Pay close attention to the definitions in the various statutes. For example, New Hampshire's statute, RSA 358-A, has a broader definition of "debt collector" than the federal law, the FDCPA. Definitions are usually in the first couple of sections of a statute but may also be scattered throughout the text.
"It is the purpose of this subchapter to eliminate abusive debt collection practices by debt collectors, to insure that those debt collectors who refrain from using abusive debt collection practices are not competitively disadvantaged, and to promote consistent State action to protect consumers against debt collection abuses."
See RSA 382-A:2-725, Statute of Limitations in Contracts for Sale, RSA 382-A:3-118, Statute of Limitations, and RSA 382-A:9-601-624.
Below are some examples of cases dealing with the federal and state debt collection acts. The links will take you to Google Scholar. To find more cases on the same topics, click on the "How Cited" link.
You can also read these cases in Westlaw using the remote access link (the first link below). You can then use Westlaw's headnotes or citing references to find more cases on debt collection.
"[P]laintiffs’ remaining claims against ECMC are brought under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., and New Hampshire's Unfair, Deceptive, or Unreasonable Collection Practices Act (“UDUCPA”), RSA ch. 358-C. Plaintiffs allege that ECMC violated FDCPA and UDUCPA by adding collection costs to Alia's debt, causing the seizure of their federal income tax refund, and by reporting Alia's account to credit agencies. ECMC argues that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on plaintiffs’ FDCPA claims because, as the loan's guarantor, it is not a “debt collector” as defined *253 by that Act. In addition, ECMC argues that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on plaintiffs’ UDUCPA claims because ECMC, as the loan's guarantor, was required by federal law to take the actions plaintiffs complain of; therefore, ECMC argues, to the extent that its conduct may be prohibited by a state law such as UDUCPA, the state law is preempted."
"To recover under either the FDCPA or the UDUCPA, the Moores must show that: “(1) they have been the object of collection activity arising from a consumer debt; (2) the defendant attempting to collect the debt qualifies as a ‘debt collector’ under the Act; and (3) the defendant has engaged in a prohibited act or has failed to perform a requirement imposed by the [Act].”"
"For example, debt collectors may not use or threaten violence, or make repetitive annoying phone calls. § 1692d. Nor can debt collectors make false, deceptive, or misleading representations in connection with a debt, like misstating a debt's “character, amount, or legal status.” § 1692e. And, as we have mentioned, if a consumer disputes the amount of a debt, a debt collector must “cease collection” until it “obtains verification of the debt” and mails a copy to the debtor. § 1692g(b)."
