15 U.S.C. § 1692n
Relation to State laws
This subchapter does not annul, alter, or affect, or exempt any person subject to the provisions of this subchapter from complying with the laws of any State with respect to debt collection practices, except to the extent that those laws are inconsistent with any provision of this subchapter, and then only to the extent of the inconsistency. For purposes of this section, a State law is not inconsistent with this subchapter if the protection such law affords any consumer is greater than the protection provided by this subchapter.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 81
cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case: Gonzales v. Arrow Fin. Servs., LLC, 660 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir. 2011).
Gonzales v. Arrow Fin. Servs., LLC, 660 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir. 2011). “15 U.S.C. § 1692n. This language, coupled with the FDCPA's express purpose to "promote consistent State action," 15 U.”
Vien-Phuong Thi Ho v. ReconTrust Co., 858 F.3d 568 (9th Cir. 2016). “” 15 U.S.C. § 1692n. While this suggests a desire to interfere as little as possible “with the laws of any State,” it gives effect to the concern that the “primary reason why debt collection abuse is so widespread is the lack of meaningful legislation on the State level.”
Aargon Agency, Inc. v. Sandy O'Laughlin, 70 F.4th 1224 (9th Cir. 2023). “15 U.S.C. § 1692n. An important difference between the FDCPA’s preemption provision and that of the FCRA is that § 1692n states that federal law provides a floor rather than a ceiling.”
Vien-Phuong Thi Ho v. Recontrust Co., 840 F.3d 618 (9th Cir. 2016). “” 15 U.S.C. § 1692n. While this suggests a desire to interfere as little as possible “with the laws of any State,” it gives effect to the concern that the “primary reason why debt collection abuse is so widespread is the lack of meaningful legislation on the State level.”
McDermott v. Marcus, Errico, Emmer & Brooks, P.C., 911 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D. Mass. 2012). “15 U.S.C. § 1692n. The four year, state statute of limitations applicable to chapter 93A goes farther to protect consumers against unfair and deceptive conduct in collection practices than the FDCPA’s one year limitations period.”
Gallego v. Northland Grp. Inc., 814 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 2016). “The section entitled “[r]elation to State laws” provides that the FDCPA preempts state laws to the extent that they are “inconsistent” with the FDCPA, and further clarifies that “a State law is not inconsistent with [the FDCPA] if the protection such law affords any consumer is…”
LeBlanc v. Unifund CCR Partners, 601 F.3d 1185 (11th Cir. 2010). “11 See 15 U.S.C. § 1692n; see also Hartman v. Great Seneca Fin.”
McCollough v. Johnson, Rodenburg & Lauinger, LLC, 637 F.3d 939 (9th Cir. 2011). “However, Congress enacted the FDCPA expressly because prior laws for redressing “abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices” were “inadequate to protect consumers.”
Cliff v. Payco Gen. Am. Credits, Inc., 363 F.3d 1113 (11th Cir. 2004). “15 U.S.C. § 1692n ("[The FDCPA] does not annul, alter, or affect, or exempt any person .”
Jackson v. Blitt & Gaines, P.C., 833 F.3d 860 (7th Cir. 2016). “15 U.S.C. § 1692n; Hageman, 817 F.3d at 618 .”
Davidson v. Seterus, Inc., 230 Cal. Rptr. 3d 441 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2018). “" In fact, the possibility that a state might adopt a more expansive definition of "debt collector" than is provided by the FDCPA is contemplated by the FDCPA's preemption provision, which specifically allows for a state law to provide for greater consumer protections than the…”
Young v. Npas, Inc., 361 F. Supp. 3d 1171 (D. Utah 2019). “But Congress made its intent regarding state laws clear in 15 U.S.C. § 1692n, which provides: [t]his subchapter does not annul, alter, or affect, or exempt any person subject to the provisions of this subchapter from complying with the laws of any State with respect to debt…”
— 15 U.S.C. § 1692n(1982) — 1 case
Commonwealth v. Allied Bond & Collection Agency, 476 N.E.2d 955 (Mass. 1985).
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.