15 U.S.C. § 1692p

Exception for certain bad check enforcement programs operated by private entities

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

(a) In general(1) Treatment of certain private entities

Subject to paragraph (2), a private entity shall be excluded from the definition of a debt collector, pursuant to the exception provided in section 1692a(6) of this title, with respect to the operation by the entity of a program described in paragraph (2)(A) under a contract described in paragraph (2)(B).

(2) Conditions of applicabilityParagraph (1) shall apply if—(A) a State or district attorney establishes, within the jurisdiction of such State or district attorney and with respect to alleged bad check violations that do not involve a check described in subsection (b), a pretrial diversion program for alleged bad check offenders who agree to participate voluntarily in such program to avoid criminal prosecution;(B) a private entity, that is subject to an administrative support services contract with a State or district attorney and operates under the direction, supervision, and control of such State or district attorney, operates the pretrial diversion program described in subparagraph (A); and(C) in the course of performing duties delegated to it by a State or district attorney under the contract, the private entity referred to in subparagraph (B)—(i) complies with the penal laws of the State;(ii) conforms with the terms of the contract and directives of the State or district attorney;(iii) does not exercise independent prosecutorial discretion;(iv) contacts any alleged offender referred to in subparagraph (A) for purposes of participating in a program referred to in such paragraph—(I) only as a result of any determination by the State or district attorney that probable cause of a bad check violation under State penal law exists, and that contact with the alleged offender for purposes of participation in the program is appropriate; and(II) the alleged offender has failed to pay the bad check after demand for payment, pursuant to State law, is made for payment of the check amount;(v) includes as part of an initial written communication with an alleged offender a clear and conspicuous statement that—(I) the alleged offender may dispute the validity of any alleged bad check violation;(II) where the alleged offender knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, that the alleged bad check violation is the result of theft or forgery of the check, identity theft, or other fraud that is not the result of the conduct of the alleged offender, the alleged offender may file a crime report with the appropriate law enforcement agency; and(III) if the alleged offender notifies the private entity or the district attorney in writing, not later than 30 days after being contacted for the first time pursuant to clause (iv), that there is a dispute pursuant to this subsection, before further restitution efforts are pursued, the district attorney or an employee of the district attorney authorized to make such a determination makes a determination that there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed; and(vi) charges only fees in connection with services under the contract that have been authorized by the contract with the State or district attorney.(b) Certain checks excludedA check is described in this subsection if the check involves, or is subsequently found to involve—(1) a postdated check presented in connection with a payday loan, or other similar transaction, where the payee of the check knew that the issuer had insufficient funds at the time the check was made, drawn, or delivered;(2) a stop payment order where the issuer acted in good faith and with reasonable cause in stopping payment on the check;(3) a check dishonored because of an adjustment to the issuer’s account by the financial institution holding such account without providing notice to the person at the time the check was made, drawn, or delivered;(4) a check for partial payment of a debt where the payee had previously accepted partial payment for such debt;(5) a check issued by a person who was not competent, or was not of legal age, to enter into a legal contractual obligation at the time the check was made, drawn, or delivered; or(6) a check issued to pay an obligation arising from a transaction that was illegal in the jurisdiction of the State or district attorney at the time the check was made, drawn, or delivered.(c) DefinitionsFor purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:(1) State or district attorney

The term “State or district attorney” means the chief elected or appointed prosecuting attorney in a district, county (as defined in section 2 of title 1), municipality, or comparable jurisdiction, including State attorneys general who act as chief elected or appointed prosecuting attorneys in a district, county (as so defined), municipality or comparable jurisdiction, who may be referred to by a variety of titles such as district attorneys, prosecuting attorneys, commonwealth’s attorneys, solicitors, county attorneys, and state’s attorneys, and who are responsible for the prosecution of State crimes and violations of jurisdiction-specific local ordinances.

(2) Check

The term “check” has the same meaning as in section 5002(6) of title 12.

(3) Bad check violation

The term “bad check violation” means a violation of the applicable State criminal law relating to the writing of dishonored checks.

(Pub. L. 90–321, title VIII, § 818, as added Pub. L. 109–351, title VIII, § 801(a)(2), Oct. 13, 2006, 120 Stat. 2004.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 13 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1997–2025 · leading case: Schwarm v. Craighead, 552 F. Supp. 2d 1056 (E.D. Cal. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Schwarm v. Craighead, 552 F. Supp. 2d 1056 (E.D. Cal. 2008). · cites it 2× “15 U.S.C. § 1692p; S.Rep. No. 109-256, at 12 (2006), reprinted in 2006 U.”

Pamela Gillie v. Law Off. of Eric A. Jones, 785 F.3d 1091 (6th Cir. 2015). · cites it 2× “See 15 U.S.C. § 1692p. The presence of this provision militates against the notion that Congress also intended to exempt independent contractors, generally, from FDCPA coverage without saying so.”

Rosario v. Am. Corrective Counseling Servs., Inc., 506 F.3d 1039 (11th Cir. 2007). “The Court need not address Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Young argument concerning the exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity for prospective declaratory and/or injunctive relief, and ACCS’s responsive argument that Congress amended the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692p, to recognize the…”

Breazeale v. Victim Servs., Inc., 198 F. Supp. 3d 1070 (N.D. Cal. 2016). “See 15 U.S.C. § 1692p. Congress undoubt *1079 edly has the power, under the Commerce Clause, to regulate abusive debt collection practices that substantially affect interstate commerce.”

Carl Chauncey v. Jdr Recovery Corp., 118 F.3d 516 (7th Cir. 1997). “On December 8 of the following year, plaintiff sued defendant alleging two violations of 15 U.S.C. § 1692p(a). The suit sought statutory damages, costs and reasonable attorney’s fees under 15 U.”

Del Campo v. Am. Corrective Counseling Serv., Inc., 718 F. Supp. 2d 1116 (N.D. Cal. 2010). “15 U.S.C. § 1692p. As an initial matter, there is no indication in the statutory language that the exemption provided in Section 1692p applies retroactively.”

Andrew Ladick v. Gerald J. Van Gemert Law Offices of Gerald J. Van Gemert, a Prof'l Corp., 146 F.3d 1205 (10th Cir. 1998). “See 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692p, 1692e. After both parties moved for summary judgment, the district court found that the condominium assessment sought to be collected by Mr.”

Smith v. Levine Leichtman Capital Partners, Inc., 723 F. Supp. 2d 1205 (N.D. Cal. 2010). “The exemplar agreement attached to the FAC provides that the District Attorney of San Mateo wanted to provide a pretrial diversion program consistent with 15 U.S.C. § 1692p (the “Act”) and retained ACCS to provide consulting services and to staff and operate the District…”

Solberg v. Victim Servs., Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2019). · cites it 6× “1966 , 2004–06 (codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1692p). These requirements are discussed at length in Section III.”

Scotto v. Munn (D. Neb. 2020). · cites it 2× “) In addition to the “Complaint” title pages, Plaintiff also attached purported certificates of service, notices, printed case law excerpts, and a partially completed Form AO93c for a warrant by telephone or other reliable electronic means.”

Burgos-Rodriguez v. Cont'l Cent. Credit, Inc. (D.P.R. 2023). “” 15 U.S.C. § 1692p(a}(3). Notably, there is no written requirement for a debt dispute, unlike for validation notice.”

Uzor v. Flink (E.D. Pa. 2025). “” See 15 U.S.C. § 1692p; see also Thornton v. Hughes, Watters & Askanase, LLP, No.”

Show all 13 citing cases →

— 15 U.S.C. § 1692p(2)(A) — 1 case

Solberg v. Victim Servs., Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2019). “1966 , 2004–06 (codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1692p). These requirements are discussed at length in Section III.”

— 15 U.S.C. § 1692p(2)(C)(i) — 1 case

Solberg v. Victim Servs., Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2019). “1966 , 2004–06 (codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1692p). These requirements are discussed at length in Section III.”

— 15 U.S.C. § 1692p(2)(C)(iii) — 1 case

Solberg v. Victim Servs., Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2019). “1966 , 2004–06 (codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1692p). These requirements are discussed at length in Section III.”

— 15 U.S.C. § 1692p(2)(C)(iv) — 1 case

Solberg v. Victim Servs., Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2019). “1966 , 2004–06 (codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1692p). These requirements are discussed at length in Section III.”

— 15 U.S.C. § 1692p(a) — 1 case

— 15 U.S.C. § 1692p(c)(i) — 1 case

Schwarm v. Craighead, 552 F. Supp. 2d 1056 (E.D. Cal. 2008). “15 U.S.C. § 1692p; S.Rep. No. 109-256, at 12 (2006), reprinted in 2006 U.”

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.