15 U.S.C. § 1692

Congressional findings and declaration of purpose

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 15 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Abusive practices

There is abundant evidence of the use of abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices by many debt collectors. Abusive debt collection practices contribute to the number of personal bankruptcies, to marital instability, to the loss of jobs, and to invasions of individual privacy.

(b) Inadequacy of laws

Existing laws and procedures for redressing these injuries are inadequate to protect consumers.

Means other than misrepresentation or other abusive debt collection practices are available for the effective collection of debts.

(d) Interstate commerce

Abusive debt collection practices are carried on to a substantial extent in interstate commerce and through means and instrumentalities of such commerce. Even where abusive debt collection practices are purely intrastate in character, they nevertheless directly affect interstate commerce.

(e) Purposes

It is the purpose of this subchapter to eliminate abusive debt collection practices by debt collectors, to insure that those debt collectors who refrain from using abusive debt collection practices are not competitively disadvantaged, and to promote consistent State action to protect consumers against debt collection abuses.

(Pub. L. 90–321, title VIII, § 802, as added Pub. L. 95–109, Sept. 20, 1977, 91 Stat. 874.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Pub. L. 90–321, title VIII, § 819, formerly § 818, as added by Pub. L. 95–109, Sept. 20, 1977, 91 Stat. 883, § 818; renumbered § 819, Pub. L. 109–351, title VIII, § 801(a)(1), Oct. 13, 2006, 120 Stat. 2004, provided that: “This title [enacting this subchapter] takes effect upon the expiration of six months after the date of its enactment [Sept. 20, 1977], but section 809 [section 1692g of this title] shall apply only with respect to debts for which the initial attempt to collect occurs after such effective date.”

Short Title

This subchapter known as the “Fair Debt Collection Practices Act”, see Short Title note set out under section 1601 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6,417 cases (2,096 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: Gonzales v. Arrow Fin. Servs., LLC, 660 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir. 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Gonzales v. Arrow Fin. Servs., LLC, 660 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir. 2011). · cites it 9× “" 15 U.S.C. § 1692 (e). The FDCPA comprehensively *1061 regulates the conduct of debt collectors, imposing affirmative obligations and broadly prohibiting abusive practices.”

Wilbur Macy v. GC Servs. Ltd. P'ship, 897 F.3d 747 (6th Cir. 2018). · cites it 6× “Stowe (Plaintiffs) brought this putative class action against GC Services Limited Partnership (GC), a debt collector, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq . Plaintiffs alleged that GC, in attempting to collect debt owed…”

Vincent v. The Money Store, 736 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2013). · cites it 9× “), dismissing plaintiffs’ claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., and the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), 15 U.”

Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP, 139 S. Ct. 1029 (2019). · cites it 4× “’ ” 15 U. S. C. §1692a(6); see 91 Stat. 874 , 15 U.”

Karun N. Jackson v. Specialized Loan Servicing LLC, 898 F.3d 1348 (11th Cir. 2018). · cites it 3× “*1373 COUNT THIRTEEN VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. (SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICES) 106.”

Connie Bishop v. Ross Earle & Bonan, P.A., 817 F.3d 1268 (11th Cir. 2016). · cites it 5× “” 15 U.S.C. § 1692 (a). “Existing laws and procedures for redressing these injuries [were] inadequate to protect consumers.”

Alaska Tr., LLC v. Ambridge, 372 P.3d 207 (Alaska 2016). · cites it 10× “The superior court noted a split in the way courts apply these sections: 10 15 U.S.C. § 1692 (e) (2012); see also 15 U.”

Marx v. Gen. Revenue Corp., 133 S. Ct. 1166 (2013). · cites it 4× “See 15 U. S. C. §1692 . The FDCPA’s private-enforcement provision, §1692k, author- izes any aggrieved person to recover damages from “any debt collector who fails to comply with any provision” of the FDCPA.”

Blackstone v. Sharma, 191 A.3d 1188 (Md. 2018). · cites it 4× “See 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 (e). The Supreme Court's decision to grant certiorari in this case emphasizes that the language of the FDCPA has generated conflicting opinions as to its scope amongst federal and state courts alike.”

O'Rourke v. Palisades Acquisition Xvi, LLC, 635 F.3d 938 (7th Cir. 2011). · cites it 8× “O'Rourke sued in federal court claiming that the attachment violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 ("the Act"). Unlike most lawsuits under the Act, he claimed that the attachment was actionable because it was meant to mislead the state court judge.”

Richard Hunstein v. Preferred Collection & Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 17 F.4th 1016 (11th Cir. 2021). · cites it 6× “” 15 U.S.C. § 1692 (e). To that end, § 1692c(b) of the FDCPA, titled “Communication with third par- ties,” provides that— USCA11 Case: 19-14434 Date Filed: 10/28/2021 Page: 4 of 65 4 Opinion of the Court 19-14434 Except as provided in section 1692b of this title, with- out the…”

Bridge v. Ocwen Fed. Bank, FSB, 681 F.3d 355 (6th Cir. 2012). · cites it 6× “Bridge, III [1] sued the mortgagee and related parties under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 , et seq. They now appeal a district court judgment dismissing their Complaint.”

Show all 6,417 citing cases →

— 15 U.S.C. § 1692(a) — 3 cases

Rivera v. Corp. Receivables, Inc., 540 F. Supp. 2d 329 (D. Conn. 2008).

Searle v. RBS Citizens Bank N.A. (D. Mass. 2018).

Troy L. Freyermuth v. Credit Bureau Serv. (8th Cir. 2001).

— 15 U.S.C. § 1692(a)(6) — 1 case

Gallaher v. Estates at Aloma Woods Homeowners Ass'n, Inc., 316 F. Supp. 3d 1358 (M.D. Fla. 2018).

— 15 U.S.C. § 1692(d) — 1 case

Malin v. RCN Corp., 10 Pa. D. & C.5th 432 (2009).

— 15 U.S.C. § 1692(e) — 14 cases

Yvonne Mack v. Resurgent Capital Servs., L., 70 F.4th 395 (7th Cir. 2023).

Chulsky v. Hudson Law Offices, PC, 777 F. Supp. 2d 823 (D.N.J. 2011).

Martinez v. Albuquerque Collection Servs., Inc., 867 F. Supp. 1495 (D.N.M. 1994).

Chulsky v. Hudson Law Offices, PC, 777 F. Supp. 2d 811 (D.N.J. 2011).

Green v. Americollect, Inc. (E.D. Mo. 2021).

— 15 U.S.C. § 1692(e)(2) — 1 case

Smith v. Bendett & McHugh, PC (D. Conn. 2024).

— 15 U.S.C. § 1692(f) — 4 cases

Escamilla Avina v. Patenaude & Felix, APC (S.D. Cal. 2021).

Ruffner v. Quality Loan Serv. Corp. of Washington (D. Or. 2021).

Kong v. Chatham Vill. HOA (W.D. Tenn. 2024).

Simins v. Credit Control, LLC (W.D. Tex. 2020).

— 15 U.S.C. § 1692(g) — 4 cases

Matteo, S. v. EOS USA, 292 A.3d 571 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023).

Matteo, S. v. EOS USA (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023).

Kong v. Chatham Vill. HOA (W.D. Tenn. 2024).

Urrego v. Samuel White P.C. (E.D. Va. 2019).

— 15 U.S.C. § 1692(k) — 1 case

Bassett v. Credit Bureau Servs., Inc. (D. Neb. 2021).

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.