Sec. 392.304. FRAUDULENT, DECEPTIVE, OR MISLEADING REPRESENTATIONS. (a) Except as otherwise provided by this section, in debt collection or obtaining information concerning a consumer, a debt collector may not use a fraudulent, deceptive, or misleading representation that employs the following practices:
(1) using a name other than the:
(A) true business or professional name or the true personal or legal name of the debt collector while engaged in debt collection; or
(B) name appearing on the face of the credit card while engaged in the collection of a credit card debt;
(2) failing to maintain a list of all business or professional names known to be used or formerly used by persons collecting consumer debts or attempting to collect consumer debts for the debt collector;
(3) representing falsely that the debt collector has information or something of value for the consumer in order to solicit or discover information about the consumer;
(4) failing to disclose clearly in any communication with the debtor the name of the person to whom the debt has been assigned or is owed when making a demand for money;
(5) in the case of a third-party debt collector, failing to disclose, except in a formal pleading made in connection with a legal action:
(A) that the communication is an attempt to collect a debt and that any information obtained will be used for that purpose, if the communication is the initial written or oral communication between the third-party debt collector and the debtor; or
(B) that the communication is from a debt collector, if the communication is a subsequent written or oral communication between the third-party debt collector and the debtor;
(6) using a written communication that fails to indicate clearly the name of the debt collector and the debt collector's street address or post office box and telephone number if the written notice refers to a delinquent consumer debt;
(7) using a written communication that demands a response to a place other than the debt collector's or creditor's street address or post office box;
(8) misrepresenting the character, extent, or amount of a consumer debt, or misrepresenting the consumer debt's status in a judicial or governmental proceeding;
(9) representing falsely that a debt collector is vouched for, bonded by, or affiliated with, or is an instrumentality, agent, or official of, this state or an agency of federal, state, or local government;
(10) using, distributing, or selling a written communication that simulates or is represented falsely to be a document authorized, issued, or approved by a court, an official, a governmental agency, or any other governmental authority or that creates a false impression about the communication's source, authorization, or approval;
(11) using a seal, insignia, or design that simulates that of a governmental agency;
(12) representing that a consumer debt may be increased by the addition of attorney's fees, investigation fees, service fees, or other charges if a written contract or statute does not authorize the additional fees or charges;
(13) representing that a consumer debt will definitely be increased by the addition of attorney's fees, investigation fees, service fees, or other charges if the award of the fees or charges is subject to judicial discretion;
(14) representing falsely the status or nature of the services rendered by the debt collector or the debt collector's business;
(15) using a written communication that violates the United States postal laws and regulations;
(16) using a communication that purports to be from an attorney or law firm if it is not;
(17) representing that a consumer debt is being collected by an attorney if it is not;
(18) representing that a consumer debt is being collected by an independent, bona fide organization engaged in the business of collecting past due accounts when the debt is being collected by a subterfuge organization under the control and direction of the person who is owed the debt; or
(19) using any other false representation or deceptive means to collect a debt or obtain information concerning a consumer.
(b) Subsection (a)(4) does not apply to a person servicing or collecting real property first lien mortgage loans or credit card debts.
(c) Subsection (a)(6) does not require a debt collector to disclose the names and addresses of employees of the debt collector.
(d) Subsection (a)(7) does not require a response to the address of an employee of a debt collector.
(e) Subsection (a)(18) does not prohibit a creditor from owning or operating a bona fide debt collection agency.
Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1008, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1997. Amended by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 851, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 2003; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., 3rd C.S., ch. 3, Sec. 28.01, eff. Jan. 11, 2004.
Notes of Decisions
McCaig Ex Rel. Est. of McCaig v. Wells Fargo Bank (Texas), N.A., 788 F.3d 463 (5th Cir. 2015).
· cites it 5× “Tex. Fin. Code § 392.304(a)(8) Except as otherwise provided by this section, in debt collection or obtaining information concerning a consumer, a debt collector may not use a fraudulent, deceptive, or misleading representation that employs the following practices: (8)…”
James Miller v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L, 726 F.3d 717 (5th Cir. 2013).
· cites it 3× “Plaintiffs-Appellants, James and Aliene Miller, appeal the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of their claims against BAC and NDE under the Texas Debt Collection Act (“TDCA”), Tex. Fin.Code § 392.304(a), the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“DTPA”), Tex.”
Johnson v. Wells Fargo Bank, 999 F. Supp. 2d 919 (N.D. Tex. 2014).
· cites it 3× “Violations of the TDCA Plaintiff claims that Defendants violated the TDCA by: (1) using false representations or deceptive means to collect a debt under Texas Finance Code § 392.304(a)(19); (2) misrepresenting the character, extent, or amount of a consumer debt under Texas…”
Casstevens v. Smith, 269 S.W.3d 222 (Tex. App. 2008).
· cites it 3× “Tex. Fin.Code Ann. § 392.304. The summary judgment proof in reference to the first claim shows that the collection proceeding was begun not by those claiming ownership, or even in the name of their company, but in the individual name of one of their employees, Clark.”
Ashraf Mahmoud v. De Moss Owners Assn, Inc., 865 F.3d 322 (5th Cir. 2017).
· cites it 2× “VIII Mahmoud and Jackson argue that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to the Attorney Defendants on their claim under the Texas Debt Collection Act (TDCA), Tex. Fin. Code Ann. § 392.304 (a)(8), asserting that “the summary judgment proof shows Slaughter’s…”
Prophet v. Myers, 645 F. Supp. 2d 614 (S.D. Tex. 2008).
· cites it 4× “304(a)(16) “represent ] that a consumer debt is being collected by an attorney if it is not,” Tex Fin.Code § 392.304(a)(17), and ”us[e] any other false representation or deceptive means to collect a debt or obtain information concerning a consumer,” Tex Fin.”
Ca Partners v. Spears, 274 S.W.3d 51 (Tex. App. 2008).
“See Tex. Fin.Code § 392.304(a)(8). 15 . In a footnote, CA Partners further contends that the trial court erred in "trebling" the $25,000 mental anguish damages because (1) the trial court only found a "knowing” violation; (2) the DTPA states that only economic damages are…”
Roger Singha v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L, 564 F. App'x 65 (5th Cir. 2014).
· cites it 3× “” Tex. Fin.Code § 392.304(a)(19). The TDCA does not prohibit debt collectors from “exercising or threatening to exercise a statutory or contractual right of seizure, repossession, or sale that does not require court proceedings.”
John Smither v. Ditech Fin., L.L.C., 681 F. App'x 347 (5th Cir. 2017).
· cites it 2× “First, it added an alternative claim under the TDCA, alleging that, even if Bank of America abandoned the 2009 Acceleration, Diteeh “misrepresented the character, extent, or amount of a consumer debt in violation of Tex. Fin. Code § 392.304(a)(8)” by not reflecting that…”
Sgroe v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 941 F. Supp. 2d 731 (E.D. Tex. 2013).
· cites it 2× “Plaintiff asserts violations of the Texas Finance Code, Sections 392.304(a)(19), 392.”
— Tex. Fin. Code § 392.304(19) — 2 cases
— Tex. Fin. Code § 392.304(8) — 1 case
— Tex. Fin. Code § 392.304(a) — 11 cases
James Miller v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L, 726 F.3d 717 (5th Cir. 2013).
“Plaintiffs-Appellants, James and Aliene Miller, appeal the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of their claims against BAC and NDE under the Texas Debt Collection Act (“TDCA”), Tex. Fin.Code § 392.304(a), the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“DTPA”), Tex.”
Prophet v. Myers, 645 F. Supp. 2d 614 (S.D. Tex. 2008).
“304(a)(16) “represent ] that a consumer debt is being collected by an attorney if it is not,” Tex Fin.Code § 392.304(a)(17), and ”us[e] any other false representation or deceptive means to collect a debt or obtain information concerning a consumer,” Tex Fin.”
— Tex. Fin. Code § 392.304(a)(1) — 1 case
— Tex. Fin. Code § 392.304(a)(1)(A) — 2 cases
— Tex. Fin. Code § 392.304(a)(12) — 1 case
— Tex. Fin. Code § 392.304(a)(13) — 1 case
— Tex. Fin. Code § 392.304(a)(14) — 5 cases
Prophet v. Myers, 645 F. Supp. 2d 614 (S.D. Tex. 2008).
“304(a)(16) “represent ] that a consumer debt is being collected by an attorney if it is not,” Tex Fin.Code § 392.304(a)(17), and ”us[e] any other false representation or deceptive means to collect a debt or obtain information concerning a consumer,” Tex Fin.”
Prasla (Bankr. E.D. Tex. 2026).
— Tex. Fin. Code § 392.304(a)(16) — 1 case
Prophet v. Myers, 645 F. Supp. 2d 614 (S.D. Tex. 2008).
“304(a)(16) “represent ] that a consumer debt is being collected by an attorney if it is not,” Tex Fin.Code § 392.304(a)(17), and ”us[e] any other false representation or deceptive means to collect a debt or obtain information concerning a consumer,” Tex Fin.”
— Tex. Fin. Code § 392.304(a)(17) — 1 case
Prophet v. Myers, 645 F. Supp. 2d 614 (S.D. Tex. 2008).
“304(a)(16) “represent ] that a consumer debt is being collected by an attorney if it is not,” Tex Fin.Code § 392.304(a)(17), and ”us[e] any other false representation or deceptive means to collect a debt or obtain information concerning a consumer,” Tex Fin.”
— Tex. Fin. Code § 392.304(a)(19) — 17 cases
Roger Singha v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L, 564 F. App'x 65 (5th Cir. 2014).
“” Tex. Fin.Code § 392.304(a)(19). The TDCA does not prohibit debt collectors from “exercising or threatening to exercise a statutory or contractual right of seizure, repossession, or sale that does not require court proceedings.”
Sgroe v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 941 F. Supp. 2d 731 (E.D. Tex. 2013).
“Plaintiff asserts violations of the Texas Finance Code, Sections 392.304(a)(19), 392.”
Johnson v. Wells Fargo Bank, 999 F. Supp. 2d 919 (N.D. Tex. 2014).
“Violations of the TDCA Plaintiff claims that Defendants violated the TDCA by: (1) using false representations or deceptive means to collect a debt under Texas Finance Code § 392.304(a)(19); (2) misrepresenting the character, extent, or amount of a consumer debt under Texas…”
— Tex. Fin. Code § 392.304(a)(2) — 1 case
— Tex. Fin. Code § 392.304(a)(3) — 3 cases
— Tex. Fin. Code § 392.304(a)(4) — 3 cases
— Tex. Fin. Code § 392.304(a)(8) — 53 cases
McCaig Ex Rel. Est. of McCaig v. Wells Fargo Bank (Texas), N.A., 788 F.3d 463 (5th Cir. 2015).
“Tex. Fin. Code § 392.304(a)(8) Except as otherwise provided by this section, in debt collection or obtaining information concerning a consumer, a debt collector may not use a fraudulent, deceptive, or misleading representation that employs the following practices: (8)…”
James Miller v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L, 726 F.3d 717 (5th Cir. 2013).
“Plaintiffs-Appellants, James and Aliene Miller, appeal the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of their claims against BAC and NDE under the Texas Debt Collection Act (“TDCA”), Tex. Fin.Code § 392.304(a), the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“DTPA”), Tex.”
Johnson v. Wells Fargo Bank, 999 F. Supp. 2d 919 (N.D. Tex. 2014).
“Violations of the TDCA Plaintiff claims that Defendants violated the TDCA by: (1) using false representations or deceptive means to collect a debt under Texas Finance Code § 392.304(a)(19); (2) misrepresenting the character, extent, or amount of a consumer debt under Texas…”
Ca Partners v. Spears, 274 S.W.3d 51 (Tex. App. 2008).
“See Tex. Fin.Code § 392.304(a)(8). 15 . In a footnote, CA Partners further contends that the trial court erred in "trebling" the $25,000 mental anguish damages because (1) the trial court only found a "knowing” violation; (2) the DTPA states that only economic damages are…”
— Tex. Fin. Code § 392.304(b) — 2 cases
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.