In this podcast, we discuss the CFPB’s proposed requirement for a collector to communicate with a debtor before furnishing information about the debt to a consumer reporting agency and proposed prohibition on selling or transferring a debt that is the subject of an identity theft report.  We also look at the challenges collectors would face

Effective July 28, debt collectors licensed in Washington will be subject to new requirements when collecting medical debt.

Substitute House Bill 1531, signed into law by Washington Governor Jay Inslee on April 30, amended the state’s debt collection law that requires debt collectors to be licensed by adding certain substantive requirements along with a

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

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). 

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