A Consumer Protection and Employment Law Firm Serving California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Illinois.

Student Loans, Debt Collectors and You

Table Of Contents
Summarize with
ChatGPT Claude Gemini Perplexity Grok

Many desperate debt collectors threaten debtors with immediate wage or bank account garnishment as a tactic to intimidate them into payment.  However, it is important to know that debt collectors who threaten to garnish a consumer’s wages, without being entitled to do so are in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).  Until a creditor has obtained a judgment against a debtor, the collection agency should not be making threats of garnishment.

In regards to loans issued by or guaranteed by a federal agency, the owner of the educational loan can proceed through an administrative system. The Department of Education obtains Administrative Wage Garnishments (AWG) as a last resort tool.

The Department of Education must send the borrower a notice thirty days prior to ordering wage garnishment. The notice must explain the Department of Education’s intention to garnish; the nature and amount of the debt; that the borrower has the opportunity to inspect and copy records relating to the debt; that the borrower may object to the garnishment to collect the debt; and describe garnishment by voluntary repayment.  The notice must also inform the borrower that the borrower may request a hearing to present evidence and request a ruling on any objection by the borrower to the existence, amount, or enforceability of the debt.

Borrowers who receive a notice of the Department of Education’s intent to garnish wages, still have the opportunity to enter into a written repayment agreement with the Department.

Consumers also have the opportunity to have a hearing to present that garnishment of their disposable income would produce and extreme financial hardship.

The consumer has the right to have the garnishment action withheld by filing a timely request for a hearing, until the hearing is completed and a decision issued.

Employers are prohibited from discharging debtors, refusing to employ them, or subjecting them to disciplinary action due to the garnishment.  Debtors also have the right to ask the Department of Education to provide the employer no more information than is necessary for the employer to comply with the withholding order.

If a debt collection agency is harassing you in an attempt to collect a student loan, you are welcome to contact California Consumer Protection Attorney, Todd M. Friedman at 877-449-8898 for a free consultation.

Quick Navigation

Free Consultation

Undisclosed
Settlement

TCPA class action against the Los Angeles Times. Final approval granted 2014.

More Details
$750,000
Settlement

Common fund class-wide TCPA settlement against home healthcare provider. Final approval granted.

More Details
$27.6M
Settlement

TCPA class action certified on behalf of approximately 2,000,000 class members under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3). Subsequently settled on a Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) basis. Final approval granted.

More Details
$5.2M
Settlement

/

Unruh Act class action on behalf of approximately 240,000 consumers challenging Tinder’s age-based differential pricing for its subscription service. Final approval granted; subsequently went up on appeal.

More Details
$390,000
Settlement

TCPA class action alleging HD Supply sent unauthorized marketing text messages to consumers’ mobile phones without consent between October 21, 2011 and July 26, 2017. Presided over by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Case terminated January 29, 2018.

More Details
$1,500,000
Settlement

/

TCPA class action against a Kansas-based payday lender alleged to have contacted consumers via prerecorded calls on their cell phones to collect alleged debts without consent. California federal judge granted final approval.

More Details
$6,500,000
Settlement

/

Cal. Penal Code § 632.7 class action certified by contested motion under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of over 40,000 class members whose calls were recorded without their knowledge or consent. Final approval granted.

More Details
$13,000,000
Settlement

/

$13 Million Class action alleging HSBC recorded consumer telephone calls without knowledge or consent in violation of California’s Privacy Statute (Penal Code § 632.7). California Federal Judge granted final approval.

More Details
$34,000,000
Settlement

/

One of the largest TCPA class action settlements in U.S. history at time of approval. Alleged Chase used an automatic telephone dialing system to contact consumers on their cell phones without prior express consent from July 2008 through December 2013. Settlement class included over 32 million members. Final approval granted March 2016.

More Details
$150,000,000
Settlement

/

Class action on behalf of over 100,000 owners of GM vehicles equipped with allegedly defective LG-manufactured batteries posing fire and safety risks. Litigation commenced December 2020. U.S. District Judge Terrence G. Berg indicated preliminary approval of the $150 million settlement.

More Details
$100,000,000
Settlement

/ /

Landmark gig-economy class action. DoorDash drivers in California and Massachusetts alleged they were wrongly classified as independent contractors rather than employees. Firm served as class counsel. Final approval granted January 13, 2022 — the largest gig-economy worker class settlement in U.S. history at the time.

More Details

Office Locations

Copyright 2025 Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. All Rights Reserved.