15 U.S.C. § 1692d

Harassment or abuse

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

A debt collector may not engage in any conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person in connection with the collection of a debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section:(1) The use or threat of use of violence or other criminal means to harm the physical person, reputation, or property of any person.(2) The use of obscene or profane language or language the natural consequence of which is to abuse the hearer or reader.(3) The publication of a list of consumers who allegedly refuse to pay debts, except to a consumer reporting agency or to persons meeting the requirements of section 1681a(f) or 1681b(3) 11 See References in Text note below. of this title.(4) The advertisement for sale of any debt to coerce payment of the debt.(5) Causing a telephone to ring or engaging any person in telephone conversation repeatedly or continuously with intent to annoy, abuse, or harass any person at the called number.(6) Except as provided in section 1692b of this title, the placement of telephone calls without meaningful disclosure of the caller’s identity.(Pub. L. 90–321, title VIII, § 806, as added Pub. L. 95–109, Sept. 20, 1977, 91 Stat. 877.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

Section 1681b(3) of this title, referred to in par. (3), was redesignated section 1681b(a)(3) of this title by Pub. L. 104–208, div. A, title II, § 2403(a)(1), Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009–430.

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 804 cases (280 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: Edwards v. Niagara Credit Solutions, Inc., 586 F. Supp. 2d 1346 (N.D. Ga. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Edwards v. Niagara Credit Solutions, Inc., 586 F. Supp. 2d 1346 (N.D. Ga. 2008). · cites it 29× “15 U.S.C. § 1692d reads as follows: A debt collector may not engage in any conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person in connection with the collection of a debt.”

Wendelyn Harvey v. Great Seneca Fin. Corp., 453 F.3d 324 (6th Cir. 2006). · cites it 7× “She specifically cited violations of 15 U.S.C. § 1692d, which prohibits conduct that has the consequence of harassing, oppressing, and abusing a debt- or, and 15 U.”

Hosseinzadeh v. M.R.S. Assocs., Inc., 387 F. Supp. 2d 1104 (C.D. Cal. 2005). · cites it 9× “15 U.S.C. § 1692d. 15 U.S.C. § 1692e protects against any “false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt.”

Arteaga v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, 733 F. Supp. 2d 1218 (E.D. Cal. 2010). · cites it 8× “§ 1692d of the FDCPA (“Section 1692d”) prohibits debt collectors from engaging in “any conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person in connection with the collection of any debt.”

Obenauf v. Frontier Fin. Grp., Inc., 785 F. Supp. 2d 1188 (D.N.M. 2011). · cites it 10× “Obenauf after he informed it that the person FFG was looking for was not him.”

Joseph v. JJ Mac Intyre Companies, LLC, 238 F. Supp. 2d 1158 (N.D. Cal. 2002). · cites it 7× “11(e) and 15 U.S.C. § 1692d(5) by repeatedly and continuously calling Plaintiff with the intent to annoy, abuse, and harass Plaintiff.”

Frazier v. Absolute Collection Serv., Inc., 767 F. Supp. 2d 1354 (N.D. Ga. 2011). · cites it 5× “Acts Prohibited under the FDCPA In her motion for default judgment, Plaintiff indicates that Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692d(6) and 1692e(11). [See Doc.”

Foti v. NCO Fin. Sys., Inc., 424 F. Supp. 2d 643 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). · cites it 4× “18, 2006) (citing 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692d, 1692e, 1692f). The Act also requires debt collectors to notify debtors about their ability to challenge the validity of a debt and to provide other basic information.”

Hoffmann v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 242 F. Supp. 3d 372 (E.D. Pa. 2017). · cites it 3× “at 9 (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1692d). Plaintiff also brings claims under § 1692e, which prohibits debt collectors from using “any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt”; and § 1692f, which prohibits the use of “unfair…”

Bridge v. Ocwen Fed. Bank, FSB, 681 F.3d 355 (6th Cir. 2012). · cites it 4× “Bridge is included in the protections for such persons in the prohibitions of 15 U.S.C. § 1692d, "A debt collector may not engage in any conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person in connection with the collection of a debt.”

Blanche M. Dellapietro v. ARS Nat'l Servs., Inc., 692 F.3d 1162 (11th Cir. 2012). · cites it 5× “§ 1692d(5),” and used an automated dialer to repeatedly call her cellular phone in a manner “the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse” in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692d. 6 The complaint requested statutory damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs, as well as…”

Diane Jeter v. Credit Bureau, Inc., 760 F.2d 1168 (11th Cir. 1985). · cites it 4× “We agree with the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Credit Bureau with regard to Jet-er’s claim under 15 U.S.C.A. § 1692d (“Harassment or abuse”).”

Show all 804 citing cases →

— 15 U.S.C. § 1692d(1) — 35 cases

Lawrence v. Goldberg, 573 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir. 2009).

McDermott v. Marcus, Errico, Emmer & Brooks, P.C., 911 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D. Mass. 2012).

Szczurek v. Prof'l Mgmt., Inc., 59 F. Supp. 3d 721 (E.D. Pa. 2014).

Walker v. Michael W. Colton Trust, 33 F. Supp. 2d 585 (E.D. Mich. 1999).

Murray v. Capio Partners (W.D. Pa. 2023).

— 15 U.S.C. § 1692d(10) — 1 case

Szczurek v. Prof'l Mgmt., Inc., 59 F. Supp. 3d 721 (E.D. Pa. 2014).

— 15 U.S.C. § 1692d(2) — 36 cases

Bryant v. Bonded Accounts Serv./Check Recovery, Inc., 208 F.R.D. 251 (D. Minnesota 2000).

Hoffmann v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 242 F. Supp. 3d 372 (E.D. Pa. 2017). “at 9 (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1692d). Plaintiff also brings claims under § 1692e, which prohibits debt collectors from using “any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt”; and § 1692f, which prohibits the use of “unfair…”

Diane Jeter v. Credit Bureau, Inc., 760 F.2d 1168 (11th Cir. 1985). “We agree with the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Credit Bureau with regard to Jet-er’s claim under 15 U.S.C.A. § 1692d (“Harassment or abuse”).”

Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Check Investors, Inc., 502 F.3d 159 (3rd Cir. 2007).

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

— 15 U.S.C. § 1692d(3) — 10 cases

Evans v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, 889 F.3d 337 (7th Cir. 2018).

Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Check Investors, Inc., 502 F.3d 159 (3rd Cir. 2007).

Diaz v. D.L. Recovery Corp., 486 F. Supp. 2d 474 (E.D. Pa. 2007).

Hoover v. Monarch Recovery Mgmt., Inc., 888 F. Supp. 2d 589 (E.D. Pa. 2012).

Eichman v. Mann Bracken, LLC, 689 F. Supp. 2d 1094 (W.D. Wis. 2010).

— 15 U.S.C. § 1692d(4) — 2 cases

Alaska Tr., LLC v. Ambridge, 372 P.3d 207 (Alaska 2016).

Blakely v. Nat'l Credit Adjusters, LLC (W.D. Mo. 2023).

— 15 U.S.C. § 1692d(5) — 108 cases

Joseph v. JJ Mac Intyre Companies, LLC, 238 F. Supp. 2d 1158 (N.D. Cal. 2002). “11(e) and 15 U.S.C. § 1692d(5) by repeatedly and continuously calling Plaintiff with the intent to annoy, abuse, and harass Plaintiff.”

Brown v. Hosto & Buchan, PLLC, 748 F. Supp. 2d 847 (W.D. Tenn. 2010).

Zortman v. J.C. Christensen & Assocs., Inc., 870 F. Supp. 2d 694 (D. Minnesota 2012).

Bridge v. Ocwen Fed. Bank, FSB, 681 F.3d 355 (6th Cir. 2012). “Bridge is included in the protections for such persons in the prohibitions of 15 U.S.C. § 1692d, "A debt collector may not engage in any conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person in connection with the collection of a debt.”

Arteaga v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, 733 F. Supp. 2d 1218 (E.D. Cal. 2010). “§ 1692d of the FDCPA (“Section 1692d”) prohibits debt collectors from engaging in “any conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person in connection with the collection of any debt.”

— 15 U.S.C. § 1692d(6) — 86 cases

Edwards v. Niagara Credit Solutions, Inc., 586 F. Supp. 2d 1346 (N.D. Ga. 2008). “15 U.S.C. § 1692d reads as follows: A debt collector may not engage in any conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person in connection with the collection of a debt.”

Frazier v. Absolute Collection Serv., Inc., 767 F. Supp. 2d 1354 (N.D. Ga. 2011). “Acts Prohibited under the FDCPA In her motion for default judgment, Plaintiff indicates that Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692d(6) and 1692e(11). [See Doc.”

Hosseinzadeh v. M.R.S. Assocs., Inc., 387 F. Supp. 2d 1104 (C.D. Cal. 2005). “15 U.S.C. § 1692d. 15 U.S.C. § 1692e protects against any “false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt.”

Carl Ward v. NPAS, Inc., 63 F.4th 576 (6th Cir. 2023).

Stacey Hart v. Credit Control, LLC, 871 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2017).

— 15 U.S.C. § 1692d(8) — 2 cases

Suzette Wood v. Midland Funding, 698 F. App'x 260 (6th Cir. 2017).

Kolbasko v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC (E.D. Mo. 2025).

— 15 U.S.C. § 1692d(a) — 1 case

Stoddard v. Nationwide Recovery Serv., 2003 DNH 202 (D.N.H. 2003).

— 15 U.S.C. § 1692d(b) — 1 case

Baker v. Allstate Fin. Servs., Inc., 554 F. Supp. 2d 945 (D. Minnesota 2008).

— 15 U.S.C. § 1692d(e) — 1 case

Edelman v. United States Gov't (E.D.N.Y 2020).

— 15 U.S.C. § 1692d(k) — 1 case

Nelda Mattson v. U.S. West Commc'ns, Inc., Serv. Inv. Corp., Doing Bus. as Serv. Inv. Collection Agency, 967 F.2d 259 (8th Cir. 1992).

— 15 U.S.C. § 1692d(l) — 13 cases

Kelly v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 634 F. Supp. 2d 1202 (D. Colo. 2008).

Diaz v. D.L. Recovery Corp., 486 F. Supp. 2d 474 (E.D. Pa. 2007).

Jackson v. ASA Holdings, LLC, 751 F. Supp. 2d 91 (D.D.C. 2010).

VanHuss v. Kohn Law Firm S.C., 127 F. Supp. 3d 980 (W.D. Wis. 2015).

Pelfrey v. Educ. Credit Mgmt. Corp., 71 F. Supp. 2d 1161 (N.D. Ala. 1999).

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.