While directed at third party debt collectors, the CFPB’s proposed rules, if adopted, would significantly impact creditors and their first party collection partners.  In this podcast, we look at the actions the proposal would require creditors to take before assigning a debt for collection, what the proposal would mean for third party oversight, and how

The CFPB has filed an amicus brief in Bender v. Elmore & Throop, P.C., an appeal before the Fourth Circuit involving the application of the FDCPA’s one-year statute of limitations.  The brief supports the position of the plaintiff-appellant that the one-year period runs separately for each discrete FDCPA violation.  It represents the first CFPB

On June 14, 2019, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed HB 996, which amends Chapter 392 of the Texas Finance Code dealing with debt collection.  The amendments are effective September 1, 2019.

The bill defines a “debt buyer” as “a person who purchases or otherwise acquires a consumer debt from a creditor or other subsequent

Continuing our coverage of the CFPB’s proposed debt collection rules, this blog post will focus on a few provisions that pertain specifically to mortgage servicers.

In part, the proposal continues the CFPB’s efforts to harmonize mortgage servicing regulation (which generally promotes communication with consumers) and debt collection regulation (which generally restricts communication with consumers). 

Plans announced on May 15 by the FCC to empower voice service providers to offer more aggressive call-blocking programs could create significant problems for creditors and debt collectors.  In addition to allowing providers to block unwanted calls by default, the FCC plans to allow providers to offer opt-in blocking in which a consumer can elect

Last Friday, the CFPB announced that it had filed yet another meaningful attorney involvement lawsuit against a debt collection law firm – Forster & Garbus, P.C.  It’s notable enough that the Bureau continues to pursue these cases (even while proposing a “safe harbor” for meaningful attorney involvement in its proposed debt collection rules), but there

As part of our continuing discussion of the CFPB’s proposed debt collection rules, we focus in this blog post on a provision that occupies very little real estate in the proposal, but could have tremendous significance: a new “safe harbor” provision relating to meaningful attorney involvement by debt collection law firms, contained in section

In this blog post, we attempt to dissect and explore the Bureau’s proposed call frequency and time/place limitations in the recently-released debt collection NPRM.

Proposed Call Frequency Limitations

First, let’s tackle the proposed call frequency limitations.  Section 1006.14(b)(2) prohibits attempting to call (note the use of the word “call,” as opposed to “communicate with”)

The Bureau’s proposed debt collection rules, released last week, only apply to debt collectors, as defined under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  So, why should creditors and servicers be interested in them?  Lots of reasons.

First, a number of provisions call for creditors (or by extension, servicers) to take action before a debt