California Codes
Cal. Civil Code § 1788.11 (2026)
Debt Collector Responsibilities
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov
JustiaCode on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
No debt collector shall collect or attempt to collect a covered debt by means of the following practices:
(a)Using obscene or profane language.
(b)Placing a telephone call without disclosing the caller’s identity, provided that an employee of a licensed collection agency may identify oneself by using their registered alias name if they correctly identify the agency that they represent. A debt collector shall provide its California debt collector license number, if applicable, upon the consumer’s request.
(c)Causing expense to any person for long distance telephone calls, telegram fees, or charges for other similar communications, by misrepresenting to the person the purpose of the telephone call, telegram or similar communication.
(d)Causing a telephone to ring repeatedly or continuously to annoy the person called.
(e)Communicating, by telephone or in person, with the debtor with such frequency as to be unreasonable, and to constitute harassment of the debtor under the circumstances.
(f)Sending written or digital communication to the person that does not display the California license number of the collector, if applicable, in at least 12-point type.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1997–2025 · leading case: Hosseinzadeh v. M.R.S. Assocs., Inc., 387 F. Supp. 2d 1104 (C.D. Cal. 2005).
Hosseinzadeh v. M.R.S. Assocs., Inc., 387 F. Supp. 2d 1104 (C.D. Cal. 2005). “§ 1692d(6) and Cal. Civ.Code § 1788.11(b) indicates that the statutes “prohibit the placement of telephone calls without mean *1112 ingful disclosure.”
Joseph v. J.J. Mac Intyre Companies, LLC, 281 F. Supp. 2d 1156 (N.D. Cal. 2003). “11 (b) of the Rosenthal Act likewise prohibits “Placing telephone calls without disclosure of the caller’s identity, provided that an employee of a licensed collection agency may identify himself by using his registered alias name as long as he correctly identifies the agency he…”
Komarova v. Nat'l Credit Acceptance, Inc., 175 Cal. App. 4th 324 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009). “The second amended complaint alleged violations of six provisions of the Act: Civil Code sections 1788.11, subdivisions (b), (d), and (e), 1788.”
Joseph v. JJ Mac Intyre Companies, LLC, 238 F. Supp. 2d 1158 (N.D. Cal. 2002). “Defendant argues that Plaintiff cannot make out a claim for violations of either § 1692 or § 1788 based upon Defendant’s phone operator’s use of aliases.”
Alborzian v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 235 Cal. App. 4th 29 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015). “” The making of frequent calls itself can constitute actionable harassment under the Rosenthal Act (Civ. Code, § 1788.11, subd. (e); Komarova v.”
Alkan v. Citimortgage, Inc., 336 F. Supp. 2d 1061 (N.D. Cal. 2004). “Preemption Plaintiff also brings CFDCPA claims under Cal. Civ.Code § 1788.11(e) and § 1788.17.”
O'Donovan v. CashCall, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 479 (N.D. Cal. 2011). “” Cal. Civ.Code § 1788.11(d) & (f). Concurrently, the federal FDCPA prohibits “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.”
Baker v. Citibank (South Dakota) N.A., 13 F. Supp. 2d 1037 (S.D. Cal. 1998). “See Cal.Civ.Code § 1788.11. Citibank argues that no evidence suggests that it ever contacted Plaintiff.”
Pavone v. Citicorp Credit Servs., Inc., 60 F. Supp. 2d 1040 (S.D. Cal. 1997). “Pavone also brings state law causes of action under the Robbins-Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Cal.Civ.Code § 1788.11, and for intentional infliction of emotional distress.”
Flores v. RMA Recovery Grp. LLC (W.D.N.Y. 2021). “Docket Item 12 at ¶19 (citing Cal. Civ. Code §1788.11 (b)). Section 1788.”
Michele Ammons v. Diversified Adjustment Serv., Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2019). “Rosenthal Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1788.11 (d), 1788.176 8 DAS moves for summary judgment as to Ammons’s Rosenthal Act claim on 9 the same bases as above, specifically a lack of wrongful intent.”
Elisa Romero v. Dep't Stores Nat'l Bank (9th Cir. 2018). “See Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.11 (d); cf. Komarova v.”
Cal. Civil Code § 1788.11(b): 2 cases
Hosseinzadeh v. M.R.S. Assocs., Inc., 387 F. Supp. 2d 1104 (C.D. Cal. 2005). “§ 1692d(6) and Cal. Civ.Code § 1788.11(b) indicates that the statutes “prohibit the placement of telephone calls without mean *1112 ingful disclosure.”
Gatchalian v. Atl. Recovery Solutions, LLC (N.D. Cal. 2022).
Cal. Civil Code § 1788.11(d): 5 cases
Joseph v. JJ Mac Intyre Companies, LLC, 238 F. Supp. 2d 1158 (N.D. Cal. 2002). “Defendant argues that Plaintiff cannot make out a claim for violations of either § 1692 or § 1788 based upon Defendant’s phone operator’s use of aliases.”
O'Donovan v. CashCall, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 479 (N.D. Cal. 2011). “” Cal. Civ.Code § 1788.11(d) & (f). Concurrently, the federal FDCPA prohibits “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.”
Michele Ammons v. Diversified Adjustment Serv., Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2019). “Rosenthal Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1788.11 (d), 1788.176 8 DAS moves for summary judgment as to Ammons’s Rosenthal Act claim on 9 the same bases as above, specifically a lack of wrongful intent.”
Miguel Ibarra v. Navient Solutions, LLC (C.D. Cal. 2019).
Cupp v. First Nat'l Collection Bureau, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2023).
Cal. Civil Code § 1788.11(e): 1 case
Alkan v. Citimortgage, Inc., 336 F. Supp. 2d 1061 (N.D. Cal. 2004). “Preemption Plaintiff also brings CFDCPA claims under Cal. Civ.Code § 1788.11(e) and § 1788.17.”
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.