Category: Compliance

Do States Replace the CFPB? An Analysis in the Shifting Regulatory Authority in Consumer Finance

By on October 10th, 2025 in Compliance
The blog title set in front of a map of the US.

After its creation the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) had a broad mandate covering nearly all consumer financial products. The CFPB wielded expansive rulemaking, supervision and enforcement powers. As noted in their Fiscal Year 2024 Financial Report, in 2024 alone, the CFPB conducted 26 public enforcement actions through settlement, litigation or default judgment. With the administration change, the CFPB has entered a deregulatory phase. 

The new priorities represent a sharp contraction of their mission. In a memo to staff, the Bureau announced it will cut exams by half, refocus on the biggest banks, and pursue a narrower set of enforcement cases centered on clear, measurable fraud. They’ve taken a drastic step back, cutting staff, retracting years of guidance, and focusing on enforcement and some rulemaking. 

The philosophical core of this shift is a policy the CFPB calls “respect for federalism.” This is an explicit directive to avoid duplicative work and let states take the lead. The internal memo to staff confirmed this is a strategic decision to shift resources away from tasks states can handle. We even see this logic in the Bureau’s justification to rescind 67 pieces of guidance, some that had provided clarity to the industry, in part due to the existing authority of state regulators. This shows a clear, deliberate handoff of regulatory responsibility.  

It’s a mistake to view this as simple deregulation. In our dual-sovereignty system, a federal vacuum doesn’t lead to a void. It leads to a flurry of state-level activity. For a national company, this means replacing one predictable federal regulator with 50 unpredictable state ones.

And, not surprisingly, as a result, the states are picking up the baton and stepping up to fill the regulatory gaps. States are expanding their oversight and passing new legislation that is reshaping the compliance landscape for consumer finance and the debt collection industry. This has left many people asking the question, are states going to replace the CFPB? We’re here to help you find the answer. 

How State Enforcement Works for Consumer Finance and the Debt Collection Industry

The states have the legal authority, institution structures and legislative will to fill the CFPB void. As states are taking over the reins as the main enforcement authority, their actions mainly take place at two different levels: 

  • State Attorney Generals: They are the chief legal officers of their respective states and primary consumer protection enforcers. They wield broad authority on state Unfair Deceptive Abusive Acts and Practices statutes. They can investigate, subpoena, and sue for penalties and restitution.
  • State Financial Regulators: These are state-run agencies that oversee specific sectors of the financial industry. These agencies are usually responsible for licensing and supervising a wide range of non-bank entities, including mortgage lenders, debt collectors, and money transmitters. Some states are even hiring former CFPB employees to help get their regulations positioned to be more effective. New York, Pennsylvania and Maryland have actively recruited ex-federal workers to bolster their consumer protection efforts. 

It’s also important to know that state agencies don’t operate in a silo. Many of them coordinate their efforts through interagency bodies such as the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS). By paying attention to these interagency bodies, businesses can get a better sense of debt collection compliance trends to account for in their operations. 

What Are States Doing in This Enforcement Role?

Since the federal supervision activities are receding, states are taking the reins through their powers of supervision, enforcement and rulemaking. There has been a big surge in state-level legislative activity specifically aimed at areas where federal action has been slow. States are not just enforcing; they are actively writing the rules for the future: 

  • The Bank Partnership Model (True Lending): One area that states are cracking down on is the “rent-a-bank model”. More states are trying to move forward with closing this banking loophole by forcing companies that use the true lending model to attain the same standard as traditional banks. A main motivation for this is to help protect consumers from deceptive lending and credit practices. 
  • Regulation Around Fintech Products: States are moving faster than the federal government on creating rules around new financial products. As BNPL services continue to grow, New York has introduced new regulations including a new licensing system. Other states like Ohio have created “regulatory sandboxes” to see how new financial products could impact consumers before being rolled out statewide. 
  • Medical Debt: As the CFPB’s medical debt rule was struck down in the courts as an unlawful extension of regulatory authority, several states introduced similar legislation aimed to prevent medical debt credit reporting, to create state-funded debt relief programs, and to expand patient relief programs.  In several states, including California, Illinois, New York, Oregon and Washington the bills passed codifying in law restrictions on credit reporting medical debt.  
  • Artificial Intelligence: In response to federal inaction, states have crafted their own unique legislative solutions to the challenges and opportunities presented by AI.  Regulation of deepfake technology, particularly regarding non-consensual imagery, transparent disclosures when AI systems are used to interact with consumers, and formation of state-level task forces to study AI impacts and make policy recommendations. California, Colorado, Utah, Texas all have AI laws on the books with completely different requirements and definitions.

What Do These Changes Mean for Your Business and the Debt Collection Industry?

The idea that states are replacing the CFPB isn’t entirely accurate. States cannot replicate the CFPB’s most important function: creating a single, predictable set of rules for the entire country. The CFPB created a blanket of uniform rules which many states both formally and informally adopted. Today, the states are not creating a uniform floor but instead a patchwork of different requirements. This patchwork is more dynamic and, for industry, more complicated.  

For any business operating in more than one state, the primary challenge is inconsistency. What is legal in Texas might be illegal in New York. This makes national product rollouts and standardized compliance programs incredibly difficult and expensive. Furthermore, enforcement is not uniform. A handful of states are very active, while many others lack the resources to bring major cases. Finally, state enforcement can be more political, with priorities changing every time a new attorney general is elected.

All of this together means that businesses are going to have to devote more resources into ensuring their collection efforts follow all the rules in the states in which they operate. This means actively tracking legislation, new regulations, and enforcement trends in every state where you do business. This can no longer be an afterthought; it must be a core compliance function. Conduct detailed, state-by-state risk assessments. Don’t assume a product that is compliant in one state is compliant everywhere. Pay extremely close attention to the bellwether states—California, New York, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts. What happens there often doesn’t stay there; it becomes the template for other states to follow.

Following the activities of the state AGs, who are the source of the broad UDAAP actions and novel legal theories, is a must. Along with the specialized financial regulators, who control your licenses and conduct the day-to-day examinations. These are two different sources of risk that require distinct monitoring strategies.

These changes demand a more sophisticated and adaptable compliance management system. Your systems must be flexible enough to handle different disclosure requirements, different collection rules, different UDAAPs interpretations, often on a state-by-state basis. Investing in this adaptability is the key to managing risk in this fragmented landscape.

Small compliance departments face an immense, constantly evolving task and often don’t have the capability to scale their efforts to match the sheer number of new regulations that can emerge. Companies like TrueAccord can help your business leverage digital communications that are compliant at the federal and state levels. 

Compliantly Scaling Your Debt Collection Efforts is Easy with TrueAccord

The regulatory landscape around financial services and debt collection will continue to evolve. While states aren’t a complete replacement for the CFPB, new state-level regulations will continue to be passed and make it more challenging for your business to stay compliant. 

One of the best ways to keep up with this dynamic landscape is to partner with TrueAccord for your debt collection needs. TrueAccord combines dedicated legal experts with code-based compliance to ensure debt collection efforts are by the book. Contact our team today to learn more about how your businesses can compliantly scale your collection efforts.

New York City’s Proposed Digital Communication Regulations Negatively Impact Consumers, Creditors, and Collectors

By on May 22nd, 2025 in Compliance, Customer Experience, Industry Insights
TAC Blog NYC Comment scaled

New York City’s Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP) has been actively revising an amendment to their debt collection rules since November 2022. Multiple rounds of proposed amendments and public hearings have occurred, resulting in several revisions based on stakeholder feedback. In August 2024, DCWP published a notice of adoption of the final version of the amendment, initially effective December 1, 2024. Due to stakeholder confusion, requests for additional time, and a lawsuit filed by ACA International and Independent Recovery Resources, the DCWP extended the effective date to October 1, 2025. On April 10, 2025, the DCWP released additional changes to the amendments aimed to clarify “the applicability of rules to original creditors collecting their own debts, address trade practices and consumer protection concerns.” Any comments are due by June 10, 2025 and the amendment takes effect on October 1, 2025.

Though we have entered an era where digital communication is becoming the standard, New York City’s newly revised proposal still restricts debt collectors from using email and SMS without prior consumer consent. Additionally, the changes require original creditors, who already obtained consent to communicate electronically, to take additional steps after starting debt collection. While the changes are well-intentioned in their aim to “clarify the intent and applicability of recently adopted amendments” to the debt collection rules and ultimately address the industry concerns that resulted in a lawsuit over the first proposed amendment, the amendments still have the unintended consequence of making it more difficult for those who are struggling with debt to learn about and resolve their issues efficiently, effectively, and without added layers of frustration. Consumers, creditors, and collectors should all be concerned and seeking additional revisions.

Statistics and Court Rulings Reinforce the Benefits of Digital Consumer Engagement

In today’s world, 80% of consumers prefer a full digital banking experience, including when it comes to debt collection. Why? It’s simple: these communication methods are quick, convenient, and less intrusive. They allow consumers to engage with creditors or debt collectors on their own time, whether they’re at home, at work, or on the go—and it’s no surprise that 25% of consumers engage with emails after 9:00 pm and before 8:00 am.

Emails and SMS messages are particularly effective in reaching consumers who might not be available for a phone call or may be reluctant to open a letter. Email allows for easy documentation, while text messages offer a faster, less formal way to remind consumers of their debt obligations. This is why many consumers prefer these methods over phone calls, which can be disruptive and intrusive. The federal courts agree. A recent TrueAccord court victory in the Northern District of Illinois stated unequivocally that receiving an email about a debt is less intrusive to consumers than receiving a phone call. And a separate TrueAccord victory as email is silent unlike “noisy telephone rings.”

The Pitfalls of New York City’s Proposed Laws on Consumers

Despite statistics and court rulings, the New York bill in question would require debt collectors to get explicit consent before contacting consumers via text or email, limiting these convenient communication channels. While the law’s proponents argue that these measures are necessary to protect consumers from excessive communication, it overlooks the fact that the existing state and federal law already prohibits debt collectors from harassing consumers. It is illegal under existing New York City, New York state and federal debt collection laws to harass or communicate excessively thereby annoying consumers. The proposal ignores the significant benefits digital outreach provides consumers.

Digital communications are a step forward in consumer protection providing consumers with a written and documented record of communications. Digital channels offer protection from unwanted communication with easy ways to opt out. Email service providers launched one-click unsubscribe last summer, requiring senders to display a one-click unsubscribe button at the top of all emails. To opt-out consumers need only click on the one-click unsubscribe. Consumers can also mark emails as SPAM. When enough consumers take that action, the sender gets banned by the email providers. Consumers can just as easily reply STOP to opt out of SMS communications. The CTIA short code rules require senders to honor several different key word opt-outs and failure to do so results in suspension of the short code.

This proposed amendment ultimately makes it much harder to reach a consumer in the first place. Imagine being behind on payments and missing multiple calls from your creditor, only to later discover that you can no longer be contacted by email or SMS until you opt in. Requiring consent first introduces a significant hurdle. Getting a consumer to respond to a phone call at all (let alone to opt into email or SMS communication) is notoriously difficult, with 80% reporting they will block calls from unknown numbers, according to research from TransUnion. With that in mind, the New York law has the potential for many consumers to simply ignore the phone call to give their consent to be contacted digitally, and as a result, miss out on opportunities to resolve their debt.

This is problematic because the majority of consumers actually prefer digital communication with debt collectors. According to research, many debtors are more likely to engage with collection agencies when contacted by email or text message than by phone or traditional mail. The rise of these technologies has made it easier for people to manage their debts without feeling overwhelmed by the process. For consumers in New York, the proposed legislation could effectively take away a tool that could help them avoid debt-related anxiety, delays, and confusion.

The Pitfalls of New York City’s Proposed Laws for Business Operational Costs

Beyond consumer experience, the New York City proposed further amendment would negatively impact businesses’ bottom line. Studies have found that customers contacted digitally make 12% more payments than those contacted via traditional channels; this will be eliminated under the proposed amendment. Whether collecting in-house or using a third-party agency, the additional operational costs that go into traditional methods like outbound dialing and snail mail have always made initiating communication via digital channels a more cost-effective way to collect—an option that will no longer be afforded to New York City residents. 

Even before the release of the additional amendments, businesses and agencies executing outbound call strategies and leveraging dialer technologies faced the reality that 49.5% of consumers take no action after a collection call—and, again, that’s if you can actually get a customer to answer the phone. 

And for collectors relying on physical letters to make contact or gain consent, the process is even slower and easily ignored or lost by the consumer—and more costly for the business. Sending letters has become significantly more expensive with the cost of a single paper letter often exceeding 75 cents, depending on the number of pages per letter and volume. If you then take into consideration that contacting first through a customer’s preferred channel can lead to a more than 10% increase in payments and 59.5% of consumers prefer email as their first choice for communication—snail mail isn’t just expensive thanks to the price of paper and stamps, but it can also negatively impact repayment rates from late-payers who prefer digital contact. 

NYC Residents Should Receive the Same Digital Communications Benefits All Non-NYCers Receive

The primary goal of these regulations should not be to ban digital communication methods, but rather to regulate them in a way that safeguards consumers from harassment while maintaining their access to modern, efficient forms of communication. Digital communication offers consumers more control over how and when they are contacted, with email and text message platforms incorporating built-in features like unsubscribe options and opt-out mechanisms to prevent unwanted communication. New York City’s stricter rules would leave consumers at a disadvantage, especially those who are less likely to answer phone calls. 

In contrast, the rest of the country allows consumers to receive important information about their debts through digital means without additional barriers. For consumers outside New York City, debt collectors can proactively send communications through email and text, as long as these messages include clear opt-out options, such as “reply STOP” for text messages or unsubscribe links for emails. Strict penalties exist for failure to honor opt-out requests, ensuring that consumers retain the ability to control their communication preferences. Furthermore, digital communications in these areas are subject to the same frequency limitations as traditional methods under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Regulation F, which means consumers still have protections against excessive or harassing contact.

The overwhelming preference for a full digital banking experience, as mentioned above, means many consumers already opt-in and communicate through primarily digital channels with their creditors. Requiring consumers who have already opted-in to have to again opt-in to digital communications in order to discuss the same account with a collection agency adds burden to consumers. When a consumer provides their electronic contact information (email address or cell phone number) to the creditor, there should be little doubt that the consumer desires to communicate electronically. If the consumer does not, they can unsubscribe or opt out from continuing to receive messages through these channels.

Of the millions of email communications TrueAccord sends, only 0.10% of consumers unsubscribe, most using the unsubscribe link provided in the email. And out of the millions of text messages we send, all of which contain the phrase “Reply STOP to opt-out,” on average only 2.07% of consumers reply stop.

Additionally, email addresses offer a distinct advantage over physical addresses or phone numbers in that they remain consistent over time, while other contact details may change more frequently. For consumers who move often, such as military families, email ensures that they don’t miss important communications because of an outdated address or phone number. By allowing digital communication, New York can help ensure that important debt-related messages are delivered without the risk of missed communication due to address changes.

A balanced approach could allow debt collectors to reach consumers via email and SMS in a regulated manner, ensuring that consumers are protected from excessive or intrusive contact, while still enabling them to resolve their debts on their own terms.

TrueAccord’s Katie Neill Appointed to Debt Collection Advisory Committee by California’s DFPI

By on May 5th, 2025 in Company News, Compliance
KN DFPI

TrueAccord is proud to announce that Katie Neill, its General Counsel & Chief Compliance Officer, has been appointed to the Debt Collection Advisory Committee of the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) for the 2025-2027 term.

This board is comprised of seven members who provide feedback to the DFPI for its debt collection licensing program. The diverse group includes a consumer advocate and representatives from the debt collection, debt-buying, third-party collection, and collection law industries. The committee advises the Commissioner on matters related to the debt collection business, including proposed fee schedules and other requirements.

TrueAccord has been previously represented in this group when its founder, Ohad Samet, served on the inaugural Debt Collection Advisory Committee in 2021. As the debt collection industry has evolved to meet consumer needs and technological advancements, the DFPI has focused on better protecting California consumers, promoting responsible innovation, reducing regulatory uncertainty for emerging financial products, and increasing education and outreach to vulnerable groups.

As a leader in digital-first debt collection, TrueAccord is invested in reinventing the industry for technology-enabled and consumer-friendly outreach that fundamentally changes the approach to debt collection. In her role at TrueAccord, Katie is instrumental in shaping the policies and controls necessary to ensure legal and regulatory compliance amidst the innovation that drives business goals.

“It’s an honor to be appointed to the Debt Collection Advisory Committee and have an opportunity to impact the future of consumer finance regulation in California,” said Katie Neill. “I look forward to contributing my expertise in consumer-focused, technology-driven debt collection practices to support the DFPI’s mission of protecting consumers and fostering responsible innovation within the industry.”

About TrueAccord

TrueAccord is the trusted industry leader in third-party debt collection, leveraging data science and technology to deliver superior results and a best-in-class consumer experience. Since 2013, TrueAccord has served more than 40 million consumers in debt with a more humane collection experience while delivering unmatched liquidation rates as the leader in digital-first collections for the Buy Now Pay Later, fintech, telecommunications and credit union industries, among others. Visit www.trueaccord.com and follow on LinkedIn to learn more.

Leading the Way with RPA Bots: How TrueAccord Uses Technology and AI to Ensure Compliance, Consumer Preference, and Optimal Debt Collection Results

By on April 17th, 2025 in Industry Insights, Company News, Compliance, Product and Technology
TAC Blog RPA Bots

Efficiency, accuracy, and compliance are critical in the fast-paced world of debt collection. TrueAccord, a leader in digital-first debt collection, is leveraging Robotic Process Automation (RPA) bots to transform the industry and improve operational efficiency, compliance efforts, and customer experience.

At TrueAccord, we’re not just collecting debt; we’re revolutionizing the process with this kind of cutting-edge technology. These aren’t your average macros; they’re sophisticated software tools that automate repetitive tasks, freeing up our team to focus on more complex and strategic work. In this blog post, we’ll explore how TrueAccord is utilizing RPA technology, our unique approach to automation, and the benefits that this technology offers to our company and our clients.

What is an RPA Bot?

RPA bots are software tools designed to automate repetitive, rule-based tasks traditionally performed by humans. These bots interact with digital systems in the same way a human would—by clicking buttons, entering data, or reading information from documents. They can handle tasks like customer service inquiries, data entry, invoice processing, and report generation, improving efficiency and accuracy while reducing human error. RPA bots can even be strategically utilized to enhance first line controls and compliance monitoring, which are vital processes for debt collectors. RPA bots can be programmed to work across various applications and systems without needing complex integrations, making them a versatile solution for automating business operations.

RPA is particularly valuable for organizations looking to improve productivity and reduce costs. By automating repetitive and time-consuming tasks, employees can focus on higher-value activities that require a nuanced approach or complex problem-solving. RPA bots can be set up quickly and are scalable, making them ideal for businesses of all sizes. As they operate 24/7 without the need for breaks or downtime, they can significantly enhance operational efficiency while ensuring consistency and speed in completing tasks.

For example, when issues arise, there might be a need to update thousands of accounts. Previously, a human would have to manually go into each account, add a comment, and make necessary updates. With RPA, bots take care of this task in a fraction of the time, updating entire lists of accounts in minutes instead of hours or even days.

How does TrueAccord Use RPA Bots?

At TrueAccord, RPA is a key part of how we ensure compliance, respect consumer preferences, and drive better outcomes across the debt collection lifecycle. By automating previously manual tasks, RPA bots help us maintain accuracy, consistency, and adherence to regulatory requirements. Many of our bots operate through API (Application Programming Interface) calls, which connect directly to backend systems—making the processes faster, more reliable, and less prone to human error than traditional UI-based automation.

What makes RPA even more powerful at TrueAccord is its ability to run continuously, 24/7. Unlike human workers, bots don’t need breaks (both from a stamina aspect and a HR/legal aspect), and they can work around the clock, completing tasks whenever necessary. This constant availability, paired with their ability to handle large volumes of work, turns RPA into a digital workforce capable of handling countless processes simultaneously. For instance, TrueAccord runs 45 different processes through RPA, including posting over 60,000 direct-to-creditor payments each month on behalf of just one client. This would have normally required an army of humans, but with RPA, the task is completed efficiently and accurately without mistakes like “fat-fingering” data.

Enhancing Compliance and Customer Experience

Compliance is a significant focus in the debt collection industry, and TrueAccord takes it seriously. The use of RPA bots helps ensure that processes are executed consistently and in line with legal and regulatory requirements. For example, when a consumer requests to opt-out of a communication channel such as email or text message, the bots automatically process this request, ensuring that the consumer’s preferences are respected in real time. This helps TrueAccord remain compliant with regulations and provides a better experience for the consumer, as they don’t have to wait for a human to process their request.

Beyond compliance, RPA is also improving the consumer experience. For example, when consumers respond to a text message or email communications, RPA bots can automatically pause the account, allowing time for review and ensuring that the consumer’s issue is addressed promptly.

The Future of RPA at TrueAccord

TrueAccord is not stopping at just using RPA for backend processes; we’re exploring new frontiers by combining RPA with Artificial Intelligence (AI). By integrating AI with RPA, TrueAccord aims to create an intelligent, self-sufficient digital workforce. AI acts as the “brain,” interpreting consumer requests and generating responses, while RPA serves as the “muscle,” executing tasks like updating accounts, posting notes, and more.

This combination of AI and RPA has already shown significant results, such as faster response times and better consumer satisfaction. For example, where human agents might take days to respond to emails, AI-powered bots can provide answers in under 90 seconds, ensuring that consumers get quick and accurate responses. Over time, these innovations will continue to evolve, enabling even more intelligent and responsive automation.

TrueAccord’s RPA program is a testament to our commitment to innovation and efficiency. By developing our bots in-house with team members who understand our processes, we’ve created a robust and tailored system that truly makes a difference. We’re not just keeping up with the industry—we’re leading it.

Ready to partner with an industry-leader in compliant digital-first debt collection? Schedule a consultation today!

FCC Orders to Take Effect While Comment Period to Identify Burdensome Rules Opens 

By on April 15th, 2025 in Compliance, Customer Experience, Industry Insights, Product and Technology
TAC Blog FCC Orders

APRIL 15 UPDATE: FCC GRANTS ACA’S PETITION TO EXTEND EFFECTIVE DATE

On April 7, 2025, the Federal Communications Commission FCC issued an order granting a limited waiver that extends the effective date —for a full year—to April 11, 2026 of the revocation provisions from the February 2024 Order. The specific rule section that is being delayed is 47 CFR § 64.1200(a)(10) of the Commission’s Order requiring businesses to treat a consumer’s reasonable revocation to revoke consent as revocation for all future calls and texts to that phone number. That specific section reads in part: 

“A called party may revoke prior express consent, including prior express written consent, to receive calls or text messages made [using an autodialer as defined by the TCPA, using a prerecorded voice, or to a subscriber on the do not call registry] by using any reasonable method to clearly express a desire not to receive further calls or text messages from the caller or sender.”

No other rules adopted in the February 2024 Order are changed by the delay. The FCC decided to make these changes after receiving a request to delay the effective date from ACA International and several other associations (ABA, AFSA, Mortgage Bankers), explaining the implementation complications for both larger institutions having multiple business units and systems and smaller institutions having more manual processes and third party vendors to coordinate. The FCC rules allow for the Commission to consider and order such changes upon special circumstances that warrant a deviation, like undue hardship, equity, or more effective implementation of overall policy. The Commission found good cause to push back the effective date due to the challenges all businesses face in processing revocation requests across multiple business units, systems, and vendors.   

The extension gives businesses more time to do two things: (1) implement changes across systems, units, and vendors to operationalize the rule and (2) file a comment identifying the same provision as an unduly burdensome rule by the April 28, 2025 comment deadline for the Commission’s deregulatory initiative.

The blog post below was originally published on March 26, 2025 and has been updated to address the changes based on the new April 7, 2025 Order.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is seeking public input on identifying FCC rules for the purpose of alleviating unnecessary regulatory burdens. In a public notice released March 12, 2025, the FCC announced the Commission is seeking comments on deregulatory initiatives to identify and eliminate those that are unnecessary in light of current circumstances. The FCC notice stated: “in addition to imposing unnecessary burdens, unnecessary rules may stand in the way of deployment, expansion, competition, and technological innovation.” Reply comments are due by April 28, 2025.

In the meantime, two FCC Orders that both impact the debt collection industry come into effect:

  • A 2024 Order released last February impacting revocation of consent to receive autodialed calls and texts and prerecorded or artificial voice calls. The 2024 Order conflicts with the CFPB’s Regulation F Debt Collection Rule about the scope of an opt-out.
  • And a 2025 Order released this past February aiming to strengthen call blocking of illegal calls. The 2025 Order may result in the blocking of lawful debt collection calls and texts.

Debt collectors and other companies impacted by these two orders may want to submit comments to the FCC identifying the particularly burdensome aspects that could be revisited and slightly revised to be consistent with consumer preference, consistent with other laws and regulations (like Regulation F), and less burdensome on companies.

Quick Note: These FCC rules are about the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), which applies only to calls and texts made by an automated telephone dialing system (ATDS) and prerecorded or automated voice calls (aka robocalls or robotexts).1 If you do not use an ATDS to make calls or texts, and you don’t use prerecorded or automated voice calls, these Orders do not apply to your communications.

I. 2024 Order – Special Revocation Rules

On February 15, 2024, the FCC published an order adopting rules which impact text messaging and outbound dialing using an ATDS as well as calls made with prerecorded or automated voice. Most provisions of the Order take effect April 11, 2026.2 Those provisions include:

  • Consumers can revoke consent by “any reasonable manner”
  • If consent is revoked it applies to both “robo texts” and “robo calls”
  • Companies must process do-not-call and consent revocations requests within a reasonable period of time not to exceed 10 business days of receipt.

Originally these provisions were to take effect on April 11, 2025; however, in response to a petition from ACA International and other trade associations, the FCC on April 7, 2025 issued an order granting a limited waiver that gives companies an additional year to operationalize the revocation rules, changing the effective date to April 11, 2026.  The Order also limited senders of text messages made using an ATDS to a one-time, revocation-confirmation text. This provision took effect in April of 2024.

a. Revoking consent is super flexible.

The FCC Order establishes that consumers may revoke prior express consent for autodialed or prerecorded/artificial voice calls and texts in any reasonable manner. This means that companies cannot designate an exclusive means to revoke consent that precludes the use of any other reasonable method.

A non-exhaustive list of “reasonable” ways a consumer can revoke consent include:

  • Request made using an automated, interactive voice, or key press-activated opt-out mechanism on a robocall
  • A response of “stop,” “quit,” “end,” “revoke,” “opt out,” “cancel,” or “unsubscribe,” or a similar, standard response message sent in reply to an incoming text message
  • Request submitted at a website or telephone number provided to process opt-out requests

If a sender uses a texting platform that does not allow two-way texting, the sender must clearly and conspicuously disclose in each text that (1) replying is unavailable and (2) provide the details of other reasonable alternative ways the consumer can revoke consent.

If a consumer uses any reasonable method to revoke consent, the FCC considers that consent to be definitively revoked, and future robocalls and texts from that company must be stopped.

Note that effective as of this April 11, 2025, a company must honor other revocation methods than key word replies to the text message. A consumer’s use of any other method to revoke consent, such as a voicemail to the sender’s telephone number or email address, creates a rebuttable presumption that consent has been revoked. If there is ever a dispute about whether a consumer reasonably revoked consent, the sender has the burden to show why they did not treat the consumer’s communication as a revocation.

b. Revocation applies to the number, not the channel.

The Order states that when consent for autodialed calls or texts is revoked, that revocation extends to both robocalls and robotexts regardless of the channel used to communicate the revocation. It is the FCC’s position that a consumer grants consent to be contacted at a particular wireless phone number or residential line, and therefore, consent revocation is an instruction to no longer contact the consumer at that number.

This FCC interpretation is different from the CFPB’s approach in Regulation F, which prevents debt collectors from contacting a consumer in a channel after the consumer opts out of communications in that channel. Under Regulation F, if a consumer opts-out from texts it does not require opting the consumer out of calls to that number. This FCC Order has a broader effect—if a consumer revokes consent to text by text, it requires opting the consumer out of all communications to that phone number (calls and texts).

c. Ten business days to process revocation.

The FCC now requires that companies honor opt-out/revocation requests within a reasonable period of time, not to exceed 10 business days of receipt. The FCC chose 10 business days since it was consistent with the timeframe to process revocation requests under the CAN-SPAM rules. However, the FCC made clear that it will continue to monitor advances in technology to see if faster processing times may be warranted in the future, and it explicitly stated “[w]e encourage callers to honor such requests as soon as practicable as a best practice.”

This particular provision is also at odds with the FDCPA, as the FDCPA does not contain language offering a reasonable processing time for opt-outs or any inbound requests (like cease and desist, notice of attorney representation, etc.). The CFPB did not provide any reasonable processing time for opt-outs in Regulation F.

II. 2025 Order – Enhanced Call Blocking Rules

On February 27, 2025, the FCC published an order seeking to strengthen the call blocking and robocall mitigation rules requiring all providers in the chain to block calls that are highly likely to be illegal based on a reasonable Do Not Originate (DNO) list. In the past, lawful debt collection calls have unfairly been blocked in these efforts. This Order has different effective dates but the earliest is May 2025.

a. Every provider must block illegal calls.

The FCC Order requires all providers in the call path to block calls that are “highly likely to be illegal” based on a reasonable DNO list. With this Order the FCC expands the requirement from prior Orders, now requiring all providers to block suspected illegal calls.

FCC does not mandate a particular list for providers to use. This is because providers know their own networks and may be better positioned to determine what types of numbers should be prioritized. As long as the provider can show that the list is reasonable, the provider will be in compliance with the Order. Providers must constantly update the lists and will want to show that their list is comprehensive to safeguard consumers.

This provision of the Order goes into effect 90 days after the order is published in the Federal Register. This order has not been published in the Federal Register as of the date of this blog post, but we should prepare for this rule to go into effect as early May 2025.

b. Special code for immediate notification of blocking to a caller.

The FCC has designed SIP Code 603+3 as the return call the provider must immediately use to notify callers when their calls are blocked based on “reasonable analytics.” This is the exclusive code for this purpose on IP networks. Using this code will ensure that callers learn when and why their calls are blocked based on reasonable analytics, which will allow these callers to access redress when blocking errors occur. This stems directly from the TRACED Act that requires the Commission to ensure that callers receive “transparency and effective redress” when their calls are blocked by analytics, and a single uniform code is the best way to achieve this transparency.

This requirement only applies when the call is based on analytics. If a call is blocked based on a DNO list, there is no requirement to provide immediate notification.

The Order further directs voice service providers to cease using the standard version of SIP code 603, or SIP codes 607 or 608, for this purpose.

The Order does not provide any additional protections for lawful callers because the FCC does not adopt any requirements for blocking based on reasonable analytics and the blocking notification rules adopted in the Order are expansions of our existing rules, rather than wholly new requirements. The Order states:

The record does not suggest that our current protections will be insufficient to protect lawful callers after these particular incremental expansions take effect. Moreover, and as discussed previously, we believe that the deployment of SIP code 603+ will provide significant benefit to callers that, when paired with our existing protections, are sufficient to protect the interests of callers.

This provision of the Order goes into effect 12 months (one year) after the order is published in the Federal Register. This order has not been published in the Federal Register yet, but it could go into effect as early March 2026.

c. No requirement to display caller name (yet).

The FCC declined to require the display of caller name information when a provider chooses to display an indication that caller ID has been authenticated. Although it does not adopt such a mandate, the FCC urges providers to continue to develop next-generation tools, such as Rich Call Data (RCD) and branded calling solutions, to ensure that consumers receive this information and welcome any updates industry has on its progress. The FCC noted that it may consider a mandate in the future, particularly if the timely deployment of such valuable tools does not occur without Commission intervention.

*This blog is not legal advice. Legal advice must be tailored to the particular facts and circumstances of each unique matter.

Citations:

  1. An ATDS or autodialer under the TCPA is a system that has the capacity to use a random or sequential number generator to either store or produce phone numbers to be called. To learn more about this read this blog.
  2. The Order also limited senders of text messages made using an ATDS to a one-time, revocation-confirmation text. This provision took effect in April of 2024.
  3. A SIP (Session Initiation Protocol) code, also known as a SIP response code, is a three-digit numerical code used to indicate the status of a SIP request or transaction, similar to HTTP status codes.

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

By on April 2nd, 2025 in Industry Insights, Compliance, Customer Experience, Machine Learning, Product and Technology, User Experience
TAC Blog Beyond the Word STOP

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:

Screenshot 2025 04 01 at 10.38.47 AM

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»»

Keeping Up with Compliance in a Patchwork of Regulations

By on March 19th, 2025 in Compliance, Industry Insights
TAC Blog Patchwork of Regulations

Debt collection is a complex, evolving industry, and compliance with the myriad of federal, state, and local laws is an ongoing challenge for organizations in the field. These laws create a “patchwork” of rules and regulations that can vary widely depending on the jurisdiction, presenting challenges for those trying to maintain compliance and provide effective, consumer-friendly services.

Layers of Laws and a Patchwork of Regulations: Federal, State, Local

The complexity of debt collection laws begins with the different layers of laws and regulations that businesses must adhere to. At the federal level, there are laws such as the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), and agencies like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issue important rules and guidelines that debt collectors must follow. These federal laws and rules provide a broad framework, but when you layer on state and local laws and regulations, designing compliance with multiple competing frameworks becomes more complicated.

For example, no consumer privacy law currently exists at the federal level, however, many states do have consumer privacy laws that provide consumers with the right to know what information is being collected about them, and the right to request that companies correct and/or delete their data. Some states provide an entity-level exemption to their privacy law (e.g., Colorado, Connecticut, Virginia) if a company is subject to the federal Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA); however, other states may scope the exemption differently (e.g., California’s exemption is a data-level exemption, not an entity-level exemption). Depending on how a particular state shapes its laws, businesses and collectors must determine how to approach compliance in a way that harmonizes its policies and practices to comply with a patchwork of state laws governing privacy.

Sometimes, even federal laws create a patchwork of requirements, such as the FCC’s mandate regarding opt-out requests. The FCC has specified that opt-outs must be processed within a “reasonable” period of time not to exceed 10 days; while on the other hand, when it comes to debt collection and the CFPB’s Regulation F, a reasonable time frame for processing opt-outs is not defined, suggesting that opt-outs must be processed immediately. This leaves businesses and agencies with a conundrum—do you follow the more lenient 10-day window and potentially strain consumer relationships if further outreach occurs within that window, or spend the additional resources to ensure immediate opt-outs?

An additional layer of complexity comes from the different federal circuit courts in the United States. With 11 circuits, each containing multiple district courts, a ruling in one district may only be authoritative for that district. However, it may serve as persuasive authority for other jurisdictions. This decentralized legal landscape means that organizations must keep track of rulings that could affect how laws and regulations are interpreted in different regions. Even though not all court rulings carry the same weight across the country, they can still influence how the law evolves, and businesses like TrueAccord must stay informed of these rulings to adjust their practices accordingly.

Turning Compliance Challenges into Opportunities

The patchwork of laws and regulations presents an ongoing challenge, but at TrueAccord, we view this complexity as an opportunity. By staying actively involved in industry trade associations like the American Collectors Association (ACA) and Receivables Management Association International (RMAI), TrueAccord ensures it has a pulse on the latest developments. In addition to being part of these associations, TrueAccord leaders also participate in industry committees, allowing for deeper involvement on specific legal topics shaping the industry.

It’s not just about staying current within the debt collection industry; looking to related industries can also provide a competitive advantage. For example, when the CFPB first came around, it borrowed many of its compliance concepts and requirements from the banking industry, which had been dealing with regulatory compliance for years. By keeping an eye on what’s happening in sister industries, TrueAccord has been able to anticipate changes before they hit the debt collection world and be proactive in its approach.

An example of this proactive approach can be seen with the CAN-SPAM Act and opt-out requirements. While CAN-SPAM does not apply to the sending of debt collection emails, TrueAccord nonetheless looked at CAN-SPAM for best practices when it was designing its compliance policies around sending debt collection emails. Because of this, TrueAccord had adopted the policy of adding an opt-out to all outgoing debt collection emails before it was a requirement of Regulation F. When Regulation F mandated it, TrueAccord was already in compliance.

Be Prepared to Stay Ahead of the Compliance Curve with the Right Collections Partner

For businesses evaluating debt collection agencies, it is imperative to ask critical questions about how those agencies stay up to date on legal and regulatory changes. How do they manage change? How do they stay informed about new rules and updates? The answers to these questions will give businesses insight into how well a debt collection agency is equipped to navigate an ever-evolving compliance environment.

As we’ve seen, the patchwork of debt collection laws—spanning federal, state, and local jurisdictions—presents an ongoing challenge for businesses. However, TrueAccord’s commitment to staying ahead of the game through active participation in industry associations, tracking legal rulings and regulatory updates, and applying a holistic compliance management system ensures that we remain at the forefront of industry trends, laws, and regulations. By continuously adapting to changes and leveraging insights from across industries, TrueAccord not only stays compliant but also advocates for a more cohesive, forward-thinking regulatory environment. For businesses evaluating debt collection agencies, understanding how those agencies manage compliance and change is a key factor in choosing the right partner.

Ready to partner with an industry-leader in compliant digital-first debt collection? Schedule a consultation today!

The Dangers of Dark Patterns in Digital Communication for Debt Collection and Best Practices to Avoid Them

By on March 11th, 2025 in User Experience, Compliance, Customer Experience, Industry Insights, Product and Technology
TAC Blog Dark Patterns

Striving to deliver positive consumer experiences is not just a best practice—it is becoming a more prominent component of compliance in debt collection, especially when it comes to consumer communication. As consumer preferences have shifted toward digital channels, the success of a business’s debt recovery operation (whether in-house or outsourced to a third-party agency) hinges on engagement through online platforms, emails, and text messaging.

However, without proper design or planning, digital outreach can cross a fine line becoming manipulative or even deceptive. These practices are known as “dark patterns,” and they can cause significant harm to both consumers and businesses. The danger of dark patterns lies not just in the unethical manipulation of users but in the long-term consequences of such tactics, from damaged consumer trust to legal ramifications.

But what exactly constitutes a dark pattern in digital communication? Let’s look at the official definitions and examples, the risks they pose to consumers, the consequences businesses can face, how to avoid inadvertent dark pattern design, and how TrueAccord has approached delivering consumer-centric debt collection communications since day one.

What Are Dark Patterns? Examples, Risks, & Consequences

Dark patterns are design practices that mislead or manipulate consumers into taking actions that do not align with their true intent or preferences. These tactics typically exploit psychological triggers, confusing language, and hidden choices to push users toward making decisions they might not otherwise make.

In recent years, dark patterns have drawn increased scrutiny from federal and state regulators. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) have made it clear that such practices are not just unethical but also illegal. According to the FTC, dark patterns are considered “unfair or deceptive” business practices under Section 5 of the FTC Act. In 2022, the FTC published a report titled “Bringing Dark Patterns to Light,” highlighting these manipulative tactics and the growing enforcement against them. The report honed in on four common dark pattern tactics:

  • Burying key terms and junk fees
  • Making it difficult to cancel subscriptions or charges
  • Tricking consumers into sharing data
  • Misleading consumers and disguising ads

In addition to the focus areas within the FTC’s report, some other examples of dark patterns in digital communication include:

  • Confirm-shaming: Using guilt-inducing language to discourage consumers from unsubscribing or opting out, such as “Are you sure you want to miss out on this exclusive offer?”
  • Trick buttons: Designing “unsubscribe” buttons to look like “continue” or “learn more” buttons, leading users to click on something they didn’t intend to.
  • Urgency tactics: Creating a false sense of urgency by suggesting a limited-time offer is about to expire, even when it isn’t.
  • Pre-checked boxes: Adding pre-ticked boxes for additional services or subscriptions, requiring users to actively opt-out to avoid unwanted charges.

These tactics are not just annoying for consumers—they also undermine trust in the brands that use them. In the context of debt collection, where trust is already fragile, dark patterns can have a particularly devastating impact. Dark patterns can cause businesses to lose credibility, customer loyalty, the ability for communications to get delivered through digital channels, and even revenue. When consumers feel manipulated, they may report a company’s emails as spam, impacting deliverability and overall the effectiveness of digital engagement.

The risks of dark patterns go beyond consumer dissatisfaction and lower email open rates—they can lead to significant legal and financial consequences. Various laws, including the Consumer Protection Act of 2019 and regulations by the California Privacy Protection Agency, explicitly prohibit the use of dark patterns in obtaining consent for data collection. Violating these laws can result in penalties, along with further damage to a company’s reputation in the eyes of the consumer.

In the long run, the use of dark patterns in digital communication risks creating a negative feedback loop: the more consumers feel misled, the less likely they are to engage with the business, and the less effective digital communications will be. This is why it’s crucial for companies to adopt transparent, user-friendly practices.

How to Avoid Dark Patterns

Avoiding dark patterns is not just about following the law—it’s also about fostering trust and transparency with consumers. Here are some key strategies to ensure your digital communications are free from manipulation:

  • Be Transparent: Clearly disclose all costs, fees, and terms. If there are any charges involved, they should be easy to find and understand.
  • Use Clear, Honest Language: Avoid language that might mislead or confuse consumers. Be direct and straightforward.
  • Avoid Manipulative Language: Never use guilt-tripping or fear-inducing tactics to push consumers into decisions.
  • Simplify the Decision-Making Process: Make it easy for consumers to make informed decisions by avoiding “choice architecture” that limits their ability to make fair choices.
  • Provide Symmetry in Choice: Ensure that privacy-protective options are as easy to select as less secure alternatives.
  • Make it Easy to Opt-Out: Ensure that unsubscribe links or opt-out buttons are clearly visible and easy to use, without hidden steps or confusing layouts.

How TrueAccord Leads the Way in Compliant Consumer Communications in Debt Collection

At TrueAccord, we take pride in being a leader in ethical and compliant digital communication since our inception in 2013. We’ve always believed that transparent, user-friendly communication builds trust, which ultimately leads to better resolutions for consumers and better repayment rates for businesses.

We make a concerted effort to ensure that our communications are free of dark patterns by focusing on both the design and messaging of our digital interactions. Our emails and text messages are carefully crafted to follow modern user experience (UX) standards, ensuring that they are clean, clear, and easily understood.

  • Brand Consistency: Every message we send out follows consistent branding with the right colors, fonts, and logos. This helps consumers recognize us as a legitimate company and reduces the risk of being mistaken for a phishing scam.
  • Clear Messaging: We prioritize clarity in our messaging. We make sure that everything we say is relevant, easy to understand, and free from confusing jargon or manipulative language.
  • Error-Free Communication: We carefully review our content for any spelling or formatting errors. Consumers often make snap judgments about the legitimacy of a message based on visual cues, so it’s crucial to maintain a professional appearance.
  • Easy Navigation: All our links work, and consumers are always redirected to the correct pages. If there’s ever an issue, we flag it quickly to ensure that the consumer experience remains seamless.
  • Compliance and Trust: We are committed to being fully compliant with regulations, but more importantly, we focus on building trust with the consumer. By providing clear, actionable, and honest communication, we can help consumers navigate their debt repayment process more effectively.

Moreover, our commitment to transparency ensures that every communication we send out, whether via email or mobile, is accompanied by clear disclosures to further legitimize our efforts and foster a stronger relationship with the consumer.

As mentioned above, a lot of the regulations that have come out specifically about dark patterns have been in recent years. But with over a decade of experience in digital debt collection, it has always been our duty at TrueAccord to ensure we are not inadvertently causing dark patterns in communications or any part of the repayment process—not because it’s a compliance requirement but because we know that when a consumer trusts and engages with your communications, you have better liquidation results.

Don’t Risk Dark Patterns—Partner with Experts in Collections & Compliance

Dark patterns are a serious issue in digital communication, and while they may offer short-term gains, they can have long-lasting consequences on a company’s reputation, legal standing, and customer trust. By avoiding these deceptive practices and focusing on transparent, honest, and user-friendly communications, businesses can build stronger relationships with their customers and avoid the legal pitfalls associated with dark patterns.

At TrueAccord, we have always been at the forefront of recognizing the importance of ethical communication in debt collection. By prioritizing transparency, trust, and compliance, we not only ensure a better experience for consumers but also achieve better results for our clients. After all, when consumers trust the process, they are more likely to engage and succeed in resolving their debts—making for a better outcome for everyone involved.

Ready to partner with an industry-leader in compliant digital-first debt collection? Schedule a consultation today!

Sources:

Balancing Compliance and Consumer Experience in Digital Debt Collection: Best Practices to Navigate the 2025 Landscape

By on March 4th, 2025 in Compliance, Customer Experience, Industry Insights, Product and Technology, User Experience
TAC Blog Balancing Compliance Consumer

Over the past several years, federal and state regulators have started raising red flags about a significant trend in the debt collection industry: companies failing to deliver positive experiences for consumers or properly manage complaints and disputes. With growing scrutiny from agencies like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and even the White House, it’s clear that ensuring a good consumer experience is no longer just a best practice—it’s a compliance requirement.

As we move further into 2025, it’s essential for debt collectors and businesses to find the balance between adhering to the myriad of regulations while maintaining a smooth and positive consumer experience through the repayment process. And while digital communication channels have become increasingly favored by consumers, mass blast emails and SMS campaigns don’t equal rave reviews or recovery rates.

Add on evolving compliance regulations and the modern debt collection challenges mount. While 2024 saw different governing bodies and providers make progress handing down guidelines and best practices for better consumer experience overall, regulations and legislation is still not always 100% clear on what is and is not acceptable for compliance.

So how can your debt collection strategy keep up with the 2025 compliance and consumer preference landscape? Let’s look at ways to navigate the challenges and increase liquidation rates as a result.

Staying on Top of the Shift Toward a Consumer-Centric Compliance Model

Traditionally, compliance in debt collection focused primarily on following established regulations, such as the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Regulation F. However, recent regulatory actions are increasingly examining how businesses interact with consumers beyond the letter of the law and have emphasized that poor consumer experiences can even trigger legal violations. If a debt collector fails to manage complaints and disputes properly, it could result in potential violations of the Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices (UDAAP) standards, or even the Dodd-Frank Act.

Even the use of emerging technologies is being scrutinized through the consumer experience lens: the CFPB has highlighted concerns over poorly monitored artificial intelligence (AI) or machine learning, specifically when it comes to consumer interactions. A poorly designed or maintained automated messaging system can lead to consumers getting “stuck” in automated loops, resulting in complaints and potential regulatory scrutiny or even rise to the level of a compliance issue.

Another area of increasing consumer frustration can be the process of opting out from receiving further digital communications. Automated messages that give consumers the ability to remove themselves from receiving further communications by replying “STOP” but do not account for a range of possible opt-out requests or replies can lead to complaints and trigger regulatory action.

The lesson is clear: compliance is not just about ticking boxes—it’s about delivering a consumer experience that’s transparent, responsive, and respectful. And with a smart approach, businesses can use technology to minimize compliance risk while enhancing the consumer experience.

Best Practices to Strike Balance Between Compliance and Consumer Experience

Understanding this focus shift and the nuances of ever-unfolding regulations still leaves us with the original question: how can your debt collection strategy keep up with the 2025 compliance and consumer preference landscape? While it is imperative to follow all laws and requirements in the collections industry, following the best practices below can help your organization prepare and provide the best consumer experience through the delinquency lifecycle as the regulatory landscape continues to evolve:

  • Implement robust compliance oversight programs, particularly when scaling digital outreach efforts
  • Establish clear policies and procedures around the use of AI, machine learning, and other emerging technologies in debt collection and digital communication, and continuously assess their impact
  • Map and monitor outreach across all communication channels holistically, ensuring that consumers do not get “stuck” in a loop or experience any disruption in their communication
  • Ensure any messaging systems appropriately handle variations in opt-out requests (like we mentioned above, “STOP” is just one way consumers might convey their opt out of SMS)
  • Automation can be used not only to send messages but also to ensure that every piece of communication complies with the necessary regulations
  • Partner with debt collection agencies that have experience successfully using digital communications compliantly

The key is to adopt a comprehensive approach that blends technology, consumer insights, and compliance best practices. By leveraging digital tools to monitor communications, mapping out consumer journeys, and staying vigilant with AI and machine learning systems, businesses can maintain compliance without sacrificing the quality of the consumer experience.

And TrueAccord has a proven track record as an industry leader in digital-first debt collection from both a compliance and consumer experience perspective.

The TrueAccord Difference

To start, TrueAccord is a licensed, bonded, and insured collection agency in all jurisdictions where we collect. We ensure compliance control, auditability, and real-time updates for changing rules and regulations, as well as adapting to shifting trends in consumer preference and behavior.

Our digital collections compliance process is controlled by code, ensuring that all regulatory requirements are met, while still being flexible to quickly adjust to new rules, case law, and consumer experience expectations.

Take the example from earlier about consumer frustration trying to opt-out: at TrueAccord, we’ve found that only 7% of consumers use the word “STOP” to opt out of SMS communications—but our team and machine learning engine, HeartBeat, account for the many other phrases consumers may use to opt-out, staying compliant and reducing consumer friction.

It’s important to remember that most compliance rules were written for the benefit of consumers. As we’ve seen from today’s consumer-centric compliance guidelines, the better we comply, the better the consumer’s experience should be.

Ready to partner with an industry-leader in compliant digital-first debt collection? Schedule a consultation today!

Using Letters in Omnichannel Debt Collection—Keeping Up with Compliance

By on February 18th, 2025 in Industry Insights, Compliance, Customer Experience, Machine Learning, Product and Technology, User Experience
Using Letters in Omnichannel Debt Collection—Keeping Up with Compliance 1 scaled

Direct mail is the old-school method for reaching consumers regarding their debt, but over time several factors have reduced the effectiveness of letters in collection communications—consumer preference and cost being the most prevalent. But specific state compliance regulations and other use cases prove that “snail mail” still has its place in the omnichannel mix.

When are Letters Necessary in Collection Communications?

While the cost of physically mailing letters may be a deterrent to snail mail, businesses benefit when direct mail is used to meet compliance requirements. We’ll go into more detail around regulations in the next section.

Another benefit of mailing letters is most apparent when the delinquent account does not have a valid email address or phone number on file. Letters ensure that these individuals still receive crucial notifications regarding their accounts, preventing any potential oversight, and provide essential information related to their debt in a clear and organized manner.

Additionally, the formality of letters can be necessary to help raise awareness of outstanding debt for consumers that may not be as trusting of digital communications and choose to ignore phone calls. This is especially true for those who may not be as computer savvy or familiar with online financial transactions.

And just like with all other communication channels in debt collection, consumer preference also plays a role but in an even greater way with traditional letters: if a consumer clearly states that they only want to be contacted through physical mail (either to them directly or to their legal representation), businesses and collectors must abide. These types of requests lead to the main use case for letters…

The Main Use Case for Snail Mail: Compliance

The primary use case for using the direct mail channel is for compliance. Several laws, regulations, and governing bodies—including the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), Regulation F, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), among others—define how, when, and what needs to be included in consumer communications around debt collection, and letters were the original initial compliant consumer communication.

Yet the prevalence of digital has forced these regulations to evolve, and today there is no federal law requiring consent to communicate via email vs direct mail.

But there are some exceptions to this general rule:

  • Some states/jurisdictions require consent to communicate via email and text, which must be obtained through physical letters and documentation.
  • In some instances, consent to send legally required notices electronically must also be obtained through physical mail.
  • Some states require certain legally required notices to be mailed.

See Success and Real World Results with TrueAccord

Understanding the nuances of compliance and when communications fall under certain laws can be challenging without legal experts keeping a finger on the pulse of these evolving regulations—but TrueAccord ensures success with code-based compliance so all our engagement channels meet the requirements for each unique account’s circumstance and know when letters are the right choice for outreach.

While our omnichannel strategy is digital-first, we understand that digital isn’t always the best or most viable option to connect with some consumers. Knowing when, where, and why a letter might be the ideal choice for consumer communication helps TrueAccord and our clients remain compliant and cost-effective. Depending on a consumer’s location and contact information, a letter may be the best bet to garner engagement.

With advanced code-based compliance and scrubbing capabilities, TrueAccord’s omnichannel approach proves even snail mail can still be effective in collections.

Want to know more about how the omnichannel approach and how each channel influences the effectiveness of a business’s overall collection strategy? Download our new eBook, Omnichannel Communication in Debt Collection: An In-Depth Look at Advanced Engagement Strategy by Channel now»»