sue on a time-barred debt.

Venue — 15 U.S.C. § 1692i — requires suit in the judicial district where the consumer signed the contract or resides. This provision exists because collectors once routinely sued consumers hundreds of miles from home to manufacture defaults.

Part IV: The remedy

15 U.S.C. § 1692k provides:

Actual damages, including emotional distress in most circuits.
Statutory damages up to $1,000 per action — not per violation.
Costs and a reasonable attorney's fee to a successful plaintiff.

The fee-shifting provision is what makes the statute function. Statutory damages of $1,000 would never justify litigation on their own; fee shifting means a consumer with a meritorious claim can find counsel on contingency. See Attorneys Fees and Costs.

The standing problem. TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (2021), held that a plaintiff must have suffered a concrete injury to sue in federal court, and that Congress cannot create standing by statute alone: "No concrete harm, no standing." Applied to the FDCPA, courts have dismissed claims resting on a bare procedural violation with no attendant harm — a misleading letter that confused nobody, a validation notice with a technical defect that changed nothing. The consequence is practical: plead the harm. Confusion that caused the consumer to act or refrain from acting, money paid on a debt not owed, time and expense, and reputational or emotional injury are the allegations that survive. It also means many claims belong in state court, where standing requirements are often less demanding — a strategic point that has reshaped consumer practice.

Part V: Time-barred debt

Every state has a limitations period for suit on a contract or account — typically three to six years, sometimes longer, and the applicable period depends on choice-of-law questions that can be genuinely complicated.

When it expires, the debt does not disappear. In most states it becomes unenforceable in court but the obligation persists. A collector may still ask you to pay. It may not sue, and under Regulation F it may not threaten to sue.

Here is the trap. In many states, a partial payment or a written acknowledgment revives the limitations period, starting the clock over. A collector who persuades a consumer to make a $25 "good faith" payment on a nine-year-old debt may have converted an unenforceable claim into a fully enforceable one.

Before paying anything on an old debt, determine:

Which state's limitations period applies — the state of residence, the state named in the cardholder agreement's choice-of-law clause, or, under a borrowing statute, another state's period.
When the period began — usually at default, though some states measure from the last payment or last activity.
Whether the state revives the period on partial payment, on written acknowledgment, or not at all.
Whether the state requires the collector to disclose that the debt is time-barred. Several do, and Regulation F requires disclosure in certain circumstances.

"Zombie debt" is the industry term for accounts bought and resold repeatedly, sometimes after being settled, discharged in bankruptcy, or already paid. Discharged debt is a particular problem: collecting on a debt discharged under 11 U.S.C. § 524 violates the discharge injunction and is contempt, remedied in the bankruptcy court that entered the discharge.

Part VI: Credit reporting

Debt collection and credit reporting run together, and the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 and following, supplies the second set of tools.

Furnisher duties under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2 are split. The duty to furnish accurate information in the first instance is enforceable only by regulators. The duty to investigate after receiving notice of a dispute from a consumer reporting agency is privately enforceable — and that difference dictates the procedure.

The procedure that works:

Dispute with the credit reporting agency, not only with the furnisher. This triggers the agency's duty to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation, generally within thirty days, and its duty to forward the dispute to the furnisher, which then owes a privately enforceable duty to investigate.
Be specific and attach documents. "This is not mine" produces an automated e-OSCAR response. "This account was discharged in my Chapter 7 case number 23-11842 on March 4, 2024, discharge order attached" produces a deletion.
Keep the dispute record, including the agency's response.
If the item is not corrected, the claim is against the agency for an unreasonable reinvestigation and against the furnisher for failing to conduct a reasonable investigation after notice.

Timing rules worth knowing. Most negative information may be reported for seven years from the delinquency that led to the collection; bankruptcies for ten. Re-aging — resetting the delinquency date to extend reportability — is unlawful and is one of the most valuable findings on a credit report.

Part VII: When the collector sues

This is where the leverage is greatest and where consumers act least. Two facts drive everything: default judgments are the industry's business model, and contested cases are frequently dismissed because the plaintiff lacks the documents.

Respond. A written answer, filed on time, denying the allegations and asserting defenses, converts an easy default into a case requiring proof. That single act changes the outcome more often than any argument that follows.

Defenses that regularly succeed against debt buyers:

Failure to prove ownership. The plaintiff must connect itself to the original creditor through a complete chain of assignments, and generic bills of sale that reference a spreadsheet not attached are frequently held insufficient.
Failure to prove the amount. Account statements are hearsay requiring a business records foundation, and the witness is usually an employee of the debt buyer with no knowledge of the original creditor's recordkeeping.
Statute of limitations, including through a borrowing statute.
No account stated or contract where no signed agreement or accepted statements are produced.
Improper venue under § 1692i.
Improper service — "sewer service," in which the process server files a false return, is a persistent problem in high-volume collection practice.
Identity — the defendant is not the account holder, frequently a family member with a similar name or a victim of identity theft.
The debt was discharged in bankruptcy.
Counterclaims under the FDCPA and state law, which change the economics immediately.

The arbitration wrinkle. Most consumer credit agreements contain an arbitration clause. Ordinarily a defendant would not think of invoking one — but in a collection case it can be powerful, because the cost of arbitrating a $4,000 claim exceeds its value to the plaintiff. Moving to compel arbitration under 9 U.S.C. § 2 frequently produces a dismissal. Note the tension: the plaintiff often cannot produce the agreement containing the clause it is being asked to honor, and pressing that point is itself a defense. See Selecting and Drafting an Arbitration Clause.

Part VIII: After judgment — what can actually be taken

A judgment is a license to look for assets, not a guarantee of money.

Wage garnishment. The federal Consumer Credit Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1673, caps garnishment for ordinary debts at the lesser of 25% of disposable earnings or the amount by which disposable earnings exceed thirty times the federal minimum hourly wage. State law frequently protects more, and a few states prohibit wage garnishment for consumer debts almost entirely. Support obligations and federal tax debts follow different, higher caps.

Bank account levy is faster and more brutal, because it takes the money first and litigates later.

Exempt funds are the critical protection, and they are protected only if claimed:

Social Security, SSI, VA, and federal retirement benefits are protected by 42 U.S.C. § 407 and parallel statutes. Federal rules require banks to conduct a lookback and automatically protect two months of directly deposited federal benefits from garnishment.
State exemptions typically cover a homestead, a vehicle up to a value, tools of trade, household goods, a wildcard, and certain insurance and retirement assets.
Retirement accounts are broadly protected under ERISA and state law.

The exemption claim is not automatic beyond the federal benefit lookback. It must be filed, usually within a short window after notice of the levy, and missing it forfeits protection over funds that were never reachable.

"Judgment proof." A person whose entire income is exempt and who owns no non-exempt property cannot be collected from. That status is not permanent — a new job, an inheritance, or a tax refund changes it, and judgments are renewable for long periods — but for many people it is the honest answer, and understanding it changes the negotiation entirely.

See Collecting a Judgment for the creditor's side of the same machinery, and Chapter 7 Liquidation and Creditors' Rights for the exemption framework at 11 U.S.C. § 522.

Part IX: Settlement, and the mistakes people make

Most collection accounts settle. The recurring errors:

Paying without written terms. Get the agreement in writing before sending money: the total amount, the payment schedule, that the payment resolves the account in full, how it will be reported to the credit bureaus, and that no deficiency will be pursued or sold.

Paying the wrong party. Confirm the current owner. Paying a collector that no longer owns the account resolves nothing.

Giving bank account access. Never authorize automatic withdrawals to a collector. Pay by a method that cannot be repeated without your consent.

Ignoring the tax consequence. Forgiven debt over $600 generally generates a Form 1099-C and is taxable income unless an exclusion — insolvency, bankruptcy — applies. A $9,000 balance settled for $3,000 produces $6,000 of potential income.

Reviving a time-barred debt with a partial payment. See Part V.

Not asking for a deletion. "Pay for delete" is not always available, but the credit reporting treatment is negotiable and is frequently worth more than a few hundred dollars of principal reduction.

Part X: A worked example

Facts. Andre receives a letter from a debt buyer demanding $6,240 on a store card charged off in 2017. He lives in a state with a four-year limitations period on open accounts; the cardholder agreement contains a Utah choice-of-law clause with a six-year period. He last paid in early 2017.

Day 3. He sends a written dispute within the thirty-day window: he disputes the debt, disputes the amount, requests verification, and requests the name and address of the original creditor. He sends it by certified mail and keeps the receipt.

Day 40. The collector sends a single-page computer printout showing a balance and an account number. Andre writes back noting that the response does not itemize the debt from an itemization date, does not identify interest and fees added after charge-off, and does not establish the chain of ownership from the original creditor.

Day 70. He is sued. He answers on time, denying the allegations, and asserts: lack of standing and failure to prove ownership; statute of limitations, including a borrowing-statute argument that his state's four-year period applies; failure to state an account stated; and a counterclaim under § 1692e for misrepresenting the legal status of a debt on which suit was time-barred.

Day 130. In discovery he requests the complete chain of assignments, the bill of sale with the account-level schedule, the original cardholder agreement, and the account statements from origination. The debt buyer produces a generic bill of sale referencing a schedule it does not attach and cannot locate.

Day 165. The case is dismissed with prejudice by stipulation. The FDCPA counterclaim resolves for $2,300 plus counsel's fees.

What actually did the work. The dispute letter, sent within thirty days, at a cost of $8.00. The timely answer. And discovery requests aimed at the one thing debt buyers routinely cannot produce.

Part XI: The debt collection industry, and why it behaves as it does

Understanding the economics explains almost every behavior the statute regulates.

Charged-off consumer debt is sold in portfolios, typically for two to eight cents on the dollar for recently charged-off accounts and well under a penny for older, previously worked paper. The purchase agreement usually disclaims all warranties as to accuracy, includes a limited right to return accounts within a short window, and transfers a data file — a spreadsheet of names, addresses, account numbers, and balances — with a contractual right to request a limited number of original documents, often at a per-document cost and with a cap.

Three consequences follow directly:

The buyer usually does not have the documents. Not because it is hiding them, but because it never received them and cannot economically obtain them. This is why a written dispute and a document-focused discovery request are so effective and why so many cases are dismissed rather than litigated.
Errors travel with the file. Payments made after the data extract, accounts already settled, accounts discharged in bankruptcy, accounts belonging to a different person with a similar name, and accounts already sold twice all appear in portfolios. The buyer has no independent means of detecting them.
Volume is the model. A collector suing on a portfolio purchased for pennies needs only a modest default rate to profit. Every consumer who appears and answers reduces that rate, which is why appearance alone changes outcomes so dramatically.

Where legitimate collection sits in this. None of the above means collection is illegitimate. People do borrow money and fail to repay it, original creditors have every right to be paid, and a functioning consumer credit market depends on collectible obligations. The point is narrower: the person being asked to pay is entitled to know that the right party is asking, for the right amount, on a debt that is actually enforceable — and the statutory machinery exists precisely because the industry's economics do not naturally produce that verification.

Part XII: Special situations

Medical debt. Distinct in three ways. First, the underlying charges are frequently wrong — duplicate billing, services not rendered, and out-of-network charges that should have been processed as in-network are endemic, and the No Surprises Act limits balance billing for certain emergency and out-of-network care. Second, the major credit bureaus have changed how medical collections are reported, excluding paid medical collections and small-balance items and imposing a waiting period before reporting. Third, most nonprofit hospitals must maintain a financial assistance policy under section 501(r) of the Internal Revenue Code, and patients are frequently eligible and never told. Before paying a medical collection, request an itemized bill with codes, request the financial assistance application, and verify the insurance processing. See Nonprofit Governance, Unrelated Business Income, and Private Inurement.

Student loans. Federal student loans are governed by their own statutory scheme, with administrative wage garnishment available without a court judgment, tax refund offset, and Social Security offset — but also with rehabilitation, consolidation, income-driven repayment, and discharge programs unavailable for other debt. Private student loans are ordinary contract debt, subject to state limitations periods and the same proof problems as any purchased receivable, and a number of private student loan portfolios have been dismissed en masse for exactly the chain-of-title failures described above.

Auto deficiency claims. After a repossession and resale, the lender may sue for the deficiency — but Article 9 of the UCC requires that the disposition be commercially reasonable and that specific notices be given before and after sale. Defective notice bars or reduces the deficiency in most states, and the notice requirements are technical and frequently unmet. See Secured Transactions Under UCC Article 9.

Debt in a divorce. A decree assigning a debt to one spouse does not bind the creditor. Both remain liable on a joint account, and a default damages both credit reports. See Divorce and Property Division.

Debt of a deceased relative. Family members are generally not personally liable for a decedent's debts absent a joint obligation, a guaranty, community property rules, or a filial responsibility statute. Collectors call surviving relatives anyway. The correct answer is that the debt is a claim against the estate, subject to the probate claims process and its short bar date. See Probate and Estate Administration.

Business debt. The FDCPA covers consumer debt — obligations arising from transactions primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. Business obligations are outside it. But a personal guaranty of business debt given by an individual may be consumer debt in some circuits, and state statutes vary. See Personal Guaranties and Suretyship Defenses.

Identity theft. A consumer may submit an identity theft report and an FTC identity theft affidavit, block the resulting information from a credit report, and require the furnisher to cease reporting and cease collection. A collector who continues collecting after receiving a proper identity theft report is exposed under both the FDCPA and the FCRA.

Part XIII: Frequently asked questions

"They call me eight times a day. Is that legal?" Under Regulation F, more than seven calls in seven consecutive days regarding a particular debt is presumptively harassing, as is calling within seven days of a telephone conversation about that debt. Document the calls — date, time, number — because the log is the evidence.

"Can they call my job?" Not once they know the employer prohibits such calls. Tell them, in writing, that your employer does not permit it.

"Can they tell my family about the debt?" No, beyond limited location information — and even then they may not state that you owe a debt. A collector who tells a relative or neighbor about the debt has violated § 1692c(b).

"Can I go to jail?" No. There is no debtors' prison for consumer debt. People are occasionally jailed for contempt for ignoring a court order to appear at a debtor's examination — which is why you never ignore a court order, even one arising from a debt you dispute.

"Should I send a cease-and-desist letter?" It stops the calls but does not stop a lawsuit and closes the settlement channel. For an unrecognized debt, dispute first. For a debt you may want to settle, keep the line open.

"They say they'll take my house." On an unsecured debt, a judgment can create a lien on real property, but most states exempt some or all of a homestead, and forced sale of a homestead over a consumer judgment is uncommon. Find out your state's homestead exemption before reacting to the threat, and note that threatening action the collector does not intend or cannot legally take violates § 1692e(5).

"Is it worth suing over a violation?" Statutory damages are capped at $1,000 per action, so the answer usually depends on actual damages and, decisively, on fee shifting. Bring the FDCPA claim as a counterclaim in the collection suit where possible — it costs nothing extra and reverses the pressure.

"What if I just ignore all of it?" Then you lose by default, the judgment is entered for the full claimed amount plus fees and costs, it accrues interest at the statutory rate for years, it is renewable, and the first you may hear of it is a frozen bank account. Ignoring collection letters is survivable; ignoring a summons is not.

Part XIV: What compliance looks like from the collector's side

The mirror image of every rule above is a compliance obligation, and collectors that build the controls have far fewer claims against them. For agencies, debt buyers, creditors' counsel, and in-house collection operations, the program has seven components.

1. The validation notice. Use the Regulation F model form. The safe harbor is real and it is free. Populate the itemization from the itemization date accurately, showing every interest charge, fee, payment, and credit since — this is where errors originate, because the data arrives from the seller and is rarely reconciled.

2. Dispute handling. A dispute received in the validation period must halt everything: dialer, letters, credit reporting of the disputed amount without a dispute notation, and litigation. Build the halt as a system control, not a procedure a representative must remember. The most expensive violations in this field are collection activity that continued because a dispute sat in an unmonitored mailbox.

3. Attorney representation. Once the collector knows a consumer is represented, communication with the consumer must stop. This requires a flag that propagates immediately across every channel, including any outsourced dialer or letter vendor. It is among the most commonly violated and most easily proved provisions in the statute.

4. Contact frequency. Instrument the call limits — seven calls in seven days per debt, and no call within seven days of a conversation about that debt — at the system level, counting across channels and across vendors. Manual monitoring does not survive an audit.

5. Litigation controls. Before filing: confirm the limitations period under the correct choice of law; confirm venue under § 1692i; confirm the chain of title with the account-level schedule in hand, not merely a bill of sale; confirm no bankruptcy filing, discharge, or identity theft report; and confirm the balance against the seller's data. Firms that file first and verify later generate the FDCPA counterclaims that make their portfolios unprofitable.

6. Credit reporting. Report a disputed debt as disputed. Never re-age a delinquency date. Conduct an actual investigation on an indirect dispute rather than parroting the furnished data back — the reasonableness of the investigation is the whole question under § 1681s-2(b).

7. Vendor and purchase diligence. Diligence the seller's data quality, obtain contractual rights to media sufficient to support litigation, scrub against bankruptcy, deceased, servicemember, and identity theft databases before working accounts, and maintain a documented return-and-recall process.

The economics of getting this right. A defended FDCPA claim costs more than most accounts are worth even when the collector wins, because the fee-shifting provision is one-way. A collector that suppresses the small number of accounts with data problems, halts reliably on disputes, and files only where it holds the documents will collect more, not less, than one that works everything indiscriminately. See Consumer Financial Protection Statutes and Building a Vendor and Third-Party Risk Management Program.

Primary authority

15 U.S.C. § 1692 and following — the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, including § 1692c (communications), § 1692d (harassment), § 1692e (misrepresentations), § 1692f (unfair practices), § 1692g (validation), § 1692i (venue), and § 1692k (civil liability).
12 C.F.R. Part 1006 — Regulation F.
15 U.S.C. § 1681 and § 1681s-2 — the Fair Credit Reporting Act and furnisher duties.
12 U.S.C. § 5531 — UDAAP.
15 U.S.C. § 1673 — federal garnishment cap.
42 U.S.C. § 407 — protection of Social Security benefits.
11 U.S.C. § 522 and § 524 — exemptions and the discharge injunction.
16 C.F.R. Part 433 — the FTC Holder Rule, preserving consumer defenses against assignees in credit sales.
Heintz v. Jenkins, 514 U.S. 291 (1995) · Jerman v. Carlisle, 559 U.S. 573 (2010) · Henson v. Santander, 582 U.S. 79 (2017) · Rotkiske v. Klemm, 589 U.S. 8 (2019) · TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (2021).
State debt collection statutes, unfair and deceptive practices acts, limitations and revival statutes, and exemption schedules.