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

Enforcing your right against debt collector harassment

Table Of Contents
Summarize with
ChatGPT Claude Gemini Perplexity Grok

Filing for bankruptcy is one way to stop harassing phone calls and letters from debt collectors, but it is not the only solution. Bankruptcy is not a good fit for everybody with debt problems. Perhaps your debts are not large enough to justify going through bankruptcy, or you would rather try to other options to try to protect your credit rating.

But in the short term, stopping the harassment is very important. Though there are laws restricting what debt collection agencies can do, many collectors ignore the law and use abusive tactics to try to frighten or wear out their victims. Sometimes, they even go after people who do not owe as much as the debt collector claims, if they owe anything at all.

We have discussed the Fair Debt Collection Practice Act in this blog before. As a reminder, this is a federal law that protects consumers from unfair harassment. Among the tricks that are illegal under the Act are:

  • Calling before 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m.
  • Calling repeatedly or continuously.
  • Making threats about wage garnishment, arrest, etc.
  • Calling at work after the debtor asked them not to.
  • Calling the debtor’s neighbors or publishing his or her name or address, embarrassing him or her.

You can ask the debt collectors nicely to stop violating your rights, but many times that will not work. Instead, with the help of an attorney, you can sue to enforce the Act. A successful lawsuit can lead to damages of $1,000, plus force the debt collector to pay your attorneys fees.

It may not even come to that. Often, just receiving a letter from an attorney explaining that a client knows his or her rights will be enough to get a debt collection agency to stop with the harassment.

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.