Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 17-24-506 (2026)

False or misleading representations

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. A debt collector may not use a false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of a debt.
  2. Without limiting the general application of subsection (a) of this section, the following conduct is a violation of this section:
    1. The false representation or implication that the debt collector is vouched for, bonded by, or affiliated with the United States or a state, including without limitation the use of a badge, uniform, or facsimile thereof;
    2. The false representation of:
      1. The character, amount, or legal status of a debt; or
      2. Any services rendered or compensation that may be lawfully received by a debt collector for the collection of a debt;
    3. The false representation or implication that an individual is an attorney or that a communication is from an attorney;
    4. The representation or implication that nonpayment of a debt will result in the arrest or imprisonment of a person or the seizure, garnishment, attachment, or sale of a property or wages of a person unless the action is lawful and the debt collector or creditor intends to take the action;
    5. The threat to take an action that cannot legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken;
    6. The false representation or implication that a sale, referral, or other transfer of an interest in a debt will cause the consumer to:
      1. Lose a claim or defense to payment of the debt; or
      2. Become subject to a practice prohibited by this subchapter;
    7. The false representation or implication that the consumer committed a crime or other conduct in order to disgrace the consumer;
    8. Communicating or threatening to communicate to a person credit information that is known or that should be known to be false, including without limitation the failure to communicate that a disputed debt is disputed;
    9. The use or distribution of a written communication that simulates or is falsely represented to be a document authorized, issued, or approved by a court, official, or agency of the United States or a state or that creates a false impression as to its source, authorization, or approval;
    10. The use of a false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect a debt or to obtain information concerning a consumer;
    11. The failure to disclose:
      1. In the initial written communication with the consumer and, in addition, if the initial communication with the consumer is oral in the initial oral communication, that the debt collector is attempting to collect a debt and that any information obtained will be used for that purpose; and
      2. In subsequent communications, that the communication is from a debt collector, except that this subdivision (b)(11) does not apply to a formal pleading made in connection with a legal action;
    12. The false representation or implication that accounts have been turned over to innocent purchasers for value;
    13. The false representation or implication that documents are legal process;
    14. The use of a business, company, or organization name other than the true name of the debt collector's business, company, or organization;
    15. The false representation or implication that documents are not legal process forms or do not require action by the consumer; or
    16. The false representation or implication that a debt collector operates or is employed by a consumer reporting agency as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(f), as it existed on January 1, 2009.

History. Acts 2009, No. 1455, § 1.

Case Notes

Application.

Arkansas Fair Debt Collections Practices Act claim failed as a matter of law based on Rooker-Feldman doctrine and because the filing of a proof of claim could not constitute collection of debt. Humes v. LVNV Funding, LLC (In re Humes), 496 B.R. 557 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2013).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2013–2022 · leading case: Humes v. LVNV Funding, L.L.C. (In re Humes), 496 B.R. 557 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2013).
Humes v. LVNV Funding, L.L.C. (In re Humes), 496 B.R. 557 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2013). · cites it 9× “” Ark.Code Ann. § 17-24-506. . The same conduct giving rise to statutory damages under the FDCPA can also give rise to statutory damages under a consistent state consumer protection statute.”
Mid-South Adjustment Co., Inc. v. Brittany Smith, on Behalf of Herself & All Others Similarly Situated, 2022 Ark. 196 (Ark. 2022). · cites it 2× “” Ark. Code Ann. § 17-24-506 (a), 507(a) (Repl.”
Mid-South Adjustment Co., Inc. v. Brittany Smith, on Behalf of Herself & All Others Similarly Situated, 2022 Ark. 196 (Ark. 2022). · cites it 2× “” Ark. Code Ann. § 17-24-506 (a), 507(a) (Repl.”
Wilder v. Credit Control Co. Inc (E.D. Ark. 2019). · cites it 4× “§§ 1692e, 1692e(5), and 1692e(10) and Arkansas Code Annotated §§ 17-24-506(a), 17-24-506(b)(5), and 17-24- 506(b)(10) Credit Control also moves for summary judgment on Mr.”
McMahan v. Sentry ADR Servs., LLC (W.D. Ark. 2021). · cites it 2× “” Threatening legal action when no such action will be filed can amount to a violation of the FDCPA.”
Cheatham v. Adams (E.D. Ark. 2021). “§ 17-24-506(b)(11)(B). But see Ark. Code Ann.”
Waddell v. Transworld Sys., Inc. (W.D. Ark. 2019). “§ 17-24-506 (a). Here, Defendants are accused of attempting to collect debts that they lacked standing to collect.”
Bugg v. Midland Funding, LLC (W.D. Ark. 2019). “Specifically, Plaintiffs allege Midland violated § 17-24-505(a) (prohibiting action or conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress and/or abuse) and § 17-24-506(a) (prohibiting the use of false, deceptive or misleading means) in its attempts to collect the…”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 17-24-506(a) — 3 cases
Humes v. LVNV Funding, L.L.C. (In re Humes), 496 B.R. 557 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2013). “” Ark.Code Ann. § 17-24-506. . The same conduct giving rise to statutory damages under the FDCPA can also give rise to statutory damages under a consistent state consumer protection statute.”
Wilder v. Credit Control Co. Inc (E.D. Ark. 2019). “§§ 1692e, 1692e(5), and 1692e(10) and Arkansas Code Annotated §§ 17-24-506(a), 17-24-506(b)(5), and 17-24- 506(b)(10) Credit Control also moves for summary judgment on Mr.”
Bugg v. Midland Funding, LLC (W.D. Ark. 2019). “Specifically, Plaintiffs allege Midland violated § 17-24-505(a) (prohibiting action or conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress and/or abuse) and § 17-24-506(a) (prohibiting the use of false, deceptive or misleading means) in its attempts to collect the…”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 17-24-506(a)(10) — 1 case
Humes v. LVNV Funding, L.L.C. (In re Humes), 496 B.R. 557 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2013). “” Ark.Code Ann. § 17-24-506. . The same conduct giving rise to statutory damages under the FDCPA can also give rise to statutory damages under a consistent state consumer protection statute.”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 17-24-506(b) — 1 case
Wilder v. Credit Control Co. Inc (E.D. Ark. 2019). “§§ 1692e, 1692e(5), and 1692e(10) and Arkansas Code Annotated §§ 17-24-506(a), 17-24-506(b)(5), and 17-24- 506(b)(10) Credit Control also moves for summary judgment on Mr.”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 17-24-506(b)(10) — 1 case
Humes v. LVNV Funding, L.L.C. (In re Humes), 496 B.R. 557 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2013). “” Ark.Code Ann. § 17-24-506. . The same conduct giving rise to statutory damages under the FDCPA can also give rise to statutory damages under a consistent state consumer protection statute.”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 17-24-506(b)(11)(B) — 1 case
Cheatham v. Adams (E.D. Ark. 2021). “§ 17-24-506(b)(11)(B). But see Ark. Code Ann.”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 17-24-506(b)(2)(A) — 1 case
Humes v. LVNV Funding, L.L.C. (In re Humes), 496 B.R. 557 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2013). “” Ark.Code Ann. § 17-24-506. . The same conduct giving rise to statutory damages under the FDCPA can also give rise to statutory damages under a consistent state consumer protection statute.”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 17-24-506(b)(5) — 1 case
McMahan v. Sentry ADR Servs., LLC (W.D. Ark. 2021). “” Threatening legal action when no such action will be filed can amount to a violation of the FDCPA.”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 17-24-506(b)(8) — 1 case
Wilder v. Credit Control Co. Inc (E.D. Ark. 2019). “§§ 1692e, 1692e(5), and 1692e(10) and Arkansas Code Annotated §§ 17-24-506(a), 17-24-506(b)(5), and 17-24- 506(b)(10) Credit Control also moves for summary judgment on Mr.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.