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

Debt collector sued for FDCPA violations after allegedly pretending to be an attorney

Table Of Contents
Summarize with
ChatGPT Claude Gemini Perplexity Grok

Debt Collection agency, National Credit Audit Corporation was accused of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practice Act (FDCPA) after one of its debt collectors allegedly misrepresented herself as an attorney to a debtor’s husband in an effort to intimidate them into paying an alleged debt.   After the call the debtor’s husband contacted National Credit Audit Corp’s main line and was told by the operator that the debt collector who called him was  NOT a lawyer.  The lawsuit further claims that National Credit Audit Corp. falsely threatened to file a lawsuit to attempt to collect a $ 2,118 balance.   The calls from National Credit Audit became so repetitive and harassing that the couple eventually had to change their phone number because of the collection agency’s frequent phone calls.

The complaint also alleged that, after the consumer asked the debt collector to stop calling him at work, the collector told him that if he did not call her back that afternoon, she would continue to call him at this job.

If the allegations above are correct than Credit Audit Corp made several FDCPA violations in this case.  Below are a list FDCPA violations to look out for if you are receiving calls from debt collectors.


  1. Calling  before 8:00am or after 9:00pm

  2. Calling you at work more than once or after you have told them to stop calling you at work.

  3. Calling third-parties (friends, neighbors, relatives) more than once in an attempt to locate you.

  4. Informing third-parties (your spouse is an exception) that the debt collector is attempting to collect a debt from you.

  5. Contact you after you have sent a certified letter to the debt collector instructing them not to contact you.

  6. Attempting to collect a debt that you do not owe.

  7. Lying or using other deceptive methods when attempting to collect a debt.

  8. Leave a message on an answering machine without saying that the collector is trying to collect a debt. The collector must leave his name and his company. (This is a double-edged sword because they are opening themselves up to another FDCPA violation by possibly disclosing to a third-party, who overhears the message,  that you owe a debt when they leave a voicemail.)

  9. Threatening you with arrest or going to jail.

  10. Threatening to sue the consumer when they have no intention of doing so. (If several months or years pass after the threat and the debt collector has not attempted to serve you than they are in violation.

  11. Use profanity or other abusive language.

  12. Shout, scream, or get angry with you.

  13. Give the impression that the caller or his company has some connection with the government, the courts, the police, other law enforcement, etc.

  14. Attempt to collect the incorrect debt amount

  15. Call you repeatedly. One call a week is acceptable, but multiple calls in a week could be considered harassment by the court.

  16. Attempt to contact you after the debt collector knows you have hired consumer protection attorney.

  17. Threaten to use violence if you fail to pay the debt.


If you are receiving harassing calls from debt collectors falsely claiming to be attorneys or violating the FDCPA in other ways, document it and call my office, The Law Offices of 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.