U.S. Code » Title 15 » Chapter CHAPTER 41— CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER V— DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES

15 U.S.C. § 1692g

Validation of debts

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 15 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Notice of debt; contentsWithin five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the following information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer a written notice containing—(1) the amount of the debt;(2) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed;(3) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector;(4) a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector; and(5) a statement that, upon the consumer’s written request within the thirty-day period, the debt collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor.(b) Disputed debts

If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector. Collection activities and communications that do not otherwise violate this subchapter may continue during the 30-day period referred to in subsection (a) unless the consumer has notified the debt collector in writing that the debt, or any portion of the debt, is disputed or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor. Any collection activities and communication during the 30-day period may not overshadow or be inconsistent with the disclosure of the consumer’s right to dispute the debt or request the name and address of the original creditor.

(c) Admission of liability

The failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer.

(d) Legal pleadings

A communication in the form of a formal pleading in a civil action shall not be treated as an initial communication for purposes of subsection (a).

(e) Notice provisions

The sending or delivery of any form or notice which does not relate to the collection of a debt and is expressly required by title 26, title V of Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act [15 U.S.C. 6801 et seq.], or any provision of Federal or State law relating to notice of data security breach or privacy, or any regulation prescribed under any such provision of law, shall not be treated as an initial communication in connection with debt collection for purposes of this section.

(Pub. L. 90–321, title VIII, § 809, as added Pub. L. 95–109, Sept. 20, 1977, 91 Stat. 879; amended Pub. L. 109–351, title VIII, § 802, Oct. 13, 2006, 120 Stat. 2006.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, referred to in subsec. (e), is Pub. L. 106–102, Nov. 12, 1999, 113 Stat. 1338. Title V of the Act is classified principally to chapter 94 (§ 6801 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title of 1999 Amendment note set out under section 1811 of Title 12, Banks and Banking, and Tables.

Amendments

2006—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 109–351, § 802(c), inserted at end “Collection activities and communications that do not otherwise violate this subchapter may continue during the 30-day period referred to in subsection (a) unless the consumer has notified the debt collector in writing that the debt, or any portion of the debt, is disputed or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor. Any collection activities and communication during the 30-day period may not overshadow or be inconsistent with the disclosure of the consumer’s right to dispute the debt or request the name and address of the original creditor.”

Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 109–351, § 802(a), added subsec. (d).

Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 109–351, § 802(b), added subsec. (e).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Section applicable only with respect to debts for which the initial attempt to collect occurs after the effective date of this subchapter, which takes effect 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 1,546 cases (410 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: Alaska Tr., LLC v. Ambridge, 372 P.3d 207 (Alaska 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Alaska Tr., LLC v. Ambridge, 372 P.3d 207 (Alaska 2016). · cites it 18× “2 The statement provided information required by 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a) (2012). It read: The principal balance of the debt is $196,712.”
Gary Smith v. Transworld Sys., Inc., 953 F.2d 1025 (6th Cir. 1992). · cites it 11× “§ 1692g(a)(3) by giving Smith notice that he could dispute the charges: “It is clear that defen *1029 dant’s statement complies with and fulfills the requirements of 15 U.S.C. § 1692g. The Court finds that even the least sophisticated consumer would be apprised by this language…”
Vangorden v. Second Round, Ltd. P'ship, 897 F.3d 433 (2d Cir. 2018). · cites it 7× “Inclusion of 15 U.S.C. § 1692g notice here does not prevent plaintiff from plausibly pleading that, on a least sophisticated consumer standard, defendant's debt communication was misleading and unfair under id.”
Wilbur Macy v. GC Servs. Ltd. P'ship, 897 F.3d 747 (6th Cir. 2018). · cites it 5× “15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a). If the debtor makes such a written verification request, the debt collector must cease collection efforts until the verification is provided to the consumer.”
Michael Durkin & Loretta Reed, Individually & on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Equifax Check Servs., Inc., a Delaware Corp., 406 F.3d 410 (7th Cir. 2005). · cites it 5× “, the second and third letters, contradicted and/or overshadowed the safe-harbor validation notice in the initial letter, causing confusion in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692g. Count two *414 claimed that a particular sentence in the second letter describing Equifax’s procedures…”
Paula Casillas v. Madison Avenue Assocs., Inc, 926 F.3d 329 (7th Cir. 2019). · cites it 3× “But the plot thickens when we look more particularly at the violation she asserted: Madison's failure to warn her, as required by 15 U.S.C. § 1692g, that a dispute over the debt or a request for information about the original creditor is ineffective unless it is made in writing .”
Maria Hernandez v. Williams, Zinman & Parham Pc, 829 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2016). · cites it 7× “15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a). The question presented here is whether the phrase “the initial communication” as used in the FDCPA means the first communication from the initial debt collector that tries to collect, or whether it means the first communication a consumer receives from any…”
Jacobson v. Healthcare Fin. Servs., Inc., 516 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2008). · cites it 5× “Section 1692g(a) orders the debt collector to send a written notice, within five days of its initial communication with the consumer, stating the amount of the debt and the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692g(a)(l) & (2). This validation notice must…”
Zakia Mashiri v. Epsten Grinnell & Howell, 845 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2017). · cites it 3× “See 15 U.S.C. § 1692g. She argues that the May Notice violated § 1692g for two reasons.”
Senftle v. Landau, 390 F. Supp. 2d 463 (D. Maryland 2005). · cites it 10× “§ 1692g provides: (a) Notice of debt; contents Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the following information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has…”
Owen v. I.C. Sys., Inc., 629 F.3d 1263 (11th Cir. 2011). · cites it 5× “15 U.S.C. § 1692g provides, in relevant part: (b) Disputed debts.”
Charles O. Sims & Sandra Adams v. Gc Servs. L.P., Dls Enter., Inc., & Gc Fin. Corp., 445 F.3d 959 (7th Cir. 2006). · cites it 8× “” The statutory notice, typically called a validation notice, is required by 15 U.S.C. § 1692g and was printed on the reverse side of the demand letters.”
Show all 1,546 citing cases →
— 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(1) — 1 case
Garcia v. Miramed Revenue Grp., LLC (N.D. Ill. 2018).
— 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(2) — 2 cases
McKnight v. Benitez, 176 F. Supp. 2d 1301 (M.D. Fla. 2001).
Lewis v. Nationstar Mortg., 5 F. Supp. 3d 890 (E.D. Mich. 2014).
— 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(2)(A) — 1 case
Schumacher v. Merchants Credit Guide Co. (N.D. Ill. 2021).
— 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(3) — 4 cases
Diaz v. Residential Credit Solutions, Inc., 965 F. Supp. 2d 249 (E.D.N.Y 2013).
Creighton v. Emporia Credit Serv., Inc., 981 F. Supp. 411 (E.D. Va. 1997).
Garfield v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 526 B.R. 471 (W.D.N.Y. 2015).
Chaperon v. Sontag & Hyman, PC (2d Cir. 2020).
— 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(4) — 3 cases
Irwin v. Mascott, 112 F. Supp. 2d 937 (N.D. Cal. 2000).
Winter v. Debtsy, Inc. (S.D. Ill. 2023).
Pierson v. Franklin Collection Serv., Inc., 965 F. Supp. 2d 957 (E.D. Tenn. 2013).
— 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a) — 577 cases
Alaska Tr., LLC v. Ambridge, 372 P.3d 207 (Alaska 2016). “2 The statement provided information required by 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a) (2012). It read: The principal balance of the debt is $196,712.”
Jarzyna v. Home Props., L.P., 185 F. Supp. 3d 612 (E.D. Pa. 2016).
Paula Casillas v. Madison Avenue Assocs., Inc, 926 F.3d 329 (7th Cir. 2019). “But the plot thickens when we look more particularly at the violation she asserted: Madison's failure to warn her, as required by 15 U.S.C. § 1692g, that a dispute over the debt or a request for information about the original creditor is ineffective unless it is made in writing .”
Wilbur Macy v. GC Servs. Ltd. P'ship, 897 F.3d 747 (6th Cir. 2018). “15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a). If the debtor makes such a written verification request, the debt collector must cease collection efforts until the verification is provided to the consumer.”
Gonzalez v. Kay, 577 F.3d 600 (5th Cir. 2009).
— 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(1) — 104 cases
Alaska Tr., LLC v. Ambridge, 372 P.3d 207 (Alaska 2016). “2 The statement provided information required by 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a) (2012). It read: The principal balance of the debt is $196,712.”
Karun N. Jackson v. Specialized Loan Servicing LLC, 898 F.3d 1348 (11th Cir. 2018).
Sandra Bazile v. Fin. Sys. of Green Bay, I, 983 F.3d 274 (7th Cir. 2020).
McDermott v. Marcus, Errico, Emmer & Brooks, P.C., 911 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D. Mass. 2012).
Rose Markakos v. Medicredit, Inc., 997 F.3d 778 (7th Cir. 2021).
— 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(2) — 94 cases
Sarah Steffek v. Client Servs., Inc., 948 F.3d 761 (7th Cir. 2020).
Janetos v. Fulton Friedman & Gullace, LLP, 825 F.3d 317 (7th Cir. 2016).
Sparkman v. Zwicker & Assocs., P.C., 374 F. Supp. 2d 293 (E.D.N.Y 2005).
Ruel Nieto v. Simm Assocs., Inc., 926 F.3d 377 (7th Cir. 2019).
Smith v. Cohn, 296 F. Supp. 3d 754 (D. Maryland 2017).
— 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(3) — 163 cases
Gary Smith v. Transworld Sys., Inc., 953 F.2d 1025 (6th Cir. 1992). “§ 1692g(a)(3) by giving Smith notice that he could dispute the charges: “It is clear that defen *1029 dant’s statement complies with and fulfills the requirements of 15 U.S.C. § 1692g. The Court finds that even the least sophisticated consumer would be apprised by this language…”
Ken Baker v. G. C. Servs. Corp., 677 F.2d 775 (9th Cir. 1982).
Vangorden v. Second Round, Ltd. P'ship, 897 F.3d 433 (2d Cir. 2018). “Inclusion of 15 U.S.C. § 1692g notice here does not prevent plaintiff from plausibly pleading that, on a least sophisticated consumer standard, defendant's debt communication was misleading and unfair under id.”
Lesher v. Law Offices of Mitchell N. Kay, PC, 650 F.3d 993 (3rd Cir. 2011).
Passiglia v. Northwell Health, Inc., 252 F. Supp. 3d 129 (E.D.N.Y 2017).
— 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(3M5) — 1 case
Stojanovski v. Strobl & Manoogian, PC, 783 F. Supp. 319 (E.D. Mich. 1992).
— 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(4) — 102 cases
Vincent v. The Money Store, 736 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2013).
Gustav Buchholz v. Meyer Njus Tanick, PA, 946 F.3d 855 (6th Cir. 2020).
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).
Ken Baker v. G. C. Servs. Corp., 677 F.2d 775 (9th Cir. 1982).
Connie Bishop v. Ross Earle & Bonan, P.A., 817 F.3d 1268 (11th Cir. 2016).
— 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(5) — 33 cases
Gustav Buchholz v. Meyer Njus Tanick, PA, 946 F.3d 855 (6th Cir. 2020).
David Tourgeman v. Collins Fin. Servs., 755 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2014).
Jackson v. Abendroth & Russell, P.C., 207 F. Supp. 3d 945 (S.D. Iowa 2016).
Richard Hunstein v. Preferred Collection & Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 17 F.4th 1016 (11th Cir. 2021).
Berndt v. Fairfield Resorts, Inc., 337 F. Supp. 2d 1120 (W.D. Wis. 2004).
— 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(8) — 1 case
United States v. Nat'l Fin. Servs., Inc., 98 F.3d 131 (4th Cir. 1996).
— 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(l) — 66 cases
Ryan Boucher v. Fin. Sys. of Green Bay, I, 880 F.3d 362 (7th Cir. 2018).
Kalebaugh v. Berman & Rabin, P.A., 43 F. Supp. 3d 1215 (D. Kan. 2014).
Thomas v. John A. Youderian Jr., LLC, 232 F. Supp. 3d 656 (D.N.J. 2017).
Gary L. Veach v. Charles R. Sheeks, 316 F.3d 690 (7th Cir. 2003).
Avila v. Riexinger & Assocs., LLC, 817 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2016).
— 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b) — 455 cases
Camille Haddad v. Alexander, Zelmanski, Danner & Fioritto, 758 F.3d 777 (6th Cir. 2014).
Pollard v. Law Off. of Mandy L. Spaulding, 766 F.3d 98 (1st Cir. 2014).
Zakia Mashiri v. Epsten Grinnell & Howell, 845 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2017). “See 15 U.S.C. § 1692g. She argues that the May Notice violated § 1692g for two reasons.”
Jacobson v. Healthcare Fin. Servs., Inc., 516 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2008). “Section 1692g(a) orders the debt collector to send a written notice, within five days of its initial communication with the consumer, stating the amount of the debt and the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692g(a)(l) & (2). This validation notice must…”
Gary Smith v. Transworld Sys., Inc., 953 F.2d 1025 (6th Cir. 1992). “§ 1692g(a)(3) by giving Smith notice that he could dispute the charges: “It is clear that defen *1029 dant’s statement complies with and fulfills the requirements of 15 U.S.C. § 1692g. The Court finds that even the least sophisticated consumer would be apprised by this language…”
— 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(c) — 14 cases
Jacobson v. Healthcare Fin. Servs., Inc., 516 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2008). “Section 1692g(a) orders the debt collector to send a written notice, within five days of its initial communication with the consumer, stating the amount of the debt and the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692g(a)(l) & (2). This validation notice must…”
Vangorden v. Second Round, Ltd. P'ship, 897 F.3d 433 (2d Cir. 2018). “Inclusion of 15 U.S.C. § 1692g notice here does not prevent plaintiff from plausibly pleading that, on a least sophisticated consumer standard, defendant's debt communication was misleading and unfair under id.”
Timothy McLaughlin v. Phelan Hallinan & Schmieg, 756 F.3d 240 (3rd Cir. 2014).
Xilena M. Caceres v. McCalla Raymer, LLC, 755 F.3d 1299 (11th Cir. 2014).
Potoczny v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC, 33 F. Supp. 3d 554 (E.D. Pa. 2014).
— 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(d) — 41 cases
Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp. v. Lamar, 503 F.3d 504 (6th Cir. 2007).
Carlin v. Davidson Fink LLP, 852 F.3d 207 (2d Cir. 2017).
Xilena M. Caceres v. McCalla Raymer, LLC, 755 F.3d 1299 (11th Cir. 2014).
Alaska Tr., LLC v. Ambridge, 372 P.3d 207 (Alaska 2016). “2 The statement provided information required by 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a) (2012). It read: The principal balance of the debt is $196,712.”
Ella M. Beler v. Blatt, Hasenmiller, Leibsker & Moore, LLC, 480 F.3d 470 (7th Cir. 2007).
— 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(e) — 6 cases
Hart v. FCI Lender Servs., Inc., 797 F.3d 219 (2d Cir. 2015).
Miller v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., 621 F. Supp. 2d 621 (N.D. Ill. 2009).
Russell v. Goldman Roth Acquisitions, LLC, 847 F. Supp. 2d 994 (W.D. Mich. 2012).
Felberbaum v. Mandarich Law Grp., LLP (E.D.N.Y 2022).
Ray Caprio, Etc. v. Mercantile Adjustment Bureau, LLC (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2024).
— 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(l) — 2 cases
Creighton v. Emporia Credit Serv., Inc., 981 F. Supp. 411 (E.D. Va. 1997).
Winiecki v. Creditors Interchange Receivable Mgmt., LLC, 14 F. Supp. 3d 1086 (N.D. Ill. 2014).
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.