15 U.S.C. § 1692f

Unfair practices

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

A debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section:(1) The collection of any amount (including any interest, fee, charge, or expense incidental to the principal obligation) unless such amount is expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law.(2) The acceptance by a debt collector from any person of a check or other payment instrument postdated by more than five days unless such person is notified in writing of the debt collector’s intent to deposit such check or instrument not more than ten nor less than three business days prior to such deposit.(3) The solicitation by a debt collector of any postdated check or other postdated payment instrument for the purpose of threatening or instituting criminal prosecution.(4) Depositing or threatening to deposit any postdated check or other postdated payment instrument prior to the date on such check or instrument.(5) Causing charges to be made to any person for communications by concealment of the true purpose of the communication. Such charges include, but are not limited to, collect telephone calls and telegram fees.(6) Taking or threatening to take any nonjudicial action to effect dispossession or disablement of property if—(A) there is no present right to possession of the property claimed as collateral through an enforceable security interest;(B) there is no present intention to take possession of the property; or(C) the property is exempt by law from such dispossession or disablement.(7) Communicating with a consumer regarding a debt by post card.(8) Using any language or symbol, other than the debt collector’s address, on any envelope when communicating with a consumer by use of the mails or by telegram, except that a debt collector may use his business name if such name does not indicate that he is in the debt collection business.(Pub. L. 90–321, title VIII, § 808, as added Pub. L. 95–109, Sept. 20, 1977, 91 Stat. 879.)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 1,438 cases (458 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: Villanueva v. Account Discovery Sys., LLC, 77 F. Supp. 3d 1058 (D. Colo. 2015).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Villanueva v. Account Discovery Sys., LLC, 77 F. Supp. 3d 1058 (D. Colo. 2015). · cites it 17× “Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated the FDCPA in one or more of the following ways: (1) by using unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect a debt in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692f; and (2) was otherwise deceptive and failed to comply…”

Alaska Tr., LLC v. Ambridge, 372 P.3d 207 (Alaska 2016). · cites it 12× “”); 15 U.S.C. § 1692f (“A debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt.”

Courtney Douglass v. Convergent Outsourcing, 765 F.3d 299 (3rd Cir. 2014). · cites it 6× “15 U.S.C. § 1692f. The statute sets out a nonexclusive list of conduct that qualifies as unfair or unconscionable.”

Roslyn Currier v. First Resolution Inv. Corp., 762 F.3d 529 (6th Cir. 2014). · cites it 7× “See 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692f, 1692f(l), 1692e(5). Finding that a violation of state law is not a per se violation of the FDCPA and that the invalid lien was not a threat, the district court dismissed the claims.”

McDermott v. Marcus, Errico, Emmer & Brooks, P.C., 775 F.3d 109 (1st Cir. 2014). · cites it 9× “Having failed to make those allegations stick, MEEB says McDermott is now impermissibly “attempting] to ‘recast’ his theory of liability solely under 15 U.S.C. § 1692f, previously having asserted that the alleged underlying conduct violated various other provisions of the FDCPA.”

April McMillan v. Collection Professionals, Inc., an Illinois Corp., 455 F.3d 754 (7th Cir. 2006). · cites it 5× “She also alleged that the letter employed unfair or unconscionable means to collect a debt in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692f. CPI filed an answer to Ms.”

Young v. Npas, Inc., 361 F. Supp. 3d 1171 (D. Utah 2019). · cites it 11× “" 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(1). Ms. Young argues that Medicredit's efforts to collect the debts at issue were not permitted under Utah law because "Young never owed the debts" Medicredit "tried to collect.”

LeBlanc v. Unifund CCR Partners, 601 F.3d 1185 (11th Cir. 2010). · cites it 4× “” 15 U.S.C. § 1692f. The FDCPA identifies various ways in which a debt collector might violate § 1692f, but also explains that the examples within the subsections are not intended to limit general application of the “unfair or unconscionable” means prohibition.”

Casimer Zablocki v. Merchants Credit Guide Co., 968 F.3d 620 (7th Cir. 2020). · cites it 7× “” 15 U.S.C. § 1692f. This case tests the bounds of that term.”

Foster v. D.B.S. Collection Agency, 463 F. Supp. 2d 783 (S.D. Ohio 2006). · cites it 7× “Plaintiffs also contend that Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692f, which states: A debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt.”

Bentrud v. Bowman, Heintz, Boscia & Vician, P.C., 794 F.3d 871 (7th Cir. 2015). · cites it 7× “See 15 U.S.C. § 1692f. This FDCPA claim, of course, did not arise until Bentrud filed his federal action in the Southern District of Indiana.”

Mounia Elyazidi v. SunTrust Bank, 780 F.3d 227 (4th Cir. 2015). · cites it 6× “Specifically: • Count VI accused MR & A of violating 15 U.S.C. § 1692f by failing to redact Appellant’s social security number from the bank statements accompanying the bill of particulars.”

Show all 1,438 citing cases →

— 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(1) — 244 cases

Young v. Npas, Inc., 361 F. Supp. 3d 1171 (D. Utah 2019). “" 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(1). Ms. Young argues that Medicredit's efforts to collect the debts at issue were not permitted under Utah law because "Young never owed the debts" Medicredit "tried to collect.”

Ashly Alexander v. Carrington Mortg. Servs., 23 F.4th 370 (4th Cir. 2022).

LeBlanc v. Unifund CCR Partners, 601 F.3d 1185 (11th Cir. 2010). “” 15 U.S.C. § 1692f. The FDCPA identifies various ways in which a debt collector might violate § 1692f, but also explains that the examples within the subsections are not intended to limit general application of the “unfair or unconscionable” means prohibition.”

Taylor v. First Resolution Invest. Corp. (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 3444 (Ohio 2016).

Larsen v. JBC Legal Grp., P.C., 533 F. Supp. 2d 290 (E.D.N.Y 2008).

— 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(2) — 5 cases

Johnson v. Statewide Collections, Inc., 778 P.2d 93 (Wyo. 1989).

Puglisi v. Debt Recovery Solutions, LLC, 822 F. Supp. 2d 218 (E.D.N.Y 2011).

Penn v. Cumberland, 883 F. Supp. 2d 581 (E.D. Va. 2012).

Hill v. Javitch, Block & Rathbone, LLP, 574 F. Supp. 2d 819 (S.D. Ohio 2008).

Perkins v. LVNV Funding, LLC (In re Perkins), 533 B.R. 242 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 2015).

— 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(3) — 4 cases

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

Padilla v. Payco Gen. Am. Credits, Inc., 161 F. Supp. 2d 264 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).

Marisco v. NCO Fin. Sys., Inc., 946 F. Supp. 2d 287 (E.D.N.Y 2013).

Lawson v. I.C. Sys., Inc. (N.D. Ala. 2019).

— 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(4) — 1 case

Puglisi v. Debt Recovery Solutions, LLC, 822 F. Supp. 2d 218 (E.D.N.Y 2011).

— 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(5) — 2 cases

McDermott v. Marcus, Errico, Emmer & Brooks, P.C., 775 F.3d 109 (1st Cir. 2014). “Having failed to make those allegations stick, MEEB says McDermott is now impermissibly “attempting] to ‘recast’ his theory of liability solely under 15 U.S.C. § 1692f, previously having asserted that the alleged underlying conduct violated various other provisions of the FDCPA.”

Fooks v. Mason, Schilling, & Mason (E.D. Ky. 2019).

— 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(6) — 201 cases

Alaska Tr., LLC v. Ambridge, 372 P.3d 207 (Alaska 2016). “”); 15 U.S.C. § 1692f (“A debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt.”

Dale Dowers v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 852 F.3d 964 (9th Cir. 2017).

Bey v. Shapiro Brown & Alt, LLP, 997 F. Supp. 2d 310 (D. Maryland 2014).

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

Puryer v. HSBC Bank USA, Nat'l Ass'n, 419 P.3d 105 (Mont. 2018).

— 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(6)(A) — 67 cases

Burnett v. Mortg. Elec. Reg. Sys., Inc., 706 F.3d 1231 (10th Cir. 2013).

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

Kenneth Lodge v. Kondaur Capital Corp., 750 F.3d 1263 (11th Cir. 2014).

Basim Haddad v. Randall S. Miller Assoc, PC, 587 F. App'x 959 (6th Cir. 2014).

Walker v. Quality Loan Serv. Corp., 176 Wash. App. 294 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).

— 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(6)(B) — 1 case

Fenello v. Bank of Am., N.A., 926 F. Supp. 2d 1342 (N.D. Ga. 2013).

— 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(6)(C) — 5 cases

Basim Haddad v. Randall S. Miller Assoc, PC, 587 F. App'x 959 (6th Cir. 2014).

Wetherelt v. Larsen Law Firm, Pllc., 577 F. Supp. 2d 1128 (D. Mont. 2008).

Larranaga v. Mile High Collection & Recovery Bureau, Inc., 807 F. Supp. 111 (D.N.M. 1992).

Espinosa Sr. v. Andrew C. Metcalf (D. Mass. 2021).

Shue v. JMAC Distrib., LLC (D. Mass. 2024).

— 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(6)(a) — 2 cases

Gerbasi v. NU Era Towing & Serv., Inc. (W.D.N.Y. 2020).

Wells v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 626 F. Supp. 2d 1001 (W.D. Mo. 2009).

— 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(7) — 9 cases

Courtney Douglass v. Convergent Outsourcing, 765 F.3d 299 (3rd Cir. 2014). “15 U.S.C. § 1692f. The statute sets out a nonexclusive list of conduct that qualifies as unfair or unconscionable.”

Roslyn Currier v. First Resolution Inv. Corp., 762 F.3d 529 (6th Cir. 2014). “See 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692f, 1692f(l), 1692e(5). Finding that a violation of state law is not a per se violation of the FDCPA and that the invalid lien was not a threat, the district court dismissed the claims.”

Sheryl Glover v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 127 F.4th 1278 (11th Cir. 2025).

Hodges v. Armada Fdba Com. Collection Serv. (In Re Hodges), 342 B.R. 616 (Bankr. E.D. Wash. 2006).

Thompke v. Fabrizio & Brook, P.C., 261 F. Supp. 3d 798 (E.D. Mich. 2017).

— 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(8) — 49 cases

Courtney Douglass v. Convergent Outsourcing, 765 F.3d 299 (3rd Cir. 2014). “15 U.S.C. § 1692f. The statute sets out a nonexclusive list of conduct that qualifies as unfair or unconscionable.”

Datta v. Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC, 191 F. Supp. 3d 1022 (N.D. Cal. 2016).

Anita Cagayat v. United Collection Bureau, Inc., 952 F.3d 749 (6th Cir. 2020).

Lynne Donovan v. FirstCredit, Inc., 983 F.3d 246 (6th Cir. 2020).

Donna Dinaples v. MRS BPO LLC, 934 F.3d 275 (3rd Cir. 2019).

— 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(Z) — 1 case

Gates v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, 801 F. Supp. 2d 1044 (S.D. Cal. 2011).

— 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(a) — 2 cases

Stuart v. Udren Law Offices P.C., 25 F. Supp. 3d 504 (M.D. Penn. 2014).

Ingram-Bey v. Reg'l Acceptance Corp. (N.D. Ala. 2023).

— 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(a)(1) — 1 case

Tolliver v. Rushmore Loan Mgmt. Servs., LLC (D. Del. 2022).

— 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(b) — 1 case

Hanover v. Real Time Resolutions, Inc. (S.D. Ohio 2024).

— 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(l) — 205 cases

Barany-Snyder v. Weiner, 539 F.3d 327 (6th Cir. 2008).

Tamara Diaz v. Kubler Corp., 785 F.3d 1326 (9th Cir. 2015).

Troy L. Freyermuth v. Credit Bureau Servs., Inc, D/B/A Checkmate of Fremont, 248 F.3d 767 (8th Cir. 2001).

Villanueva v. Account Discovery Sys., LLC, 77 F. Supp. 3d 1058 (D. Colo. 2015). “Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated the FDCPA in one or more of the following ways: (1) by using unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect a debt in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692f; and (2) was otherwise deceptive and failed to comply…”

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.