Debt Collection Rule Facts, Part 2

Telephone Call Frequency
QUESTION 1:
Does the Debt Collection Rule limit the frequency of telephone calls a debt collector may place, or telephone conversations a debt collector may have, about a debt?
ANSWER:
The Debt Collection Rule does not impose a specific “limit” or “cap” on the frequency of telephone calls that a debt collector may place or conversations that a debt collector may have about a debt. Instead, the Rule establishes a presumption of a violation of, and a presumption of compliance with, the prohibition against harassing, oppressive, or abusive conduct, based on the frequency of a debt collector’s telephone calls and conversations. These presumptions are discussed in Debt Collection Call Frequency: Presumptions Question 1. In general, under the Debt Collection Rule, a debt collector must not engage in conduct in connection with the collection of a debt if the natural consequence of that conduct is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person. 12 CFR § 1006.14(a). In addition to this general prohibition, the Debt Collection Rule specifically prohibits a debt collector from placing telephone calls or engaging any person in telephone conversations repeatedly or continuously with the intent to annoy, abuse, or harass any person at the called number. 12 CFR § 1006.14(b)(1). This specific prohibition related to telephone calls and telephone conversations will be referred to as “the prohibition against repeated or continuous telephone calls or conversations” throughout these FAQs.

A debt collector who complies with the specific prohibition against repeated or continuous telephone calls or conversations complies with the general prohibition against engaging in conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person solely with respect to the frequency of the debt collector’s telephone calls. A debt collector nevertheless could violate the general prohibition if the natural consequence of another aspect of the debt collector’s telephone calls, unrelated to frequency, is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person in connection with the collection of a debt. Comment 14(b)(1)-1.

Telephone Call Frequency: Presumptions
QUESTION 1:
What are the presumptions related to telephone call frequency?
ANSWER:
Under the Debt Collection Rule, a debt collector is presumed to comply with the prohibition against repeated or continuous telephone calls or conversations if the debt collector places a telephone call to a particular person in connection with the collection of a particular debt neither:
 More than seven times within seven consecutive calendar days [“call frequency prong”]; nor
 Within a period of seven consecutive calendar days after having had a telephone conversation with the person in connection with the collection of such debt [“conversation frequency prong”]. For the presumption of compliance to apply, the debt collector must not exceed either prong of the standard. 12 CFR § 1006.14(b)(2)(i). Conversely, a debt collector is presumed to violate the prohibition against repeated or continuous telephone calls or conversations if the debt collector places a telephone call to a particular person in connection with the collection of a particular debt:
 More than seven times within seven consecutive calendar days [“call frequency prong”]; or
 Within a period of seven consecutive calendar days after having had a telephone conversation with the person in connection with the collection of such debt [“conversation frequency prong”]. The presumption of a violation applies if the debt collector exceeds one or both prongs of the standard. 12 CFR § 1006.14(b)(2)(ii).

The term particular debt means each of a consumer’s debts in collection, except in the case of student loan debt. 12 CFR § 1006.14(b)(4). For more information about the definition of particular debt as it applies to student loan debt, see Section 7.1.1 in the Debt Collection Small Entity Compliance Guide. In addition, certain telephone calls are excluded from the presumptions related to telephone call frequency. 12 CFR § 1006.14(b)(3). For more
information about excluded telephone calls, see Debt Collection Telephone Call Frequency: Excluded Calls Question 1.
For more information about the prohibition against repeated or continuous telephone calls or conversations, see Section 7 in the Debt Collection Small Entity Compliance Guide.

QUESTION 2:
Do incoming telephone calls from a consumer to a debt collector about a debt count for purposes of the “call frequency prong” of the presumptions related to telephone call frequency?
ANSWER:
No. When a consumer places a telephone call to a debt collector, that telephone call is not a telephone call placed by the debt collector. Therefore, that telephone call is not included when determining whether the debt collector complied with the “call frequency prong” of the presumptions related to telephone call frequency. 12 CFR § 1006.14(b)(2). For more information about the “call frequency prong” of the presumptions related to telephone call
frequency, see Debt Collection Telephone Call Frequency: Presumptions Question 1. However, if a debt collector has a conversation with the consumer about a debt (no matter which party initiated the call), and the debt collector then places a telephone call to the consumer to discuss the same debt within the next seven days, the debt collector is presumed to violate the “conversation frequency prong” of the presumptions related to telephone call frequency, unless an exception applies. 12 CFR § 1006.14(b)(2)(ii). See also Comment 14(b)(4)-1. For more information about the “conversation frequency prong” of the presumptions related to telephone call frequency, see Debt Collection Telephone Call Frequency: Presumptions Question 1.

QUESTION 3:
Does the prohibition against repeated or continuous telephone calls or conversations apply to other media types, such as electronic messages that may be received on a mobile phone?
ANSWER:
No. The prohibition against repeated or continuous telephone calls or conversations only applies to telephone calls; it does not apply to other media types, such as text messages, email, in-person interactions, or social media. Because the prohibition against repeated or continuous telephone calls or conversations does not apply to media other than telephone calls, the presumptions related to telephone call frequency discussed in Debt Collection Telephone Call Frequency: Presumptions Question 1 do not apply to media other than telephone calls. Comment 14(b)-1.

However, a debt collector’s conduct using any media, such as in-person interactions, telephone calls, audio recordings, paper documents, mail, email, text messages, and social media, including the cumulative effect of the debt collector’s conduct across multiple media types, may still violate the general prohibition against harassing, oppressive, or abusive conduct. 12 CFR § 1006.14(a). For more information about the prohibition against repeated or continuous telephone calls or conversations, see Section 7 in the Debt Collection Small Entity Compliance Guide. For more information about the presumptions related to telephone call frequency, see Debt Collection Telephone Call Frequency: Presumptions Question 1.

QUESTION 4:
How do the presumptions related to telephone call frequency apply if a consumer has multiple telephone numbers?
ANSWER:
The presumptions related to telephone call frequency, as discussed in Debt Collection Telephone Call Frequency: Presumptions Question 1, apply per person, per debt, regardless of how many telephone numbers are associated with a particular person. 12 CFR § 1006.14(b)(2)(i) and (ii). For example, if a debt collector has eight different telephone numbers associated with a consumer and places one unanswered call to each of the telephone numbers about the same debt within seven consecutive days, the debt collector is presumed to violate the “call frequency prong” of the presumptions related to telephone call frequency, as discussed in Debt Collection Telephone Call Frequency: Presumptions Question 1, unless an exception applies. 12 CFR § 1006.14(b)(2)(ii). For more information about the prohibition against repeated or continuous telephone calls or conversations, see Section 7 in the Debt Collection Small Entity Compliance Guide. For more information about the presumptions related to telephone call frequency, see Debt Collection Telephone Call Frequency: Presumptions Question 1.

QUESTION 5:
If a debt collector learns that a telephone number the debt collector previously called is not associated with the consumer, do those calls count toward the presumptions related to telephone call frequency for the consumer?
ANSWER:
No. Misdirected calls do not count toward the presumptions related to telephone call frequency for the consumer, since the telephone number is not associated with the consumer and the consumer does not answer telephone calls to that number. Comment 14(b)(2)(i)-3. However, the presumptions related to telephone call frequency, discussed in Debt Collection Telephone Call Frequency: Presumptions Question 1, apply to all persons, not just to the consumer or the person who owes or allegedly owes the debt. 12 CFR § 1006.14(b)(2). Thus, the calls placed do count toward the presumptions related to telephone call frequency for the person who actually received the call attempt. For more information about the prohibition against repeated or continuous telephone calls or conversations, see Section 7 in the Debt Collection Small Entity Compliance Guide. For more information about the presumptions related to telephone call frequency, see Debt Collection Telephone Call Frequency: Presumptions Question 1.

QUESTION 6:
How does a telephone conversation about multiple debts count for purposes of the “conversation frequency prong” of the presumptions related to telephone call frequency?
ANSWER:
If a debt collector and a consumer have a telephone conversation about multiple debts, the debt collector has engaged in a telephone conversation in connection with the collection of each debt discussed. This is true regardless of which party (the debt collector or the consumer) initiated the telephone call or the discussion of each debt. 12 CFR § 1006.14(b)(2)(i)(B) and Comment 14(b)(4)-1.ii. As a result, if, during the seven-day period after the conversation, the debt collector places a telephone call to the consumer regarding any of the debts discussed in the conversation, the debt collector is presumed to have violated the “conversation frequency prong” of the presumptions relating to call frequency, discussed in Debt Collection Telephone Call Frequency: Presumptions Question 1, unless an exception applies. Comment 14(b)(4)-1.ii. For example, assume a debt collector is attempting to collect a medical debt and a credit card debt from the same consumer and the debt collector places a telephone call to, and initiates a telephone conversation with, the consumer about the collection of the medical debt. The consumer states that they do not want to discuss the medical debt, and instead initiates a discussion about the credit card debt. The debt collector has had a conversation with the consumer with respect to the medical debt and the credit card debt. If, during the seven-day period following the conversation, the debt collector places a telephone call to the consumer regarding either debt, the debt collector would be presumed to violate the  conversation frequency prong” of the presumptions relating to call frequency for that debt, even though the consumer initiated the conversation about the credit card debt. See Comments 14(b)(4)-1.ii. and -2.vi.
For more information about the presumptions related to telephone call frequency, see Debt Collection Telephone Call Frequency: Presumptions Question 1. For more information about the prohibition against repeated or continuous telephone calls or conversations, see Section 7 in the Debt Collection Small Entity Compliance Guide.

QUESTION 7:
If a debt collector calls a consumer to discuss multiple debts the consumer owes or allegedly owes but does not reach the consumer or leave any voicemails, how do those telephone calls count for purposes of the “call
frequency prong” of the presumptions related to telephone call frequency?
ANSWER:
If a debt collector calls a consumer to discuss multiple debts the consumer owes or allegedly owes, but the consumer does not answer the call and the debt collector does not leave a voicemail, the debt collector counts the telephone call as a telephone call in connection with the collection of at least one particular debt, unless an exclusion applies. Comment 14(b)(4)-1.i. For example, assume that a debt collector is attempting to collect a medical debt and a credit card debt from the same consumer and the debt collector places four unanswered telephone calls to the consumer. The debt collector may count the calls for the purposes of the “call frequency prong” of the presumptions related to telephone call frequency in several different ways. To list just a few examples, the debt collector may:

 Count all four of the calls as calls placed in connection with the collection of the medical debt or as calls placed in connection with the collection of the credit card debt.
 Count all four of the calls as calls placed in connection with the collection of the medical debt and the credit card debt.
 Count two of the calls as calls placed in connection with the collection of the medical debt, and two of the calls as calls placed in connection with the collection of the credit card debt. Comment 14(b)(4)-1.i.
For more information about the presumptions related to telephone call frequency, see Debt Collection Telephone Call Frequency: Presumptions Question 1. For more information about the prohibition against repeated or continuous telephone calls or conversations, see Section 7 in the Debt Collection Small Entity Compliance Guide.

QUESTION 8:
What if a debt collector operates in a state that has different rules regarding how many times a debt collector may call or have a conversation with a consumer about a debt?
ANSWER:
The Debt Collection Rule does not preempt a state law that affords greater protection to consumers, including, for example, by imposing limits or more restrictive presumptions related to telephone call frequency.

Leave a Reply