Debt Buyers + Collectors

Subscribe to Debt Buyers + Collectors via RSS

On December 19, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed Senate Bill S1353A creating a new General Business Law article on “actions involving coerced debts.” The law is aimed squarely at survivors of domestic violence, trafficking, and other forms of economic abuse who find themselves saddled with credit card balances, loans, or other consumer debts they never truly agreed to incur. Once effective (90 days after signing), it will prohibit creditors from enforcing certain coerced consumer debts against victims, create a structured process for disputing those debts, and establish robust private rights of action and defenses against collection. New York becomes the eighth state to enact protections of this kind.

In a recent decision, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, upheld the dismissal of a class action lawsuit filed against First National Collection Bureau, Inc. (FNCB). In an unpublished opinion, the court affirmed the lower court’s ruling that the plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). This decision clarifies the scope of third-party communications under the FDCPA, particularly in the context of using third-party vendors for mailing collection letters.

In an unpublished case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that actions to obtain a judgment and enforce that judgment in a collection lawsuit filed outside the statute of limitations do not create a continuing violation under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA).

On August 8, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) published a series of proposed rules aimed at redefining what constitutes a “larger participant” in several key financial markets. Under § 1024 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act, the Bureau’s supervisory authority extends to “larger participants” offering consumer financial products or services. The proposed rules seek to amend existing thresholds in the consumer reporting, auto financing, consumer debt collection, and international money transfer markets to better align with current market conditions and regulatory priorities. The Bureau is accepting comments on these proposals until September 22, 2025.

On July 24, Oregon Governor Tina Kotek signed House Bill 3865 (HB 3865) into law, introducing significant changes to the regulation of telephone solicitations within the state. This new legislation narrows the permissible calling hours, reducing communications during late evening hours by prohibiting calls after 8 p.m., down from the previous 9 p.m. Additionally, the bill expands the definition of telephone solicitations to include text messages.

Today, the New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (NYC DCWP) announced another delay in the effective date of its amended debt collection rules. This marks the second postponement. As discussed here, the rules were initially set to take effect on December 1, 2024. Then the enforcement date was first postponed to April 1, 2025, following industry concerns and legal challenges, and then to October 1, 2025. However, the NYC DCWP has now stated that the rules will not go into effect on October 1, 2025, and has committed to providing an update at least three months prior to the new effective date.

On July 14, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) filed a status report announcing its decision not to reissue its Medical Debt Collection Advisory Opinion, which had been issued in 2024 to “remind debt collectors of their obligations to comply with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act [FDCPA] and Regulation F’s prohibition on false, deceptive, or misleading representations or means in connection with the collection of any medical debt and unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any medical debt.” The Advisory Opinion had been challenged in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by ACA International and Collection Bureau Services, Inc.

In a recent decision from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Texas Debt Collection Act (TDCA) case, finding three texts and three phone messages over eight weeks was not harassing and because the messages were clearly for another person, an unsophisticated consumer could not have thought defendants were attempting to collect a debt from the plaintiff.