When the collector is the one breaking the law.

When a collector or debt buyer's own conduct crosses legal lines — repeated calls after a written cease-and-desist, misrepresenting the amount owed, or threatening action it cannot legally take — the consumer may have an independent FDCPA claim that can be raised as a counterclaim or filed separately. This is a genuine legal remedy for the collector's misconduct, not a way to avoid an otherwise valid debt.

• 15 U.S.C. § 1692e — bars false, deceptive, or misleading representations in debt collection
• 15 U.S.C. § 1692f — bars unfair or unconscionable collection means, including unauthorized fees
• 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(c) (FDCPA § 805(c)) — written cease-communication right, subject to limited statutory exceptions
• Regulation F, 12 C.F.R. § 1006.14(b) — presumptive "7-in-7" limit on collector telephone-contact frequency
• 15 U.S.C. § 1692k — actual damages, statutory damages up to $1,000, and attorney fees for FDCPA violations (generally a one-year statute of limitations under § 1692k(d))
• 47 U.S.C. § 227(b) (Telephone Consumer Protection Act) — restricts autodialed or prerecorded calls/texts to cell phones without consent; often paired with FDCPA claims for repeated post-cease-and-desist contact

• Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich LPA, 559 U.S. 573 (2010) (the FDCPA's bona fide error defense does not cover a collector's mistaken interpretation of the law)
• Marx v. General Revenue Corp., 568 U.S. 371 (2013) (a prevailing FDCPA defendant may recover costs under Rule 54(d) without a separate finding that the suit was brought in bad faith)
• Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 592 U.S. 395 (2021) (narrowing the statutory definition of "automatic telephone dialing system" under the TCPA)

• Identify a specific, well-documented violation (e.g., calls after a written cease-and-desist, a false statement about the amount or legal status of the debt, threats of action not actually intended or legally available)
• Preserve evidence: call logs, voicemails, letters, text screenshots, and dates/times of contact
• Generally file within the FDCPA's one-year statute of limitations from the date of the violation (15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d))

• Log every contact with dates, times, and what was said or written, and save all physical/digital evidence
• Compare the collector's conduct against specific FDCPA sections (false statements under § 1692e, unfair practices under § 1692f, contact after cease-and-desist under § 1692c(c))
• File complaints with the CFPB and state Attorney General in parallel — these do not require an attorney and can support a later claim
• Consult a consumer-law attorney about raising the violation as a counterclaim in a pending collection suit, or filing a separate FDCPA suit within the one-year window
• Many consumer attorneys take strong FDCPA cases on contingency, since the statute provides for fee-shifting to a prevailing consumer

• A genuine FDCPA violation by the collector does not automatically erase an otherwise valid underlying debt
• The FDCPA claim has its own one-year filing deadline that runs separately from the collection case timeline
• Isolated rudeness or a single mistaken call is unlikely to be a violation — the strongest claims involve clear, documented conduct crossing a specific statutory line