Author: Katie Neill

Beyond the Word “STOP”: Why Businesses Need to Expand How Consumers Can Opt-Out of Communications

By on April 2nd, 2025 in Compliance, Customer Experience, Industry Insights, Machine Learning, Product and Technology, User Experience

In today’s digital communication landscape, businesses—especially those that use digital outreach to engage delinquent consumers to collect debts—are facing increasing pressure to ensure they respect consumers opting out of communications from a particular channel.

While the word “STOP” has been a widely recognized method for consumers to unsubscribe from text messages, the reality is that consumers may express their desire to opt out in various ways. And with the advent of accepting MMS (Multimedia Messaging Service) replies that allow for multimedia content like images, videos, and audio, along with longer text messages, consumers are bound to get creative.

On top of consumer preferences, new and upcoming regulations from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) are making it crucial for businesses to go beyond just the word “STOP” and ensure they have a comprehensive system in place to honor opt-out requests promptly and accurately.

Keeping Up with the Evolving Regulatory Landscape

The FCC is currently revising its rules as part of efforts to reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens, particularly those that affect automated communications like debt collection calls and texts—a shift in policy could influence how businesses, especially those in debt collection, approach consumer opt-out requests.
Two FCC orders in particular have direct consequences for companies that rely on automated communications, including debt collectors:

1. The 2024 FCC Order:

  • Consumers can revoke consent for robocalls or robotexts in “any reasonable manner,” making it vital for businesses to broaden their opt-out options beyond a single keyword like “STOP.”
  • The revocation applies not only to the channel through which the request was made but also to any other forms of communication at that phone number.
  • Businesses must process these requests promptly, no later than 10 business days.

2. The 2025 FCC Order:

  • This order strengthens rules regarding call blocking, which may affect legitimate debt collection communications. It mandates that service providers block calls they deem “highly likely to be illegal,” based on their internal Do Not Originate (DNO) lists.
  • The risk is that legitimate calls could get mistakenly blocked, disrupting lawful debt collection efforts.

Going Beyond “STOP”: Why It’s Essential for Businesses

As these new FCC orders take effect, why else do businesses need to expand their opt-out processes? Let’s start by looking at existing regulations and requirements along with other factors that can impact an organization’s ability to engage consumers, collect debt, and ultimately their bottom line.

  • Compliance and Legal Risk: By honoring only “STOP,” companies may miss other legitimate opt-out expressions, risking violations of regulations like the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) or the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Failure to comply can lead to legal consequences and damage to a business’s reputation.
  • Efficiency: In industries like debt collection, where high volumes of communication are involved, a flexible, automated opt-out process can ensure that no consumer request is overlooked. Implementing technology to track and process these requests quickly is key to maintaining a streamlined, efficient operation.
  • Technology and Innovation: The digital age demands businesses use advanced technology to manage consumer interactions effectively. Automating the opt-out process ensures that all channels are updated in real time, avoiding mistakes and minimizing delays.
  • Consumer Trust: Consumers are more likely to engage with a company that respects their preferences and responds to opt-out requests quickly. Offering various opt-out methods and honoring them promptly can significantly improve customer experience.

TrueAccord Leads the Way in Opt-Out Efficacy and Efficiency with RPA Bots

At TrueAccord, we understand that consumer opt-out preferences must be managed with the utmost care. Using Robotic Process Automation (RPA) and artificial intelligence to automate back-office operations helps ensure compliance, improved customer experience, and a more cost-effective way to engage and collect.

  • Automated Opt-Out Recognition: While many companies recognize the word “STOP” as an opt-out request, TrueAccord’s system goes further. We use AI tools to scan incoming messages for not just “STOP,” but also for variations like “revoke,” “quit,” “cancel,” and even unusual or colorful expressions of dissatisfaction. If a message contains any of these keywords, the bot automatically processes the opt-out request by unsubscribing the consumer from the SMS channel.
  • Real-Time Compliance: Our system, powered by HeartBeat—TrueAccord’s patented machine learning engine—ensures that consumer preferences are respected. If a consumer opts out of one communication channel, we ensure that all future communications to that particular channel are paused, preventing any further contact that could lead to complaints or violations.
  • RPA Efficiency: Thanks to our RPA bots, tasks that once took hours or even days for human employees to manage are now completed in a matter of minutes. For example, our bots can process large volumes of responses, automatically unsubscribing consumers or flagging accounts for further review, reducing the time needed to comply with opt-out requests and ensuring that no request goes unnoticed.
  • Advanced Reporting and Monitoring: We don’t just automate the opt-out process—we also track and report on all consumer interactions. This allows us to maintain a detailed audit trail for compliance purposes, ensuring that all opt-out requests are processed promptly and accurately.

TrueAccord is committed to staying ahead of regulatory changes and technological advancements. As the FCC’s rules continue to evolve, we are constantly refining our processes to ensure we are not only compliant but also providing an exceptional consumer experience.

What Does This Fish Mean to You? Navigating Opt-Outs Through MMS

When it comes to consumers opting out of receiving TrueAccord communications through MMS, consumers can truly get creative: photos, memes, emojis, songs, selfies, and more. While text-based responses can be scanned and filtered, MMS is trickier.

For MMS, the reviews need that human set of eyes. Why? Let’s use this actual consumer reply to a text message from TrueAccord that included the standard “STOP to opt-out” language:

What does this fish mean to you? Specifically in the context of debt collection communications with a business, what action do you think the consumer is trying to invoke?

While there are plenty of words and phrases you can program into a filter or scanner, this fish is not as easy to decipher the meaning. Automation takes the burden of basic reviewing off the shoulders of agents and allows bandwidth for examining the more creative responses and handling them appropriately.

So if your debt collection partner is only using a rudimentary scanner for opt-outs, it’s likely that unique opt-out requests are falling through the cracks—and that’s if that partner even has an automated process to manage replies and responses in the first place.

For businesses looking for a debt collection partner, this is a differentiator between choosing TrueAccord versus a competitor—our system is built on code-based compliance which allows us to communicate with consumers at a scale that’s unimaginable from traditional call-and-collect or DIY collection programs. The more traditional operations that do not have these automated processes are also unable to keep up with the variety of replies consumers send to opt-out. Even if they have automation to send out mass volumes of emails or text messages, do they have automation to handle the volume of replies within regulatory timelines? Do they actually offer efficiency and scalability—or are they opening you up new compliance risks around opt-outs?

Opt-In to a More Efficient and Effective Debt Collection and Consumer Communication Process

In the ever-evolving landscape of consumer protection and compliance, businesses must be proactive in managing opt-out requests. It’s no longer enough to rely on a single keyword like “STOP.” As consumer expectations and regulatory requirements evolve, so too must the tools and technologies used to manage opt-outs. TrueAccord’s cutting-edge automation and machine learning technology leads the way in ensuring that consumer preferences are respected, compliance is maintained, and operations remain efficient.

By embracing a more comprehensive, technology-driven approach to managing opt-outs, businesses can build trust with their customers, reduce legal risks, and stay ahead of the regulatory curve.

Ready to opt-in to a more efficient and effective debt collection and consumer communication process? Schedule a consultation today»»

TrueAccord’s Recent Litigation Win: Email Is Always Convenient

By on November 22nd, 2024 in Industry Insights

TrueAccord is at the forefront of defending litigation related to digital communications in debt collection and its recent victory in the Southern District of Florida is a resounding victory for digital channels in our industry.

In Quinn-Davis v. TrueAccord, the court grappled with the concept of timing in order to figure out when an email is considered inconvenient under both the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Florida Debt Collection Practices Act (FCCPA). In this case, TrueAccord sent the email at 8:23pm, which is considered a convenient time by both statutes. The plaintiff’s email service provider delivered the email into plaintiff’s inbox at 10:14pm, and the consumer opened the email the following day at 11:44am. The court found no violation of the FDCPA or the FCCPA and granted summary judgment in TrueAccord’s favor.

The FDCPA and FCCPA Prohibitions on Inconvenient Time

To reach its decision, the Court evaluated the inconvenient time provisions of the two statutes. First, the Court analyzed the FDCPA’s provision, breaking it down into three principles:

  1. The basic prohibition: A debt collector may not “communicate with a consumer” in connection with any debt collection at (i) any unusual time or place, or (ii) a time or place known or which should be known to be inconvenient to the consumer. 
  1. The safe harbor: In the absence of the debt collector’s knowledge of circumstances to the contrary, a debt collector shall assume that communicating with a consumer between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. (at the consumer’s location) is convenient (and therefore does not trigger liability). 
  1. The prior consent exemption: If the “prior consent of the consumer” is given “directly to the debt collector,” then the debt collector can engage in the activity described in #1 above, regardless of the debt collector’s knowledge or assumptions of the consumer’s communication preferences. 

–See 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(a)(1).

The Court explained that the FCCPA uses similar language to the FDCPA, quoting the statute:

In collecting consumer debts no person shall: … Communicate with the debtor between the hours of 9 p.m. and 8 a.m. in the debtor’s time zone without the prior consent of the debtor.” Fla. Stat. Ann. § 559.72(17) (emphasis added).

The Court noted that, since this case turned on the interpretation of “communicate with,” it did not have to “parse” the “prior consent” exception language. Applying the facts to these two statutes, the court found no violation of law under either—the first published decision relating to email and inconvenient times.

The Court’s Decision: Email, By Its Silent Nature, Is Never Inconvenient Like Noisy Calls

The decision starts with an eye-catching quote:

“If a tree falls in the forest and no one else is around to hear it, does it make a sound?” This case poses a modern variation of that old chestnut, with a tip-of-the-cap to our elected representatives in Washington, D.C. and Tallahassee…

The court cites its authority under the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision Loper-Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo to reject the CFPB’s interpretation of when an email is considered inconvenient in Regulation F, discussed further below. In its own interpretation, the court found that the consumer opened and read the email at 11:44am, which is a presumably convenient time under both statutes.

The court explicitly stated that it did not take into consideration facts about whether the timing of the email was inconvenient because no evidence was presented on it. However, the court said:

So, what is a prohibited e-mail communication under the FDCPA? When precisely does liability attach? If a debt collector sends an e-mail after 9:00 p.m. and the consumer opens and reads it at 9:00 a.m. the following day, does that violate the FDCPA? What if the debt collector sends an e-mail before 9:00 p.m. but the consumer reads it at midnight? Liable? Clearly, the FDCPA’s safe harbor was aimed at protecting consumers from after-hours noisy telephone rings—not e-mails sitting in one’s e-mail box (silently) overnight. (Emphasis added.)

By this language, the Court suggests that even an email sent after 9:00pm may not be a violation of the inconvenient time prohibition. In this case, the plaintiff opened the email over 13 hours after it was delivered into their inbox, indicating the consumer waited to read it until it was convenient for them.

Ultimately, an email is convenient whenever the consumer opens it because that is when they chose to do so. TrueAccord knows this to be true based on our email communications with millions of consumers. Our own engagement data shows that 25% of consumers engage with emails after 9:00 pm and before 8:00 am. The timing between when an email is sent, delivered, and opened, similar to physical letters, may vary widely from consumer to consumer based on their own choices.

The Court Refused to Follow the CFPB’s Interpretation of the FDCPA

It is important to recognize that in reaching this decision, the Court declined to follow the CFPB’s guidance. In Regulation F, the CFPB spelled out its official interpretation that the time an email is sent, not delivered, is used to determine whether the communication was sent during an inconvenient time. See 12 C.F.R. Part 1006.6(b)(1)(i)(1).

Citing both the Supreme Court Loper decision (and the original, landmark Supreme Court decision in Marbury), the Court stated:

While the CFPB interpretation may have some appeal (on policy grounds), I am neither bound by it nor required to defer to it. See generally Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 144 S. Ct. 2244 (2024) (overruling Chevron USA, Inc. v. Nat’l Res. Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984)). “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Loper, 144 S.Ct. at 2257 (citing Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803)).

Based on the plain language of the FDCPA, the Court independently concluded that a debt collector must “actually transmit or transfer information to another person in order to communicate with a consumer.” Notably, in reaching this conclusion, the Court pointed out what all of us already know because we use email every day, stating:

You don’t need to be a Ph.D. in computer science to take judicial notice of the basic nature of e-mail communication. Hundreds of millions of Americans use e-mail all the time.

This decision does not require debt collectors who set up their email policies and practices based on the CFPB’s Regulation F guidance to change their practices. As the Court noted, sending proactive, debt collection emails during the presumptively convenient hours of 8:00am to 9:00pm may be “more protective of consumers in many cases.” Just like sending physical letters, the time when a consumer chooses to read the email is outside of a debt collector’s control and fully within the control of the consumer. If the consumer chooses to read it late at night or 2 days later at noon, that is the consumer’s choice and their preferred time to read that message. Therefore, it remains a best practice for compliance with the plain language of the FDCPA and similar state laws like the FCCPA, to send proactive, debt collection emails during presumptively convenient times.

—
Note: This blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It does not create an attorney-client relationship. Readers should consult their own counsel for advice regarding their specific situation.

An email is less intrusive than a phone call, finds N.D. Illinois while granting TrueAccord’s motion to dismiss

By on April 12th, 2023 in Company News, Compliance, Customer Experience, Industry Insights, User Experience

By Katie Neill & Steve Zahn

A court victory by TrueAccord Corp. (TrueAccord) in the Northern District of Illinois continues to showcase the benefits of digital collection as the court found receiving an email about a debt is less intrusive to consumers than receiving a phone call. Messer Strickler Burnette represented TrueAccord and filed the briefing in the case.

In the Branham v. TrueAccord opinion, the court granted TrueAccord’s motion to dismiss finding that the alleged injuries claimed by the plaintiff—undue stress and anxiety, financial and monetary loss, uncertainty as to how to proceed about the debt, and a harm that “bears a close resemblance” to invasion of privacy—are insufficient to establish standing for a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) claim.

Plaintiff’s Allegations

Plaintiff alleged that TrueAccord violated the FDCPA by contacting her twice by email after having received notice that she was represented by an attorney. TrueAccord had no record of receiving a notice of attorney representation from the plaintiff. However, when deciding on a motion to dismiss like this, the court must rely solely on the facts and allegations in the complaint and consider them as true, whether or not they are.

In the complaint, the plaintiff included a laundry list of alleged injuries suffered as a result of receiving the two emails from TrueAccord. These injuries included:

  • “Actual” financial and monetary loss without any specifics
  • Confusion on how to proceed with TrueAccord’s debt collection attempts due to “misleading statements”
  • Undue stress and anxiety as well as wasted time, annoyance, emotional distress, and informational injuries
  • A harm that “bears close resemblance to” invasion of privacy

Plaintiff Did Not Allege a Concrete, Particularized Injury

In its decision, the court shot down each of these alleged harms and found that the plaintiff failed to properly plead a concrete, particularized injury as the U.S. Supreme Court required in Spokeo, Inc., v. Robins. 

Specifically, the court found:

  1. Unlike telephone calls, two unwanted emails are insufficient to confer standing and wouldn’t be “highly offensive” to the reasonable person.
  2. Alleged physiological harms (e.g., emotional distress, anxiety, and stress) are abstract harms and not concrete enough to support standing without a physical manifestation of such harms.
  3. Vague and conclusory statements that the plaintiff suffered financial harm without any allegations of facts to support that alleged harm are insufficient.
  4. Attorney fees for bringing suit on a matter cannot be the sole basis of standing to bring the matter; to do otherwise would permit any plaintiff without standing to create it by retaining counsel.
  5. “Wasted time” is not a sufficient harm for standing where no facts are alleged to support the claim.
  6. The risk of an invasion of privacy without an actual invasion of privacy is too speculative and not sufficient to confer standing.

Sophisticated Omnichannel Communication Strategies

This decision is another step forward for the use of email in debt collection as the consumer-friendly way. It also showcases the need for mindfulness when implementing an omnichannel communication strategy. Notably, while the court found a couple of emails are less intrusive than a phone call, it also stated that text messages, voicemail, and calls are different as they “are sufficiently intrusive on an individual’s peace and quiet” to support standing. Using a sophisticated omnichannel strategy helps debt collectors reach consumers at times that are right for the consumer and through the right communication channel, which ultimately creates a non-intrusive consumer experience.

Schedule a consultation to learn more about how email and an omnichannel approach can help their business’s collection efforts today»»