Texas Codes

Tex. Fin. Code § 392.302 (2026)

Harassment; Abuse

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section TX-LEGstatutes.capitol.texas.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sec. 392.302. HARASSMENT; ABUSE. In debt collection, a debt collector may not oppress, harass, or abuse a person by:

(1) using profane or obscene language or language intended to abuse unreasonably the hearer or reader;

(2) placing telephone calls without disclosing the name of the individual making the call and with the intent to annoy, harass, or threaten a person at the called number;

(3) causing a person to incur a long distance telephone toll, telegram fee, or other charge by a medium of communication without first disclosing the name of the person making the communication; or

(4) causing a telephone to ring repeatedly or continuously, or making repeated or continuous telephone calls, with the intent to harass a person at the called number.

Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1008, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 17 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1998–2024 · leading case: Comm'n for Lawyer Discipline v. Benton, 980 S.W.2d 425 (Tex. 1998).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Comm'n for Lawyer Discipline v. Benton, 980 S.W.2d 425 (Tex. 1998). · cites it 2× “005 (frivolous filing of suits for modifying parent-child relationship); TEX. FIN.CODE § 392.302 (debt collection); TEX.”

Lee C. Ritchie v. Ann Caldwell Rupe, as Tr. for the Dallas Gordon Rupe, III 1995 Fam. Trust, 443 S.W.3d 856 (Tex. 2014). “”); Tex. Fin.Code § 392.302(1) (listing conduct by which a debt collector "may not oppress, harass, or abuse a person”); Tex.”

Danny Robinson v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., e, 576 F. App'x 358 (5th Cir. 2014). · cites it 2× “B The Robinsons also allege that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on their claims that Wells Fargo violated Texas Finance Code § 392.302(4). That provision prohibits a debt collector from harassing or abusing a person by “causing a telephone to ring…”

Household Credit Servs., Inc. v. Driscol, 989 S.W.2d 72 (Tex. App. 1998). “Tex. Fin.Code Ann. § 392.302(1)(2)(4) (Vernon 1998).”

Adamcik v. Credit Control Servs., Inc., 832 F. Supp. 2d 744 (W.D. Tex. 2011). “§ 1692d(5); TEX. FIN. CODE § 392.302(4). . See 15 U.S.”

SCHAKOSKY v. Client Servs., Inc., 634 F. Supp. 2d 732 (E.D. Tex. 2007). · cites it 3× “§§ 1692b, 1692d, the Texas Debt Collection Act (“TDCA”), Tex. Fin.Code § 392.302, and the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“TDPA”), Tex.”

Cushman v. Gc Servs., Lp, 657 F. Supp. 2d 834 (S.D. Tex. 2009). “304(19), and by using language intended to abuse the Plaintiff in violation of Tex. Fin.Code § 392.302(1). (Instrument No.”

Cherkaoui v. Santander Consum. USA, Inc., 32 F. Supp. 3d 811 (S.D. Tex. 2014). “Tex. Fin. Code § 392.302(4); Karp v. Fin.”

Candy Guajardo v. GC Servs., L.P., 498 F. App'x 379 (5th Cir. 2012). “” Tex. Fin.Code Ann. § 392.302(4). Consumers have standing to bring suit under the act and include any “individual who has a consumer debt.”

Cunningham v. Radius Global Solutions LLC (E.D. Tex. 2020). · cites it 3× “Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Under the TDCA The Texas Finance Code § 392.302 states “[i]n a debt collection, a debt collector may not oppress, harass, or abuse a person by: causing a telephone to ring repeatedly or continuously, or making repeated or continuous…”

Salas v. Ford Motor Credit Co., LLC (W.D. Tex. 2019). · cites it 3× “Salas now seeks leave to amend her original complaint to remove her claim under the DTPA and to add a claim under the Texas Debt Collection Act, Tex. Fin. Code § 392.302(4), (“TDCA”). (Mot.”

Stevens v. Conn's, Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2019). “Additionally, although TEXAS FIN. CODE ANN. § 392.302 does not prescribe a specific award amount, the TDCA imposes fines for comparative violations to be at least $100 per phone call, see TEXAS FIN.”

Show all 17 citing cases →

— Tex. Fin. Code § 392.302(1) — 3 cases

Cushman v. Gc Servs., Lp, 657 F. Supp. 2d 834 (S.D. Tex. 2009). “304(19), and by using language intended to abuse the Plaintiff in violation of Tex. Fin.Code § 392.302(1). (Instrument No.”

Riddle v. Rushmore Loan Mgmt. Servs., LLC (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2024).

— Tex. Fin. Code § 392.302(1)(2)(4) — 1 case

Household Credit Servs., Inc. v. Driscol, 989 S.W.2d 72 (Tex. App. 1998). “Tex. Fin.Code Ann. § 392.302(1)(2)(4) (Vernon 1998).”

— Tex. Fin. Code § 392.302(2) — 1 case

Luna v. PHH Mortg. Corp. (S.D. Tex. 2024).

— Tex. Fin. Code § 392.302(4) — 6 cases

Danny Robinson v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., e, 576 F. App'x 358 (5th Cir. 2014). “B The Robinsons also allege that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on their claims that Wells Fargo violated Texas Finance Code § 392.302(4). That provision prohibits a debt collector from harassing or abusing a person by “causing a telephone to ring…”

Adamcik v. Credit Control Servs., Inc., 832 F. Supp. 2d 744 (W.D. Tex. 2011). “§ 1692d(5); TEX. FIN. CODE § 392.302(4). . See 15 U.S.”

Cherkaoui v. Santander Consum. USA, Inc., 32 F. Supp. 3d 811 (S.D. Tex. 2014). “Tex. Fin. Code § 392.302(4); Karp v. Fin.”

Salas v. Ford Motor Credit Co., LLC (W.D. Tex. 2019). “Salas now seeks leave to amend her original complaint to remove her claim under the DTPA and to add a claim under the Texas Debt Collection Act, Tex. Fin. Code § 392.302(4), (“TDCA”). (Mot.”

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.