Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 339 / Act 299 of 1980
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 339.918 (2026)

Communication with consumer; notice; effect of disputing validity of debt; verification of debt; failure to dispute validity of debt.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

OCCUPATIONAL CODE


Act 299 of 1980


339.918 Communication with consumer; notice; effect of disputing validity of debt; verification of debt; failure to dispute validity of debt.

Sec. 918.

    (1) Within 5 days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with a collection of a debt, a collection agency shall send the consumer, unless the following information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has paid the debt, a written notice containing all of the following information:

    (a) The amount of the debt owed.

    (b) The date the communication was sent to the debtor.

    (c) The name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed.

    (d) A statement specifying that unless the consumer, within 30 days after receipt of this notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or a portion of the debt, the debt will be assumed to be valid.

    (e) A statement specifying that, if the consumer notifies the collection agency in writing within 30 days after receipt of this notice, that the debt, or any portion of the debt, is disputed, the collection agency shall obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and that a copy of the verification or judgment shall be mailed to the consumer by the collection agency.

    (2) If the consumer notifies the collection agency in writing, within 30 days after receiving the written notice, that the debt, or any portion of the debt, is disputed, collection of the debt or any disputed portion of the debt shall cease until the collection agency obtains verification of the debt and a copy of the verification or judgment is mailed to the consumer by the collection agency. Verification of the debt or any disputed portion of the debt shall include the number and amount of previously made payments and the name and address of the orginal creditor, if different from the current creditor, or a copy of the judgment against the debtor.

    (3) The failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section shall not be construed as an admission of liability by the consumer.

History: Add. 1981, Act 83, Imd. Eff. July 1, 1981

PopularName Notes:

Act 299
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1993–2025 · leading case: Alexander v. Blackhawk Recovery & Investigation, L.L.C., 731 F. Supp. 2d 674 (E.D. Mich. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Alexander v. Blackhawk Recovery & Investigation, L.L.C., 731 F. Supp. 2d 674 (E.D. Mich. 2010). · cites it 3× “See Mich. Comp. Laws § 339.918 (1). Specifically, Blackhawk was required to send Alexander written correspondence within five days of its first contact with him.”
McCann v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 873 F. Supp. 2d 823 (E.D. Mich. 2012). · cites it 2× “§ 1692g; and (12) violation of the Michigan Occupational Code (“MOC”) under Mich. Comp. Laws § 339.918 . 1 (Doc. 1.) These claims all relate to the circumstances surrounding a mortgage loan, alleged modifications thereto, and the published notice of foreclosure sale of…”
Burns v. Accelerated Bureau of Collections of Virginia, Inc., 828 F. Supp. 475 (E.D. Mich. 1993). “§ 339.918(1). Section 1692g(a) of the FDCPA provides in relevant part that: Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the following information is contained in the initial…”
Joshua Mitchell v. Capital One, N.A. (W.D. Mich. 2025). · cites it 6× “918 (1)(c) by communicating with Beyond Finance without authorization; and (2) “misrepresented Beyond Finance’s authority to act for [Mitchell]” and used “deceptive or unfair means to collect a debt” in violation of Mich. Comp. Laws § 339.918 (1)(n) and (o).”
Camaj v. Makower Abbate Guerra Wegner Vollmer, PLLC (E.D. Mich. 2019). “§ 1692f(1) by attempting “to collect an amount not authorized by the agreement”;  Violated the MCPA by failing “to properly and completely give the validation notice required by MCL 339.918” and falsely threatening litigation in violation of Mich.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 339.918(1) — 1 case
Burns v. Accelerated Bureau of Collections of Virginia, Inc., 828 F. Supp. 475 (E.D. Mich. 1993). “§ 339.918(1). Section 1692g(a) of the FDCPA provides in relevant part that: Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the following information is contained in the initial…”
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.