15 U.S.C. § 1692c

Communication in connection with debt collection

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

(a) Communication with the consumer generallyWithout the prior consent of the consumer given directly to the debt collector or the express permission of a court of competent jurisdiction, a debt collector may not communicate with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt—(1) at any unusual time or place or a time or place known or which should be known to be inconvenient to the consumer. In the absence of knowledge of circumstances to the contrary, a debt collector shall assume that the convenient time for communicating with a consumer is after 8 o’clock antemeridian and before 9 o’clock postmeridian, local time at the consumer’s location;(2) if the debt collector knows the consumer 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 attorney fails to respond within a reasonable period of time to a communication from the debt collector or unless the attorney consents to direct communication with the consumer; or(3) at the consumer’s place of employment if the debt collector knows or has reason to know that the consumer’s employer prohibits the consumer from receiving such communication.(b) Communication with third parties

Except as provided in section 1692b of this title, without the prior consent of the consumer given directly to the debt collector, or the express permission of a court of competent jurisdiction, or as reasonably necessary to effectuate a postjudgment judicial remedy, a debt collector may not communicate, in connection with the collection of any debt, with any person other than the consumer, his attorney, a consumer reporting agency if otherwise permitted by law, the creditor, the attorney of the creditor, or the attorney of the debt collector.

(c) Ceasing communicationIf a consumer notifies a debt collector in writing that the consumer refuses to pay a debt or that the consumer wishes the debt collector to cease further communication with the consumer, the debt collector shall not communicate further with the consumer with respect to such debt, except—(1) to advise the consumer that the debt collector’s further efforts are being terminated;(2) to notify the consumer that the debt collector or creditor may invoke specified remedies which are ordinarily invoked by such debt collector or creditor; or(3) where applicable, to notify the consumer that the debt collector or creditor intends to invoke a specified remedy.If such notice from the consumer is made by mail, notification shall be complete upon receipt.(d) “Consumer” defined

For the purpose of this section, the term “consumer” includes the consumer’s spouse, parent (if the consumer is a minor), guardian, executor, or administrator.

(Pub. L. 90–321, title VIII, § 805, as added Pub. L. 95–109, Sept. 20, 1977, 91 Stat. 876.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Section effective upon the expiration of six months after Sept. 20, 1977, see section 819 of Pub. L. 90–321, as added by Pub. L. 95–109, set out as a note under section 1692 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 814 cases (331 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: William C. Lewis v. Acb Bus. Servs., Inc., (96-3093/3498), Am. Express Travel Related Servs. Co., Inc. James P. Connors, (96-3498), 135 F.3d 389 (6th Cir. 1998).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

William C. Lewis v. Acb Bus. Servs., Inc., (96-3093/3498), Am. Express Travel Related Servs. Co., Inc. James P. Connors, (96-3498), 135 F.3d 389 (6th Cir. 1998). · cites it 10× “On March 1, 1993, Lewis sent a letter to ACB, requesting that ACB cease communications in accordance with 15 U.S.C. § 1692c. 2 At issue on this appeal are two contacts ACB made after Lewis sent this letter: (1) a letter ACB sent to Lewis on June 3, 1993, and (2) a telephone call…”

Alaska Tr., LLC v. Ambridge, 372 P.3d 207 (Alaska 2016). · cites it 11× “2010) (dismissing a claim that notice of a nonjudicial foreclosure notice violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(a)(2) because “the FDCPA does not prohibit debt collectors from foreclosing on debtors’ properties pursuant to state law, and nothing in the FDCPA authorizes debt collectors to…”

Vien-Phuong Thi Ho v. ReconTrust Co., 858 F.3d 568 (9th Cir. 2016). · cites it 4× “15 U.S.C. § 1692c(a). By signing the Deed of Trust, Ho consented to the “Lender or Trustee [mailing] copies of the notice as prescribed by [California] Law to Borrower.”

Guerrero v. Rjm Acquisitions LLC, 499 F.3d 926 (9th Cir. 2007). · cites it 6× “[2] See 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(a)(2). Subject to certain exceptions, a debt collector may not communicate in connection with a debt with "any person other than the consumer, his attorney, a consumer reporting agency .”

McDermott v. Marcus, Errico, Emmer & Brooks, P.C., 911 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D. Mass. 2012). · cites it 11× “” 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(a). Again, the plain language refers to “the express permission of a court.”

Bridge v. Ocwen Fed. Bank, FSB, 681 F.3d 355 (6th Cir. 2012). · cites it 6× “The Bridges filed suit in federal court, alleging that Defendants violated the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692c, 1692d, and 1692e, by making false representations in connection with the debt, threatening to take impermissible actions, making false representations that Bridge had…”

Richard Hunstein v. Preferred Collection & Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 48 F.4th 1236 (11th Cir. 2022). · cites it 4× “2 See 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(b). The district court granted Preferred Collection’s motion to dismiss, finding no violation because the communication to the mail vendor was not “in connection with the collection of any debt” as required for liability under the Act.”

Richard Hunstein v. Preferred Collection & Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 17 F.4th 1016 (11th Cir. 2021). · cites it 5× “The consumer filed suit alleging that, in sending his personal USCA11 Case: 19-14434 Date Filed: 10/28/2021 Page: 3 of 65 19-14434 Opinion of the Court 3 information to the vendor—and in particular, the complaint says, to the vendor’s “employees”—the debt collector had violated…”

Castellanos v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, 297 F. Supp. 3d 1301 (S.D. Fla. 2017). · cites it 11× “Castellanos alleges the following four claims: (1) communication with a consumer represented by counsel, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(a)(2) (Count I); (2) collecting a debt previously paid, in violation of 15 U.”

Marisco v. NCO Fin. Sys., Inc., 946 F. Supp. 2d 287 (E.D.N.Y 2013). · cites it 19× “’) (emphasis added); 15 U.S.C. § 1692c (‘a debt collector may not communicate with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt at any unusual time or place .”

Dale Dowers v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 852 F.3d 964 (9th Cir. 2017). · cites it 3× “That provision governs Defendants’ alleged conduct because it expressly applies to the enforcement of security interests such as a deed of trust.”

Vien-Phuong Thi Ho v. Recontrust Co., 840 F.3d 618 (9th Cir. 2016). · cites it 8× “15 U.S.C. § 1692c(a). By signing the Deed of Trust, Ho consented to the “Lender or Trustee [mailing] copies of the notice as prescribed by [California] Law to Borrower.”

Show all 814 citing cases →

— 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(A)(2) — 1 case

Woodman v. Medicredit, Inc. (D. Nev. 2024).

— 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(a) — 83 cases

Block v. Seneca Mortg. Servicing, 221 F. Supp. 3d 559 (D.N.J. 2016).

Vien-Phuong Thi Ho v. ReconTrust Co., 858 F.3d 568 (9th Cir. 2016). “15 U.S.C. § 1692c(a). By signing the Deed of Trust, Ho consented to the “Lender or Trustee [mailing] copies of the notice as prescribed by [California] Law to Borrower.”

Andrew Schlaf v. Safeguard Prop., LLC, 899 F.3d 459 (7th Cir. 2018).

Gburek v. Litton Loan Servicing LP, 614 F.3d 380 (7th Cir. 2010).

Lawrence Glazer v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, 704 F.3d 453 (6th Cir. 2013).

— 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(a)(1) — 69 cases

Rotkiske v. Paul Klemm, Esq., Dba Nudelman, Klemm & Golub, P.C., 890 F.3d 422 (3rd Cir. 2018).

Joseph v. JJ Mac Intyre Companies, LLC, 238 F. Supp. 2d 1158 (N.D. Cal. 2002).

Chiverton v. Fed. Fin. Grp., Inc., 399 F. Supp. 2d 96 (D. Conn. 2005).

Turner v. Prof'l Recovery Servs., Inc., 956 F. Supp. 2d 573 (D.N.J. 2013).

Joseph v. J.J. Mac Intyre Companies, LLC, 281 F. Supp. 2d 1156 (N.D. Cal. 2003).

— 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(a)(2) — 169 cases

Castellanos v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, 297 F. Supp. 3d 1301 (S.D. Fla. 2017). “Castellanos alleges the following four claims: (1) communication with a consumer represented by counsel, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(a)(2) (Count I); (2) collecting a debt previously paid, in violation of 15 U.”

Dale Dowers v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 852 F.3d 964 (9th Cir. 2017). “That provision governs Defendants’ alleged conduct because it expressly applies to the enforcement of security interests such as a deed of trust.”

Bacelli v. MFP, INC., 729 F. Supp. 2d 1328 (M.D. Fla. 2010).

Guerrero v. Rjm Acquisitions LLC, 499 F.3d 926 (9th Cir. 2007). “[2] See 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(a)(2). Subject to certain exceptions, a debt collector may not communicate in connection with a debt with "any person other than the consumer, his attorney, a consumer reporting agency .”

Washington v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, 211 F. Supp. 3d 1041 (N.D. Ill. 2016).

— 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(a)(3) — 15 cases

Robinson v. Managed Accounts Receivables Corp., 654 F. Supp. 2d 1051 (C.D. Cal. 2009).

Citimortgage, Inc. v. Cotton, 2012 IL App (1st) 102438 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012).

Horkey v. J.V.D.B. & Assocs., Inc., 179 F. Supp. 2d 861 (N.D. Ill. 2002).

Adamcik v. Credit Control Servs., Inc., 832 F. Supp. 2d 744 (W.D. Tex. 2011).

Vines v. Sands, 188 F.R.D. 302 (N.D. Ill. 1999).

— 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(a)(l) — 26 cases

Joseph v. JJ Mac Intyre Companies, LLC, 238 F. Supp. 2d 1158 (N.D. Cal. 2002).

Rush v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs. LLC, 977 F. Supp. 2d 414 (D.N.J. 2013).

Sanchez v. Client Servs., Inc., 520 F. Supp. 2d 1149 (N.D. Cal. 2007).

Rita Camacho, on Behalf of Herself & All Others Similarly Situated v. Bridgeport Fin. Inc., & Ray Lewis, Christina Harbridge, 430 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 2005).

Saunders v. NCO Fin. Sys., Inc., 910 F. Supp. 2d 464 (E.D.N.Y 2012).

— 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(b) — 261 cases

Richard Hunstein v. Preferred Collection & Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 48 F.4th 1236 (11th Cir. 2022). “2 See 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(b). The district court granted Preferred Collection’s motion to dismiss, finding no violation because the communication to the mail vendor was not “in connection with the collection of any debt” as required for liability under the Act.”

Richard Hunstein v. Preferred Collection & Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 17 F.4th 1016 (11th Cir. 2021). “The consumer filed suit alleging that, in sending his personal USCA11 Case: 19-14434 Date Filed: 10/28/2021 Page: 3 of 65 19-14434 Opinion of the Court 3 information to the vendor—and in particular, the complaint says, to the vendor’s “employees”—the debt collector had violated…”

McDermott v. Marcus, Errico, Emmer & Brooks, P.C., 911 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D. Mass. 2012). “” 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(a). Again, the plain language refers to “the express permission of a court.”

Marisco v. NCO Fin. Sys., Inc., 946 F. Supp. 2d 287 (E.D.N.Y 2013). “’) (emphasis added); 15 U.S.C. § 1692c (‘a debt collector may not communicate with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt at any unusual time or place .”

McMann v. Selene Fin. LP, 332 F. Supp. 3d 481 (2018).

— 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(c) — 180 cases

Alaska Tr., LLC v. Ambridge, 372 P.3d 207 (Alaska 2016). “2010) (dismissing a claim that notice of a nonjudicial foreclosure notice violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(a)(2) because “the FDCPA does not prohibit debt collectors from foreclosing on debtors’ properties pursuant to state law, and nothing in the FDCPA authorizes debt collectors to…”

William C. Lewis v. Acb Bus. Servs., Inc., (96-3093/3498), Am. Express Travel Related Servs. Co., Inc. James P. Connors, (96-3498), 135 F.3d 389 (6th Cir. 1998). “On March 1, 1993, Lewis sent a letter to ACB, requesting that ACB cease communications in accordance with 15 U.S.C. § 1692c. 2 At issue on this appeal are two contacts ACB made after Lewis sent this letter: (1) a letter ACB sent to Lewis on June 3, 1993, and (2) a telephone call…”

Carl Ward v. Nat'l Patient Account Servs., 9 F.4th 357 (6th Cir. 2021).

Rhodes v. Marix Servicing, LLC, 302 F. Supp. 3d 656 (D.N.J. 2018).

Gary Smith v. Transworld Sys., Inc., 953 F.2d 1025 (6th Cir. 1992).

— 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(c)(1) — 4 cases

Lopez-Gordillo v. Fin. Recovery Servs., Inc. (N.D. Ill. 2019).

Palmer v. Simon's Agency, Inc. (N.D.N.Y. 2020).

Rowell v. Americollect Inc. (D. Del. 2024).

Baldi (E.D. Cal. 2025).

— 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(c)(2) — 13 cases

Simon v. FIA Card Servs., N.A., 732 F.3d 259 (3rd Cir. 2013).

Clark v. Capital Credit & Collection Servs., Inc., 460 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2006).

Smith v. ARS Nat'l Servs. Inc., 102 F. Supp. 3d 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2015).

Troy K. Scheffler v. Messerli & Kramer P.A., 791 F.3d 847 (8th Cir. 2015).

— 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(c)(3) — 2 cases

French v. Selene Fin. LP (D. Minnesota 2023).

— 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(c)(l) — 3 cases

McGrady v. Nissan Motor Acceptance Corp., 40 F. Supp. 2d 1323 (M.D. Ala. 1998).

Hagen v. Messerli & Kramer, P.A., 85 F. Supp. 3d 1028 (D. Minnesota 2015).

— 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(d) — 26 cases

Betty Wright, Cross-Appellee v. Fin. Serv. of Norwalk, Inc., 22 F.3d 647 (6th Cir. 1994).

Duane Montgomery v. Huntington Bank & Silver Shadow Recovery, Inc., 346 F.3d 693 (6th Cir. 2003).

West v. Costen, 558 F. Supp. 564 (W.D. Va. 1983).

Winberry v. United Collection Bureau, Inc., 697 F. Supp. 2d 1279 (M.D. Ala. 2010).

— 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(e) — 11 cases

Bassett v. I.C. Sys., Inc., 715 F. Supp. 2d 803 (N.D. Ill. 2010).

Ramirez v. Apex Fin. Mgmt., LLC, 567 F. Supp. 2d 1035 (N.D. Ill. 2008).

Sussman v. I.C. Sys., Inc., 928 F. Supp. 2d 784 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).

Beal v. Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc., 956 F. Supp. 2d 962 (W.D. Wis. 2013).

Lynn Green v. Thomas D. Hocking, 9 F.3d 18 (6th Cir. 1993).

— 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(e)(2) — 1 case

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.