Harassment or abuse — §1692d

Authority

15 U.S.C. §1692d (FDCPA §806): general ban on harassing/oppressive/abusive conduct plus six per-se examples. §1692d(5) (repeated calls) is the statutory root of Reg F's 7-in-7 call-frequency presumptions (12 CFR 1006.14(b)).

Operative text

A debt collector may not engage in any conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person in connection with the collection of a debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section:

(1) The use or threat of use of violence or other criminal means to harm the physical person, reputation, or property of any person.

(2) The use of obscene or profane language or language the natural consequence of which is to abuse the hearer or reader.

(3) The publication of a list of consumers who allegedly refuse to pay debts, except to a consumer reporting agency or to persons meeting the requirements of section 1681a(f) or 1681b(3) of this title.

(4) The advertisement for sale of any debt to coerce payment of the debt.

(5) Causing a telephone to ring or engaging any person in telephone conversation repeatedly or continuously with intent to annoy, abuse, or harass any person at the called number.

(6) Except as provided in section 1692b of this title, the placement of telephone calls without meaningful disclosure of the caller's identity. — 15 U.S.C. §1692d(1)–(6)

(Editorial note in the Code: the §1681b(3) reference in (3) was redesignated §1681b(a)(3) by Pub. L. 104-208 (1996).)

Plain English

Interpretation — the quotes above win on any conflict.

• The lead sentence is an independent, open-ended standard — conduct can violate §1692d without matching any numbered example. It protects any person (not just the consumer), and looks at the natural consequence of the conduct, not the collector's subjective intent (except (5), which has an intent element).
• (5) Repeated calls: ringing a phone or engaging someone in conversation "repeatedly or continuously with intent to annoy, abuse, or harass." The statute sets no numeric threshold — intent is usually inferred from volume, pattern (back-to-back calls, calls after a hang-up, calls after a request to stop), and context. Reg F layers the bright-line rebuttable presumption (more than 7 calls in 7 days to a person about a particular debt, or a call within 7 days after a telephone conversation — see ../reg-f/call-frequency.md).
• (6) Meaningful disclosure of identity: every collection call must meaningfully identify the caller — generally the individual's name and the company. Location-information calls under §1692b are the express exception (there, the employer's name is given only on express request).
• (1)–(4): no violence/criminal threats, no obscene or abusive language, no "deadbeat lists" (credit-bureau reporting is the carve-out), no advertising a debt for sale to coerce payment.

Traps / edge cases

• (5) counts calls to "any person at the called number" — wrong-number and third-party numbers are protected too; keep dialing a number after learning it's not the consumer and the intent inference builds.
• Rings count — "causing a telephone to ring" means unanswered attempts matter, not just conversations.
• Volume alone rarely decides it: courts weigh pattern + conduct. But volume within Reg F's 7/7 safe-harbor territory doesn't immunize conduct that otherwise shows intent to harass — and the two regimes are independent.
• (6) and caller ID / spoofed or blocked numbers: courts have found blocked or misleading caller ID plus no voicemail identification can violate (6) (and §1692e(14) if an alias company name is used). Agent aliases: many courts tolerate consistent desk names IF the employer tracks them; undisclosed employer name in a collection call (as opposed to a §1692b call) violates (6).
• Voicemails: leaving no message repeatedly feeds (5); leaving a message without identity feeds (6); leaving identity + debt context on a shared voicemail can breach §1692c(b). This trap triangle is why Reg F created the limited-content message (12 CFR 1006.2(j)).

Related

• Siblings: overview.md, communications.md, location-information.md (the (6) exception), false-misleading.md (e(11)/e(14) identity overlaps), unfair-practices.md
• Reg F: ../reg-f/call-frequency.md (7-in-7), ../reg-f/communications-opt-outs.md
• States: ../../state/ca.md, ../../state/ny.md, ../../state/tx.md, ../../state/fl.md, ../../state/ma.md (MA has its own call-count regulation)