Debt Collector Harassment
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
What this area of law covers
The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act was passed by Congress in 1977 to address what the legislative record described as “abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices” — and the consequences those practices were producing for consumers: personal bankruptcies, marital instability, lost jobs, and invasions of privacy. The statute was Congress’s response to a debt collection industry that had operated, until then, with very few rules.
The FDCPA is one of the most successful consumer protection statutes ever written. Its central insight is that the imbalance of power between a debt collector and an individual consumer is so significant that the consumer needs specific, enforceable protections — and that those protections are only meaningful if violations carry real consequences. Courts across the country have generally interpreted the statute expansively in favor of consumers, consistent with the remedial purpose Congress intended.
What kinds of debt are covered
The FDCPA applies to consumer debt — debt incurred primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. Courts have applied the statute to mortgage debt, credit card debt, medical debt, student loans, payday loans, auto loans, utility bills, and most other forms of consumer debt. Business debt is generally not covered.
The statute applies to third-party debt collectors — companies and law firms whose business is collecting debts owed to others — and, in many circumstances, to debt buyers who purchase defaulted debts and collect on their own behalf. Original creditors collecting their own debts are generally not subject to the FDCPA, though they may be subject to state-law analogs that operate similarly.
What the statute prohibits
The FDCPA prohibits a wide range of debt collector conduct. The list below is illustrative, not exhaustive.
Misrepresenting the amount, character, or legal status of a debt
Adding fees, interest, or costs not authorized by the underlying agreement or by law
Communicating with a consumer before 8:00 AM or after 9:00 PM, absent special circumstances
Continuing to communicate with a consumer once the collector knows the consumer is represented by an attorney
Continuing to communicate with a consumer who has notified the collector in writing that they refuse to pay or want communications to stop, except as the statute specifically permits
Using conduct that would naturally harass, oppress, or abuse the consumer
Using obscene or profane language
Making repeated phone calls intended to annoy or harass
Demanding payment of any amount not actually owed
Soliciting postdated checks
Threatening nonjudicial action to take property where no such right exists
Sending mail with language or symbols on the outside indicating that it relates to debt collection
The statute regulates conduct that, in many cases, would otherwise be lawful. A creditor may have every legal right to collect a debt and still violate the FDCPA in the manner of collecting it.
What recovery looks like
When a debt collector violates the FDCPA, a court can award statutory damages of up to $1,000 per case, plus any actual damages the consumer has suffered — including damages for emotional distress, lost wages, and other injuries traceable to the violation. The statute also requires the debt collector to pay the consumer’s reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs when the consumer prevails. That fee-shifting provision is the structural reason individual consumers can realistically enforce the statute against well-resourced collection companies and law firms.
The fee-shifting structure also means that the economics of FDCPA representation are different from general civil litigation. The cost of pursuing a meritorious claim is generally recoverable from the defendant when the case resolves in the consumer’s favor.
My experience in this area
I have represented consumers in FDCPA matters since 2012, in both individual and class action postures. My caseload has included a class action that was certified and resolved in favor of the class, as well as matters involving debt collection law firms whose practices have been the subject of regulatory attention. Over that time I have recovered substantial damages and attorney’s fees for clients while contributing to the body of decisions interpreting the statute.
My academic work in this area includes Attorney Liability in Lien Enforcement: The Untapped Potential of the FDCPA, published in the Rutgers Law Record in 2015, which examined the application of the FDCPA to attorneys engaged in lien enforcement litigation. I have also lectured to other attorneys on FDCPA practice through CLE programs and conferences.
If a debt collector has been contacting you
The line between aggressive collection and unlawful collection is not always obvious from the consumer’s side. A collector that has been making your life difficult may or may not have crossed it; the only way to know is to look at what they have actually done — the calls, the letters, the timing, the representations, the amounts demanded — against what the statute permits.
If you have been contacted by a debt collector and something about the contact does not feel right, the right step is to describe the situation in detail and let me look at it. Bring whatever documentation you have: letters, voicemails, call logs, account statements. Initial consultations are free and confidential.