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

What debt collectors legally cannot say to you

Table Of Contents
Summarize with
ChatGPT Claude Gemini Perplexity Grok
We have spoken before in this blog about the limits state and federal law put on the tactics debt collection agencies may use when trying to get money out of a person who allegedly owes a bill. For instance, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act forbids phone calls to alleged debtors before 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. In extreme cases, debt collectors will prey on frightened people by making false claims about what will happen to them if they do not pay up. Today’s blog post is about knowing what debt collectors are not allowed to say to you, as shared by the Federal Trade Commission. First of all, an unpaid debt cannot land you in jail, except possibly for child support. If a debt collector calls you and claims to be a police officer, or that the agency will have you arrested, know that he or she is lying. Debt collectors also cannot give a false name for their company. They cannot threaten to seize, garnish, attach or sell your property or wages, unless they actually intend to do so, and the action they threaten is allowed by law. Exaggerating the amount the debtor owes is also illegal. So is giving false credit information about you to a credit reporting company or anyone else, no matter what they say. And, of course, debt collectors may not harass you or use abusive language, whether talking to the debtor or any third parties. Third parties may be contacted, but generally only to obtain information about getting in touch with you, and usually only once. For more information about protecting yourself against unscrupulous debt collectors, talk to an attorney. If an agency is doing it to you, there is a good chance it is doing it to others, so legal action may be needed to stop it.

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.