The Docket · Notes
Federal rules only. Every rule below quoted from the statute or regulation it comes from and verified against that text on August 7, 2026.
Not by itself, no — there is no federal rule that says "one call a day." The federal limit that exists is weekly, it is countable, and most people have never been told the number. It is seven.
Two documents do the work here. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692–1692p, is the federal rulebook for third-party debt collectors. Regulation F, 12 C.F.R. part 1006, was issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and took effect in late 2021; its job is to put specific numbers where the FDCPA left adjectives.
The number lives at 12 C.F.R. § 1006.14(b)(2)(i). It creates a presumption of violation if a collector, in connection with the collection of a particular debt:
That is the whole of the "7-in-7" rule. It is the single most useful countable number in the entire framework, because it converts a vague feeling — they are calling constantly — into a figure you can write in a log and hand to a regulator.
Voicemail is not a loophole, but it is not counted identically either. Regulation F counts calls placed; § 1006.14(b)(4) carves certain limited-content voicemails out of the frequency count. A voicemail carries a second constraint regardless of the count: under 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(b) a collector may not disclose your debt to third parties, which is why compliant messages are so sparse — a message anyone else in the house can hear is a disclosure risk for the collector.
The frequency presumption sits inside a broader prohibition. 15 U.S.C. § 1692d forbids conduct whose natural consequence is to harass, oppress, or abuse, and names examples: threats of violence, obscene or abusive language, publishing lists of consumers who allegedly refuse to pay, and calling repeatedly with intent to annoy, abuse, or harass. Note the last one has no number attached — behaviour well under seven calls can still violate § 1692d.
Two neighbouring sections carry most of the remaining weight. § 1692e forbids false or misleading representations: falsely implying the collector is an attorney or government-affiliated, misstating the amount or legal status of the debt, threatening arrest, or threatening action it cannot legally take or does not actually intend to take. § 1692f bars unfair practices, including collecting any interest, fee or charge not authorized by the underlying agreement or permitted by law.
Nothing in the statute makes calls expire. What the statute gives you is an off switch and a curfew.
| Limit | What it says | Citation |
|---|---|---|
| Call frequency | Presumed violation above seven calls in seven consecutive days about one debt, or a call within seven days of a conversation about that debt | 12 C.F.R. § 1006.14(b)(2)(i) · verified 2026-08-07 |
| Time of day | May not communicate at a time it knows or should know is inconvenient; before 8:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m. in your local time is treated as presumptively inconvenient | 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(a)(1) · verified 2026-08-07 |
| At your workplace | Barred if the collector knows or has reason to know your employer prohibits such contact | 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(a)(3) · verified 2026-08-07 |
| Once you have a lawyer | Must deal with your attorney once it knows you are represented on that debt and can reach them | 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(a)(2) · verified 2026-08-07 |
| Talking to other people | May contact others only to locate you, must not state that you owe a debt, and generally may not contact the same person more than once | 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692b, 1692c(b) · verified 2026-08-07 |
| Texts and emails | Inconvenient-time rules extend to electronic messages, and electronic communications must carry a clear, conspicuous way to opt out | 12 C.F.R. §§ 1006.6(b), 1006.6(e) · verified 2026-08-07 |
| Stopping contact entirely | Written notice that you refuse to pay or want contact stopped requires the collector to stop, except to say collection is ending or to state it may or will invoke a specific remedy | 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(c) · verified 2026-08-07 |
Understand the trade-off in that last row before using it. Stopping contact does not cancel the debt and does not stop a lawsuit — it can mean the next thing you hear is a court summons rather than a phone call. Disputing in writing while keeping the channel open is often the stronger position.
Only until you say otherwise, and then no. § 1692c(a)(3) turns on what the collector "knows or has reason to know" about your employer's policy — which is precisely why the fix is a sentence in writing: Do not contact me by telephone at my place of employment. Once that letter is sent and you have proof of mailing, further workplace calls are being made with knowledge.
Calls to relatives and neighbours are governed separately. Under § 1692b a collector contacting a third party may do so only to obtain location information about you, must not state that you owe a debt, and generally may not contact the same person more than once.
15 U.S.C. § 1692k creates a private right of action: actual damages, plus additional statutory damages a court may award up to a set cap per action, plus costs and reasonable attorney's fees for a successful claim. That fee-shifting clause is the reason consumer attorneys frequently take these cases with no money up front.
The clock is short. § 1692k(d) sets a one-year limit, and in Rotkiske v. Klemm, 589 U.S. 8 (2019), the Supreme Court held that the year runs from the date the violation occurs — not from when you discovered it. The Court expressly did not resolve whether an equitable, fraud-specific exception exists.
Because the count is what makes a frequency claim provable, the log is the case: dates and times of every call, the number that called, the name of each caller, every voicemail, and every text or email kept in full rather than screenshotted.
Whether the FDCPA covers the specific outfit calling you is a genuine legal question, not an obvious one. The Act mostly regulates third-party collectors under the definition at 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6); a bank collecting its own loan in its own name generally falls outside it. In Henson v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., 582 U.S. 79 (2017), the Supreme Court held that a company collecting debts it purchased for its own account is not, by that fact alone, a "debt collector" under the clause at issue — though many such companies remain covered under the statute's other clause, and many states regulate them regardless.
This page also does not give you your state's statute of limitations, which varies by state and by type of debt, and which in many states can restart if you make a payment or acknowledge the debt. Check your state, and check it before you pay anything on an old account.
The full federal framework — every prohibition, both written moves, and the sample language — is in The Debt Collector Rulebook from The Docket, with every rule cited to the statute or regulation it comes from.
Start free with Know Your Rights: Airline Refunds and Subscription Cancellation — each claim sourced to the rule it comes from. Non-partisan, primary-source verified, and news and education, not legal advice.