CFPB Advisory Opinion — Pay-to-Pay ("Convenience") Fees

Authority

CFPB advisory opinion (a type of interpretive rule) issued June 29, 2022, published 87 FR 39733 (July 5, 2022), docket CFPB-2022-0001, interpreting FDCPA section 808(1), 15 U.S.C. 1692f(1), and Regulation F, 12 CFR 1006.22(b). Enforced by the CFPB (and FDCPA private right of action).

⚠️ WITHDRAWN. The CFPB withdrew this advisory opinion effective May 12, 2025 as part of a mass withdrawal of guidance, "Interpretive Rules, Policy Statements, and Advisory Opinions; Withdrawal," 90 FR 20084 (May 12, 2025). See "Current status" below — the underlying statute and regulation remain in force; only the Bureau's interpretive gloss was withdrawn.

Operative text

What the advisory opinion affirmed (SUMMARY):

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issues this advisory opinion to affirm that this provision prohibits debt collectors from collecting pay-to-pay or "convenience" fees, such as fees imposed for making a payment online or by phone, when those fees are not expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or expressly authorized by law. — 87 FR 39733 (Summary)

Pay-to-pay fees are an "amount" under the statute:

pay-to-pay fees charged to consumers for accepting a consumer's payment on a debt through a particular payment channel are an "amount" within the meaning of FDCPA section 808(1) — 87 FR 39733, Legal Analysis § 1

"Permitted by law" requires affirmative authorization — silence is not permission:

Use of the word "permit," rather than "allow," therefore suggests that affirmative authorization, rather than a mere lack of a prohibition, is required. — 87 FR 39733, Legal Analysis § 2

Under the CFPB's interpretation, an amount is impermissible if both the agreement creating the debt and other law are silent. — 87 FR 39735, Legal Analysis § 2

The Bureau rejected the "separate agreement" reading (a fee agreement made at the time of payment does not count as "the agreement creating the debt"):

Although some courts have adopted this "separate agreement" interpretation to permit debt collectors to collect, for example, certain pay-to-pay fees, the CFPB declines to do so. — 87 FR 39733, Legal Analysis

Payment processors do not launder the fee:

Debt collectors may violate FDCPA section 808(1) and Regulation F, 12 CFR 1006.22(b), when using payment processors who charge consumers pay-to-pay fees. For instance, a debt collector collects an amount under section 808(1) at a minimum when a third-party payment processor collects a pay-to-pay fee from a consumer and remits to the debt collector any amount in connection with that fee, whether in installments or in a lump sum. — 87 FR 39733, Payment Processors

Legal status of the instrument:

An advisory opinion is a type of interpretive rule. As an interpretive rule, this advisory opinion is exempt from the notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. — 87 FR 39733, Regulatory Matters

Current status (checked 2026-07-03)

Withdrawn. The advisory opinion is listed by exact name and citation among the withdrawn items in 90 FR 20084:

Debt Collection Practices (Regulation F); Pay-to-Pay Fees, 87 FR 39733 (July 5, 2022) — 90 FR 20084 (May 12, 2025), § III (list of withdrawn guidance)

Operative withdrawal language and caveats from the withdrawal document:

the Bureau is hereby withdrawing all of the guidance materials set forth in section III below. — 90 FR 20084

Such withdrawal is not necessarily final. The Bureau intends to continue reviewing all guidance documents to determine whether they should ultimately be retained. — 90 FR 20084

The Bureau also stated it does "not intend to prioritize the enforcement of such guidance against parties that do not conform to the guidance during the pendency of any withdrawal" (90 FR 20084).

No reinstatement found. A Federal Register sweep of CFPB documents mentioning "advisory opinion" published after May 13, 2025 (checked 2026-07-03) shows no re-issuance or reinstatement of this opinion. Note a discrepancy: as of 2026-07-03 the CFPB's own page for this advisory opinion (consumerfinance.gov/rules-policy/final-rules/advisory-opinion-on-debt-collectors-collection-of-pay-to-pay-fees/) carries no withdrawal banner, and the Advisory Opinion Program page no longer lists any debt-collection opinions. The Federal Register withdrawal is the controlling record.

Plain English

(Interpretation — the quotes above win on any conflict.)

• The AO said: a collector may charge a convenience fee (pay online / pay by phone) ONLY if (a) the original credit agreement expressly authorizes that fee, or (b) some law affirmatively says the fee may be charged. A legal vacuum — no law either way — meant NO fee.
• Routing the fee through a third-party payment processor didn't help: if any part of the fee flowed back to the collector, the CFPB treated the collector as having "collected" it.
• As of May 12, 2025 that interpretation is withdrawn. But the statute itself did not change: 15 U.S.C. 1692f(1) still prohibits collecting any amount not "expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law," and consumers can still sue privately under it. Courts remain split on the "separate agreement" and "silence" questions, and some circuits had already adopted readings similar to the AO's before it existed. Withdrawal of the AO lowers CFPB-enforcement risk, not litigation risk.
• State law layers on top: several states affirmatively prohibit or cap collection convenience fees regardless of the federal interpretive posture.

Traps / edge cases

• Withdrawn ≠ safe. The AO was interpretive, not legislative — it never created the prohibition, § 1692f(1) does. Private FDCPA plaintiffs and state AGs can and do bring pay-to-pay claims on the same theory without the AO.
• "Not necessarily final." The withdrawal document itself says the Bureau may re-adopt withdrawn guidance after review. Treat this as unstable ground; re-check before building fee features.
• Processor pass-through. Under the AO's theory, the trigger was the collector receiving "any amount in connection with that fee" — including soft-dollar arrangements. A truly independent processor fee with zero remittance to the collector was the closest thing to a safe harbor, and even that was "at a minimum" language (floor, not ceiling).
• Consumer vs. commercial. The FDCPA (and thus this entire analysis) applies to consumer debts only. Commercial (B2B) claims are outside § 1692f(1), though state law and the client contract still govern.

Related

• ../fdcpa/unfair-practices.md — § 1692f(1) statutory text (the surviving prohibition)
• ../reg-f/call-frequency.md
• ../reg-f/limited-content-message.md
• ../reg-f/electronic-communications.md
• ./overview.md — status of all CFPB debt-collection guidance (withdrawals tracked there)
• ./debt-collection-faqs.md