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

15 U.S.C. § 1692k

Civil liability

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 15 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Amount of damagesExcept as otherwise provided by this section, any debt collector who fails to comply with any provision of this subchapter with respect to any person is liable to such person in an amount equal to the sum of—(1) any actual damage sustained by such person as a result of such failure;(2)(A) in the case of any action by an individual, such additional damages as the court may allow, but not exceeding $1,000; or(B) in the case of a class action, (i) such amount for each named plaintiff as could be recovered under subparagraph (A), and (ii) such amount as the court may allow for all other class members, without regard to a minimum individual recovery, not to exceed the lesser of $500,000 or 1 per centum of the net worth of the debt collector; and(3) in the case of any successful action to enforce the foregoing liability, the costs of the action, together with a reasonable attorney’s fee as determined by the court. On a finding by the court that an action under this section was brought in bad faith and for the purpose of harassment, the court may award to the defendant attorney’s fees reasonable in relation to the work expended and costs.(b) Factors considered by courtIn determining the amount of liability in any action under subsection (a), the court shall consider, among other relevant factors—(1) in any individual action under subsection (a)(2)(A), the frequency and persistence of noncompliance by the debt collector, the nature of such noncompliance, and the extent to which such noncompliance was intentional; or(2) in any class action under subsection (a)(2)(B), the frequency and persistence of noncompliance by the debt collector, the nature of such noncompliance, the resources of the debt collector, the number of persons adversely affected, and the extent to which the debt collector’s noncompliance was intentional.(c) Intent

A debt collector may not be held liable in any action brought under this subchapter if the debt collector shows by a preponderance of evidence that the violation was not intentional and resulted from a bona fide error notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such error.

(d) Jurisdiction

An action to enforce any liability created by this subchapter may be brought in any appropriate United States district court without regard to the amount in controversy, or in any other court of competent jurisdiction, within one year from the date on which the violation occurs.

(e) Advisory opinions of Bureau

No provision of this section imposing any liability shall apply to any act done or omitted in good faith in conformity with any advisory opinion of the Bureau, notwithstanding that after such act or omission has occurred, such opinion is amended, rescinded, or determined by judicial or other authority to be invalid for any reason.

(Pub. L. 90–321, title VIII, § 813, as added Pub. L. 95–109, Sept. 20, 1977, 91 Stat. 881; amended Pub. L. 111–203, title X, § 1089(1), July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 2092.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2010—Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 111–203 substituted “Bureau” for “Commission”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2010 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 111–203 effective on the designated transfer date, see section 1100H of Pub. L. 111–203, set out as a note under section 552a of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.

Effective 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 2,690 cases (757 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: Karun N. Jackson v. Specialized Loan Servicing LLC
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Karun N. Jackson v. Specialized Loan Servicing LLC (2018) ca11 · cites it 6× “As a result of Defendants' violations of the FDCPA, the Jacksons are entitled to actual damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(1) ; statutory damages in an amount up to $1,000.”
Demetra Baylor v. Mitchell Rubenstein & Associat (2017) cadc · cites it 10× “§§ 1988 (b), 6972(e), whereas the FDCPA provides that a defendant “is liable” for a fee, 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a). But at least two courts of appeals have suggested the FDCPA permits outright denial in “unusual circumstances.”
Rotkiske v. Klemm (2019) scotus · cites it 5× “881 , 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a). An action under the FDCPA may be brought "within one year from the date on which the violation occurs.”
Mangum v. Action Collection Service, Inc. (2009) ca9 · cites it 14× “" 15 U.S.C. § 1692k (emphasis added). This language is not ambiguous.”
Gonzales v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC (2011) ca9 · cites it 8× “15 U.S.C. § 1692k. This limit is intended to ensure that "punishment [is] meted out according to a business's ability to absorb the penalty.”
Owen v. I.C. System, Inc. (2011) ca11 · cites it 8× “Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k, Owen sought to recover up to $1,000 in statutory damages and approximately $804 in costs.”
Richard Weiss, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Regal Collections Lancer Investments, Inc (2004) ca3 · cites it 7× “See 15 U.S.C. § 1692k (listing damages and counsel fees as remedies, but not declaratory or injunctive relief).”
Huebner v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc. (2018) ca2 · cites it 5× “Concluding that Huebner and Poltorak had misrepresented Huebner's call, which had "all the earmarks of a setup," the court ordered Huebner and Poltorak to show cause why the "action should not be dismissed, with fees [and] costs awarded under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3), and…”
John Daubert v. NRA Group LLC (2017) ca3 · cites it 4× “We’ll reverse judgment as a matter of law for NRA on Daubert’s FDCPA claim and remand with instructions to enter judgment for Daubert and to calculate damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a). The court “shall” weigh the factors in subsection (b)(1) in so doing, including the…”
Luis Tejero v. Portfolio Recovery Assoc, LL (2020) ca5 · cites it 8× “” See 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3) (using both “attorney’s fee” and “attorney’s fees”).”
David Tourgeman v. Collins Financial Services (2014) ca9 · cites it 8× “” 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a). Nelson & Kennard further maintains that even if the FDCPA does purport to endow such consumers with a cause of action, Article III would forbid it, because consumers who never receive the offending communication have suffered no injury in fact.”
McDermott v. Marcus, Errico, Emmer & Brooks, P.C. (2012) mad · cites it 14× “See 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(1) (allowing award of “actual damage[s] sustained by [the plaintiff] as a result of’ the debt collector’s failure “to comply with any provision” of the FDCPA) (emphasis added); see also Johnson v.”
Show all 2,690 citing cases →
— 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(1) — 3 cases
Annunziato v. Collecto, Inc. (2016) nyed
Saccameno v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (2018) ilnd
Russell v. GC Services Limited Partnership (2020) waed
— 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(1)(2)(B) — 1 case
Annunziato v. Collecto, Inc. (2013) nyed
— 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(2) — 3 cases
Cook v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC (2016) ilsd
Norton v. LVNV Funding, LLC (2022) cand
Eilert v. Turner (2015) txsd
— 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(2)(A) — 4 cases
Riley v. Giguiere (2009) caed
Shirley Infante v. Samara Portfolio Mgmt, L.L.C. (2018) ca5
Waldrop v. LTS Collections Incorporated (2020) azd
Twitty v. United Collection Bureau, Inc. (2023) scd
— 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(2)(B) — 9 cases
Bustillos v. Board of County Commissioners (2016) nmd
Abraham v. WPX Production Productions, LLC (2016) nmd
Anderson Living Trust v. WPX Energy Production, LLC (2015) nmd
Daye v. Community Financial Service Centers, LLC (2016) nmd
Hartley v. Suburban Radiologic Consultants, Ltd. (2013) mnd
— 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(3) — 6 cases
Mann v. Acclaim Financial Services, Inc. (2004) ohsd
Llera v. SECURITY CREDIT SYSTEMS, INC. (2000) ncwd
Petralia v. 145 Marston St., Inc. (In re Petralia) (2016) mab
PNC Bank, National Association v. Ballrhodes Trucking, LLC (2024) mied
Greer, Robert v. All Wheels Recovery Inc. (2020) wiwd
— 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(4) — 1 case
Feinschriber v. OCWEN Loan Servicing, LLC (2019) flsd
— 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(A)(2)(B) — 2 cases
Perez v. McCreary, Veselka, Bragg & Allen, P.C. (2021) txwd
Baum, Bonita v. Mayo Clinic Ambulance (2022) wiwd
— 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(A)(2)(B)(ii) — 1 case
Cope v. Duggins (2002) laed
— 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(A)(3) — 2 cases
Silva v. Nat’l Telewire Corp. (2000) nhd
Clanton v. Midland Funding, LLC (2019) ilnd
— 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(C) — 2 cases
Foster v. D.B.S. Collection Agency (2006) ohsd
Piper v. Portnoff Law Associates (2003) paed
— 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a) — 463 cases
Demetra Baylor v. Mitchell Rubenstein & Associat (2017) cadc “§§ 1988 (b), 6972(e), whereas the FDCPA provides that a defendant “is liable” for a fee, 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a). But at least two courts of appeals have suggested the FDCPA permits outright denial in “unusual circumstances.”
David Tourgeman v. Collins Financial Services (2014) ca9 “” 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a). Nelson & Kennard further maintains that even if the FDCPA does purport to endow such consumers with a cause of action, Article III would forbid it, because consumers who never receive the offending communication have suffered no injury in fact.”
Richard Weiss, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Regal Collections Lancer Investments, Inc (2004) ca3 “See 15 U.S.C. § 1692k (listing damages and counsel fees as remedies, but not declaratory or injunctive relief).”
Marek v. Chesny (1985) scotus
Rotkiske v. Klemm (2019) scotus “881 , 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a). An action under the FDCPA may be brought "within one year from the date on which the violation occurs.”
— 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(1) — 107 cases
Karun N. Jackson v. Specialized Loan Servicing LLC (2018) ca11 “As a result of Defendants' violations of the FDCPA, the Jacksons are entitled to actual damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(1) ; statutory damages in an amount up to $1,000.”
Gustav Buchholz v. Meyer Njus Tanick, PA (2020) ca6
Alston v. Countrywide Financial Corp. (2009) ca3
LeBlanc v. Unifund CCR Partners (2010) ca11
Richard Weiss, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Regal Collections Lancer Investments, Inc (2004) ca3 “See 15 U.S.C. § 1692k (listing damages and counsel fees as remedies, but not declaratory or injunctive relief).”
— 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(1)(B)(3) — 1 case
John Fullmer, Sean McIntyre, Sabrina Provo, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated individuals v. A-1 (2025) utd
— 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2) — 52 cases
Gonzales v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC (2011) ca9 “15 U.S.C. § 1692k. This limit is intended to ensure that "punishment [is] meted out according to a business's ability to absorb the penalty.”
Jamie Huber v. Simons Agency Inc (2023) ca3
David Tourgeman v. Collins Financial Services (2014) ca9 “” 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a). Nelson & Kennard further maintains that even if the FDCPA does purport to endow such consumers with a cause of action, Article III would forbid it, because consumers who never receive the offending communication have suffered no injury in fact.”
Reese v. Ellis, Painter, Ratterree & Adams, LLP (2012) ca11
Schlacher v. Law Offices of Phillip J. Rotche & Associates, P.C. (2009) ca7
— 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(3) — 1 case
Bezner v. Poehler (2020) txnd
— 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(A) — 230 cases
Karun N. Jackson v. Specialized Loan Servicing LLC (2018) ca11 “As a result of Defendants' violations of the FDCPA, the Jacksons are entitled to actual damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(1) ; statutory damages in an amount up to $1,000.”
Portalatin v. Blatt, Hasenmiller, Leibsker & Moore, LLC (2018) ca7
Betty Wright, Cross-Appellee v. Finance Service of Norwalk, Inc. (1994) ca6
Lesher v. Law Offices of Mitchell N. Kay, PC (2011) ca3
Sykes v. Mel S. Harris & Associates LLC (2015) ca2
— 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(B) — 107 cases
Richard Weiss, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Regal Collections Lancer Investments, Inc (2004) ca3 “See 15 U.S.C. § 1692k (listing damages and counsel fees as remedies, but not declaratory or injunctive relief).”
Agan v. Katzman & Korr, P.A. (2004) flsd
Gallego v. Northland Group Inc. (2016) ca2
Hunt v. Check Recovery Systems, Inc. (2007) cand
Gammon v. GC Services Ltd. Partnership (1995) ilnd
— 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(B)(i) — 13 cases
Schuchardt v. Law Office of Clark (2016) cand
Hecht v. United Collection Bureau, Inc. (2012) ca2
Hunt v. Check Recovery Systems, Inc. (2007) cand
Sonmore v. Checkrite Recovery Services, Inc. (2001) mnd
Palmer v. Stassinos (2006) cand
— 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(B)(ii) — 27 cases
Schuchardt v. Law Office of Clark (2016) cand
Nancy R. Murray, Plaintiff-Petitioner v. Gmac Mortgage Corporation, Doing Business as ditech.com, Defendant-Respondent (2006) ca7
Bateman v. American Multi-Cinema, Inc. (2010) ca9
Hecht v. United Collection Bureau, Inc. (2012) ca2
Laura Powers v. Credit Management Services, In (2015) ca8
— 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(a) — 3 cases
Owens v. Howe (2005) innd
In Re Panek (2009) mab
Keating v. Frederick Debt Management, LLC (2025) mnd
— 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(b) — 1 case
Felix v. Northstar Location Services, LLC (2013) nywd
— 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3) — 501 cases
Huebner v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc. (2018) ca2 “Concluding that Huebner and Poltorak had misrepresented Huebner's call, which had "all the earmarks of a setup," the court ordered Huebner and Poltorak to show cause why the "action should not be dismissed, with fees [and] costs awarded under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3), and…”
Luis Tejero v. Portfolio Recovery Assoc, LL (2020) ca5 “” See 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3) (using both “attorney’s fee” and “attorney’s fees”).”
Marx v. General Revenue Corp. (2013) scotus
Demetra Baylor v. Mitchell Rubenstein & Associat (2017) cadc “§§ 1988 (b), 6972(e), whereas the FDCPA provides that a defendant “is liable” for a fee, 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a). But at least two courts of appeals have suggested the FDCPA permits outright denial in “unusual circumstances.”
Karun N. Jackson v. Specialized Loan Servicing LLC (2018) ca11 “As a result of Defendants' violations of the FDCPA, the Jacksons are entitled to actual damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(1) ; statutory damages in an amount up to $1,000.”
— 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(8) — 2 cases
PurCo Fleet Services, Inc. v. Koenig (2010) coloctapp
Zundel v. Magana (2015) utahctapp
— 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(B)(ii) — 2 cases
Muha v. Encore Receivable Management, Inc. (2006) wied
Harlan v. Transworld Systems, Inc. (2014) paed
— 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(Z) — 1 case
Carn v. Medical Data Systems, Inc. (In Re Cambron) (2007) almd
— 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(l) — 91 cases
McCollough v. Johnson, Rodenburg & Lauinger, LLC (2011) ca9
Villanueva v. Account Discovery Systems, LLC (2015) cod
Davis v. Creditors Interchange Receivable Management, LLC (2008) ohnd
Diane Russell v. Absolute Collection Services (2014) ca4
Nelson v. Equifax Information Services, LLC (2007) cacd
— 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(l)(A) — 1 case
Macy v. GC Services Ltd. Partnership (2017) kywd
— 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(l)(B) — 2 cases
Campos v. Western Dental Services, Inc. (2005) cand
In re Martinez (2016) nvb
— 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(b) — 53 cases
Courtney Douglass v. Convergent Outsourcing (2014) ca3
Ellis v. Solomon and Solomon, PC (2010) ca2
Christ Clomon v. Philip D. Jackson (1993) ca2
McDermott v. Marcus, Errico, Emmer & Brooks, P.C. (2012) mad “See 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(1) (allowing award of “actual damage[s] sustained by [the plaintiff] as a result of’ the debt collector’s failure “to comply with any provision” of the FDCPA) (emphasis added); see also Johnson v.”
Diane W. Bentley v. Great Lakes Collection Bureau (1993) ca2
— 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(b)(1) — 91 cases
Portalatin v. Blatt, Hasenmiller, Leibsker & Moore, LLC (2018) ca7
Martin v. Trott Law, P.C. (2017) mied
Villanueva v. Account Discovery Systems, LLC (2015) cod
Campbell v. Carruthers (In re Campbell) (2016) almb
McMahon v. LVNV Funding, LLC (2018) illinoised
— 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(b)(2) — 25 cases
Courtney Douglass v. Convergent Outsourcing (2014) ca3
Sykes v. Mel S. Harris & Associates LLC (2015) ca2
Schwarm v. Craighead (2008) caed
Hallmark v. Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP (2019) nywd
Annunziato v. Collecto, Inc. (2016) nyed
— 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(b)(l) — 43 cases
Villanueva v. Account Discovery Systems, LLC (2015) cod
Dickens v. GC Services Ltd. Partnership (2017) ca11
McCollough v. Johnson, Rodenburg & Lauinger, LLC (2011) ca9
Heritage Pacific Financial v. Monroy CA1/2 (2013) calctapp
Peter v. GC Services L.P. (2002) ca5
— 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(bXl) — 1 case
Harvey v. United Adjusters (1981) ord
— 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(c) — 559 cases
Gary Smith v. Transworld Systems, Inc. (1992) ca6
John Daubert v. NRA Group LLC (2017) ca3 “We’ll reverse judgment as a matter of law for NRA on Daubert’s FDCPA claim and remand with instructions to enter judgment for Daubert and to calculate damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a). The court “shall” weigh the factors in subsection (b)(1) in so doing, including the…”
Foster v. D.B.S. Collection Agency (2006) ohsd
Balon v. Enhanced Recovery Co. (2016) pamd
Owen v. I.C. System, Inc. (2011) ca11 “Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k, Owen sought to recover up to $1,000 in statutory damages and approximately $804 in costs.”
— 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(c)(a)(3) — 1 case
Rosen v. MLO Acquisitions LLC (2022) innd
— 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d) — 717 cases
Rotkiske v. Klemm (2019) scotus “881 , 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a). An action under the FDCPA may be brought "within one year from the date on which the violation occurs.”
Mangum v. Action Collection Service, Inc. (2009) ca9 “" 15 U.S.C. § 1692k (emphasis added). This language is not ambiguous.”
Rotkiske v. Paul Klemm, Esq., Dba Nudelman, Klemm & Golub, P.C. (2018) ca3
Osure Brown v. Transworld Systems, Inc. (2023) ca9
Benzemann v. Houslanger & Assocs., PLLC (2019) ca2
— 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(e) — 64 cases
Owen v. I.C. System, Inc. (2011) ca11 “Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k, Owen sought to recover up to $1,000 in statutory damages and approximately $804 in costs.”
Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich LPA (2008) ca6
John Daubert v. NRA Group LLC (2017) ca3 “We’ll reverse judgment as a matter of law for NRA on Daubert’s FDCPA claim and remand with instructions to enter judgment for Daubert and to calculate damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a). The court “shall” weigh the factors in subsection (b)(1) in so doing, including the…”
Heritage Pacific Financial v. Monroy CA1/2 (2013) calctapp
Ruth v. Triumph Partnerships (2009) ca7
— 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(i)(2)(A) — 1 case
In re Trans Union Corp. Privacy Litigation (2002) ilnd
— 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(l) — 3 cases
In re Martinez (2016) nvb
Diesi v. Shapiro (2004) ilcd
Schendzielos v. Silverman (2015) cod
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.