Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 559.72 (2025)

Prohibited practices generally.

✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us JustiaFla. Statutes CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

559.72 Prohibited practices generally.—In collecting consumer debts, a person may not:

(1) Simulate in any manner a law enforcement officer or a representative of any governmental agency.

(2) Use or threaten force or violence.

(3) Tell a debtor who disputes a consumer debt that she or he or any person employing her or him will disclose to another, orally or in writing, directly or indirectly, information affecting the debtor’s reputation for credit worthiness without also informing the debtor that the existence of the dispute will also be disclosed as required by subsection (6).

(4) Communicate or threaten to communicate with a debtor’s employer before obtaining final judgment against the debtor, unless the debtor gives her or his permission in writing to contact her or his employer or acknowledges in writing the existence of the debt after the debt has been placed for collection. However, this does not prohibit a person from telling the debtor that her or his employer will be contacted if a final judgment is obtained.

(5) Disclose to a person other than the debtor or her or his family information affecting the debtor’s reputation, whether or not for credit worthiness, with knowledge or reason to know that the other person does not have a legitimate business need for the information or that the information is false.

(6) Disclose information concerning the existence of a debt known to be reasonably disputed by the debtor without disclosing that fact. If a disclosure is made before such dispute has been asserted and written notice is received from the debtor that any part of the debt is disputed, and if such dispute is reasonable, the person who made the original disclosure must reveal upon the request of the debtor within 30 days the details of the dispute to each person to whom disclosure of the debt without notice of the dispute was made within the preceding 90 days.

(7) Willfully communicate with the debtor or any member of her or his family with such frequency as can reasonably be expected to harass the debtor or her or his family, or willfully engage in other conduct which can reasonably be expected to abuse or harass the debtor or any member of her or his family.

(8) Use profane, obscene, vulgar, or willfully abusive language in communicating with the debtor or any member of her or his family.

(9) Claim, attempt, or threaten to enforce a debt when such person knows that the debt is not legitimate, or assert the existence of some other legal right when such person knows that the right does not exist.

(10) Use a communication that simulates in any manner legal or judicial process or that gives the appearance of being authorized, issued, or approved by a government, governmental agency, or attorney at law, when it is not.

(11) Communicate with a debtor under the guise of an attorney by using the stationery of an attorney or forms or instruments that only attorneys are authorized to prepare.

(12) Orally communicate with a debtor in a manner that gives the false impression or appearance that such person is or is associated with an attorney.

(13) Advertise or threaten to advertise for sale any debt as a means to enforce payment except under court order or when acting as an assignee for the benefit of a creditor.

(14) Publish or post, threaten to publish or post, or cause to be published or posted before the general public individual names or any list of names of debtors, commonly known as a deadbeat list, for the purpose of enforcing or attempting to enforce collection of consumer debts.

(15) Refuse to provide adequate identification of herself or himself or her or his employer or other entity whom she or he represents if requested to do so by a debtor from whom she or he is collecting or attempting to collect a consumer debt.

(16) Mail any communication to a debtor in an envelope or postcard with words typed, written, or printed on the outside of the envelope or postcard calculated to embarrass the debtor. An example of this would be an envelope addressed to “Deadbeat, Jane Doe” or “Deadbeat, John Doe.”

(17) Communicate with the debtor between the hours of 9 p.m. and 8 a.m. in the debtor’s time zone without the prior consent of the debtor. This subsection does not apply to an e-mail communication that is sent to an e-mail address and that otherwise complies with this section.

(a) The person may presume that the time a telephone call is received conforms to the local time zone assigned to the area code of the number called, unless the person reasonably believes that the debtor’s telephone is located in a different time zone.

(b) If, such as with toll-free numbers, an area code is not assigned to a specific geographic area, the person may presume that the time a telephone call is received conforms to the local time zone of the debtor’s last known place of residence, unless the person reasonably believes that the debtor’s telephone is located in a different time zone.

(18) Communicate with a debtor if the person knows that the debtor is represented by an attorney with respect to such debt and has knowledge of, or can readily ascertain, such attorney’s name and address, unless the debtor’s attorney fails to respond within 30 days to a communication from the person, unless the debtor’s attorney consents to a direct communication with the debtor, or unless the debtor initiates the communication.

(19) Cause a debtor to be charged for communications by concealing the true purpose of the communication, including collect telephone calls and telegram fees.

History.—s. 18, ch. 72-81; s. 3, ch. 76-168; s. 1, ch. 77-457; ss. 1, 6, ch. 81-314; ss. 2, 3, ch. 81-318; ss. 1, 3, ch. 83-265; ss. 7, 13, ch. 93-275; s. 819, ch. 97-103; s. 1, ch. 2001-206; s. 4, ch. 2010-127; s. 1, ch. 2025-23.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 277 cases (79 in the last 5 years), 1974–2026 · leading case: Castellanos v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, 297 F. Supp. 3d 1301 (S.D. Fla. 2017).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Castellanos v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, 297 F. Supp. 3d 1301 (S.D. Fla. 2017). · cites it 52× “§ 1692e(2) (Count II); (3) communication with a consumer represented by counsel, in violation of Fla. Stat. § 559.72 (18) (Count III); and (4) collecting a debt previously paid, in violation of Fla.”

Trent v. Mortg. Elec. Reg. Sys., Inc., 618 F. Supp. 2d 1356 (M.D. Fla. 2007). · cites it 37× “The FCCPA count essentially alleges that MERS “engaged in a pattern and practice of illegal debt collection practices” in violation of Fla. Stat. § 559.72 (9). *1358 MERS’ alleged ultra vires acts include, inter alia: (1) sending communications to residential mortgage borrowers…”

Cliff v. Payco Gen. Am. Credits, Inc., 363 F.3d 1113 (11th Cir. 2004). · cites it 19× “Fla. Stat. §§ 559.72 , 559.77: Cliff contends that OSI’s conduct violated Fla.”

Bacelli v. MFP, INC., 729 F. Supp. 2d 1328 (M.D. Fla. 2010). · cites it 37× “” Fla. Stat. § 559.72 (9) (emphasis added).”

Williams v. Educ. Credit Mgmt. Corp., 88 F. Supp. 3d 1338 (M.D. Fla. 2015). · cites it 39× “2 She asserts that ECMC violated various' provisions of the FCCPA— specifically, Fla. Stat. §§ 559.72 (3), (7), (9), and (18) (Count I).”

Meyer v. Fay Servicing, LLC, 385 F. Supp. 3d 1235 (M.D. Fla. 2019). · cites it 11× “Second, Defendants maintain Plaintiff's claims fail because Meyer did not allege they had actual knowledge under Fla. Stat. § 559.72 (9). (Docs. 7 at 4-5; 12 at 6).”

Brindise v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 183 So. 3d 1215 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). · cites it 12× “Section 559.72 prohibits specified debt collection practices.”

McCaskill v. Navient Solutions, Inc., 178 F. Supp. 3d 1281 (M.D. Fla. 2016). · cites it 26× “” Fla. Stat. § 559.72 ; Oppenheim v. I.C. Sys.”

Gill v. Kostroff, 82 F. Supp. 2d 1354 (M.D. Fla. 2000). · cites it 44× “In addition to adding the previously named Defendants, Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint added allegations against Defendants for violations of the Florida Consumer Practices Act, Fla.Stat. § 559.72, et seq., defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, malicious…”

Bentley v. Bank of Am., N.A., 773 F. Supp. 2d 1367 (S.D. Fla. 2011). · cites it 11× “at the debtor is represented by an attorney with respect to such debt and has knowledge of, or can readily ascertain, such attorney’s name and address, unless the debtor’s attorney fails to respond within 30 days to a communication from the person, unless the debtor’s attorney…”

Agrelo v. Affinity Mgmt. Servs., LLC, 841 F.3d 944 (11th Cir. 2016). · cites it 7× “They alleged that Affinity violated Fla. Stat. § 559.72 (9) 6 by demanding payment of a debt that it knew was illegitimate and Fla.”

Leahy-Fernandez v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, 159 F. Supp. 3d 1294 (M.D. Fla. 2016). · cites it 10× “Failure to State a Claim Bayview raises four points as to how Leahy-Fernandez failed to state a claim for relief; namely, (1) there was no attempt to collect a debt, (2) Bayview was not on notice that Leahy-Fernandez was represented with respect to the Debt, (3)…”

Show all 277 citing cases →

— 559.72(1) — 1 case

Welch v. Green Tree Servicing LLC (In re Runyan), 530 B.R. 801 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2015).

— 559.72(10) — 8 cases

Trent v. Mortg. Elec. Reg. Sys., Inc., 618 F. Supp. 2d 1356 (M.D. Fla. 2007). “The FCCPA count essentially alleges that MERS “engaged in a pattern and practice of illegal debt collection practices” in violation of Fla. Stat. § 559.72 (9). *1358 MERS’ alleged ultra vires acts include, inter alia: (1) sending communications to residential mortgage borrowers…”

Steiner & Munach v. Williams, 334 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).

North Star Capital Acquisitions, LLC v. Krig, 611 F. Supp. 2d 1324 (M.D. Fla. 2009).

Whigum v. Heilig-Meyers Furniture Inc., 682 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).

Dalton v. FMA Enter., Inc., 953 F. Supp. 1525 (M.D. Fla. 1997).

— 559.72(11) — 1 case

— 559.72(12) — 2 cases

Rafer v. Internal Credit Sys., Inc (M.D. Fla. 2021).

Smith v. Univ. Cmty. Hosp., Inc. (M.D. Fla. 2019).

— 559.72(14) — 3 cases

Smith v. Univ. Cmty. Hosp., Inc. (M.D. Fla. 2019).

KAC 2021-1 LLC A/A/O Theresa Previte v. Mary T. Matuszak Irrevocable Trust & Lorrain B. Terrazas, Tr. (Fla. 4th DCA 2025).

— 559.72(15) — 3 cases

Read v. MFP, Inc., 85 So. 3d 1151 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012).

Carrigan v. Cent. Adjustment Bureau, Inc., 502 F. Supp. 468 (N.D. Ga. 1980).

Hubbard, Kent v. Medicredit Inc. (W.D. Wis. 2020).

— 559.72(16) — 2 cases

Hansen v. Cent. Adjustment Bureau, Inc., 348 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).

Baldwin v. Regions Fin. Corp., 98 So. 3d 1210 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012).

— 559.72(17) — 3 cases

Bate v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (In Re Bate), 454 B.R. 869 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2011).

Quinn-Davis v. TrueAccord Corp. (S.D. Fla. 2024).

Newell (S.D. Fla. 2026).

— 559.72(18) — 20 cases

Laughlin v. Household Bank, Ltd., 969 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).

Bacelli v. MFP, INC., 729 F. Supp. 2d 1328 (M.D. Fla. 2010). “” Fla. Stat. § 559.72 (9) (emphasis added).”

Williams v. Educ. Credit Mgmt. Corp., 88 F. Supp. 3d 1338 (M.D. Fla. 2015). “2 She asserts that ECMC violated various' provisions of the FCCPA— specifically, Fla. Stat. §§ 559.72 (3), (7), (9), and (18) (Count I).”

Bentley v. Bank of Am., N.A., 773 F. Supp. 2d 1367 (S.D. Fla. 2011). “at the debtor is represented by an attorney with respect to such debt and has knowledge of, or can readily ascertain, such attorney’s name and address, unless the debtor’s attorney fails to respond within 30 days to a communication from the person, unless the debtor’s attorney…”

Garrison v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc., 233 F. Supp. 3d 1282 (M.D. Fla. 2017).

— 559.72(2) — 6 cases

Brindise v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 183 So. 3d 1215 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). “Section 559.72 prohibits specified debt collection practices.”

Reeves v. Ace Cash Express, Inc., 937 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006).

Patty Davis v. Sheridan Healthcare, Inc. & Sheridan Radiology Servs. of Pinellas, Inc. (Fla. 2d DCA 2019).

Wright v. CrossCountry Mortg., LLC (M.D. Fla. 2024).

— 559.72(3) — 3 cases

Robert Baldwin v. Lab'y Corp. of Am. (Fla. 5th DCA 2024).

— 559.72(4) — 4 cases

Harris v. Beneficial Fin. Co. of Jacksonville, 338 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 1976).

Gill v. Kostroff, 82 F. Supp. 2d 1354 (M.D. Fla. 2000). “In addition to adding the previously named Defendants, Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint added allegations against Defendants for violations of the Florida Consumer Practices Act, Fla.Stat. § 559.72, et seq., defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, malicious…”

Laughlin v. Household Bank, Ltd., 969 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).

Carter Opticians, Inc. v. Davis, 367 So. 2d 227 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).

— 559.72(5) — 16 cases

Heard v. Mathis, 344 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).

Laughlin v. Household Bank, Ltd., 969 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).

Garrison v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc., 233 F. Supp. 3d 1282 (M.D. Fla. 2017).

Owens-Benniefield v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC, 258 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (M.D. Fla. 2017).

— 559.72(6) — 6 cases

Robert Baldwin v. Lab'y Corp. of Am. (Fla. 5th DCA 2024).

Buser v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc. (M.D. Fla. 2025).

Barat v. Navy Fed. Credit Union (S.D. Fla. 2024).

— 559.72(7) — 57 cases

Leahy-Fernandez v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, 159 F. Supp. 3d 1294 (M.D. Fla. 2016). “Failure to State a Claim Bayview raises four points as to how Leahy-Fernandez failed to state a claim for relief; namely, (1) there was no attempt to collect a debt, (2) Bayview was not on notice that Leahy-Fernandez was represented with respect to the Debt, (3)…”

Bacelli v. MFP, INC., 729 F. Supp. 2d 1328 (M.D. Fla. 2010). “” Fla. Stat. § 559.72 (9) (emphasis added).”

Schauer v. Morse Operations, Inc., 5 So. 3d 2 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).

Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Sheehan, 373 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).

— 559.72(8) — 4 cases

Laughlin v. Household Bank, Ltd., 969 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).

Rafer v. Internal Credit Sys., Inc (M.D. Fla. 2021).

Meininger v. Florida Pediatric Assocs., LLC (In Re Johnson), 453 B.R. 433 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2011).

Bonner v. Radius Global Solutions (M.D. Fla. 2021).

— 559.72(9) — 97 cases

Brindise v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 183 So. 3d 1215 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). “Section 559.72 prohibits specified debt collection practices.”

Gann v. BAC Home Loans Servicing LP, 145 So. 3d 906 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014).

Sandlin v. Shapiro & Fishman, 919 F. Supp. 1564 (M.D. Fla. 1996).

— 559.72(a) — 1 case

Hallback v. Carrington Mortg. Servs. LLC (M.D. Fla. 2022).

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.