6 Debt Collection TCPA Cases That Show Why You Need a Compliance Review 

Debt collection agencies face growing pressure from regulators and consumers. More lawsuits are being filed, and many of them involve collection calls that were meant to be part of a regular workflow. Companies that believe they already have a solid process often find small gaps that trigger massive class actions. These cases are expensive, stressful, and a long distraction from your core work.

The past few years have produced a wave of litigation focused on automated calls, wrong numbers, gaps in consent records, and outdated workflows. Some of the cases below resulted in payouts that could shut down a small or mid-sized agency. Reading the details is a reminder to check your procedures before the new year starts.

The goal of this blog is simple. You get a clear view of six TCPA and enforcement actions that apply directly to debt collectors. Each one shows what went wrong, how much it cost, and what lesson you can bring back to your own team.

Why These TCPA Cases Matter To Your Debt Collection Agency   

Debt collection calls involve people who are stressed about payment issues and cautious about unexpected contact. The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) gives them the right to control how companies communicate. If an autodialer reaches a mobile number without clear proof of consent, each call can cost up to $1,500 for willful violations.

A single wrong number can trigger a nationwide class action. Many companies learned this lesson too late. These cases show how small mistakes turn into millions of dollars in risk. Auditing your process now is safer than defending a lawsuit next year.

Debt Collection Companies with TCPA Cases 

1. Capital One and Partner Collection Agencies   

$75.5 Million TCPA Settlement  

Capital One and three partner collection agencies faced one of the largest TCPA class actions of its time. The case said automated calls and prerecorded messages reached people who never gave consent.

The lawsuit, Alejandro Vivero et al. v. Capital One, covered several years of collection calls. Consumers said Capital One and its partners used autodialers to contact mobile phones without permission. Some said they continued receiving calls after asking to stop.

Capital One denied wrongdoing yet agreed to settle for $75.5 million. Reports showed $73.5 million came from Capital One and $2.5 million came from the agencies involved.

The settlement stood out because it involved multiple agencies, a nationwide class, and long-term automated outreach. It reminded debt collectors that consent tracking, vendor oversight, and dialer control are major factors in staying compliant.

2. Credit One Bank   

$14 Million TCPA Settlement

Credit One Bank faced claims that it placed automated or prerecorded calls to individuals who never gave permission. The calls took place from February 20, 2014, to February 7, 2019. Many people who received calls were not customers. Others received calls even after asking Credit One to stop.

Consumers said the bank used prerecorded messages and dialing systems without clear consent. Credit One denied wrongdoing but agreed to pay $14 million to settle the claims.

This case highlighted common issues:

• Calling numbers without confirming consent
• Overlooking opt-out requests
• Relying on outdated contact lists

The settlement allowed affected individuals to file claims. It also reminded the industry that even reputable financial companies face risk when outreach processes do not align with TCPA rules.

3. DIRECTV   

$17 Million TCPA Settlement

DIRECTV agreed to pay $17 million to settle claims involving prerecorded debt collection calls to people who were not customers. These individuals never gave any form of consent.

The calls were placed through third-party collection agencies such as:

• Credit Management LP
• iQor
• Enhanced Recovery Company
• AFNI

Court documents stated that roughly 220,000 wrong numbers were dialed during the class period. Payouts were based on which agency made the call:

• Around $600 per call for calls made through iQor or Credit Management
• Around $300 per call for calls made through AFNI or Enhanced Recovery

This case showed how quickly wrong number issues can turn into large class actions when numbers change ownership or are entered incorrectly. Many agencies updated their verification steps after this settlement.

4. Rash Curtis and Associates   

$267 Million TCPA Settlement

Rash Curtis faced one of the highest TCPA judgments ever recorded. A federal court in California found that the agency made 534,000 autodialed or prerecorded calls to mobile phones without valid consent.

Each call was valued at $500, which led to a $267 million judgment.

This case pushed collectors to review how consent is stored and how data is updated. Automation is useful yet dangerous when paired with outdated records. The judgment showed how damaging large-scale violations can be.

5. Head vs Citibank   

$29.5 Million TCPA Settlement

Ms. Head and Mr. Newton filed class action lawsuits against Citibank. They said Citibank used an artificial or prerecorded voice to call mobile numbers linked to past due credit card accounts. The problem was that these numbers did not belong to customers or authorized users.

The calls covered a period from August 15, 2014 to July 31, 2024.

Citibank denied all claims. Still, the company agreed to a $29.5 million settlement, which was approved in January 2025. Class members who submitted valid claims will receive around $1,500 each.

This case showed how a simple mismatch between a number and its current owner can escalate into a class action. Wrong number calls are one of the biggest risks for agencies that rely on automated outreach.

6. FTC vs Global Circulation Inc   

A Non TCPA Case That Still Highlights Serious Compliance Risks  

Global Circulation Inc. faced action from the Federal Trade Commission after reports of threats, deception, and attempts to collect debts people did not owe. The FTC said the company failed to identify itself as a debt collector, used several business names to hide its identity, and gathered financial data without permission. These actions violated the FDCPA, the FTC Act, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, and the FTC’s Impersonation Rule.

A temporary restraining order shut the operation down in November 2024.

On May 1, 2025, the FTC filed an amended complaint and proposed a final order that will permanently remove the company and its owner from debt collection and debt brokering. The order includes a $9,684,338 judgment, which will be suspended only after the remaining assets are turned over. The full amount becomes due if any false financial statements are discovered.

This case shows how fast compliance failures attract federal action even when TCPA is not part of the complaint.

What These Debt Collection TCPA Cases Tell Us Going Into the New Year  

Debt collection companies face rising compliance pressure. Many lawsuits begin with small gaps, like wrong number calls or missing consent records. Strengthening a few key areas can lower your risk before the new year starts.

Review all consent documentation  

Every number in your system must connect to clear proof of consent. Missing records are one of the most common reasons TCPA cases grow. A quick audit can prevent major issues later.

Check for reassigned numbers  

Numbers change ownership often, which makes verification necessary. Using a Reassigned Numbers Database API helps confirm if a number still belongs to the right person. This step prevents many wrong number complaints.

Run a full DNC Scrub against National and State Lists  

A DNC Scrub API that validates phone numbers against National and State Lists keeps you from calling people who already opted out. Several states maintain their own rules, which means skipping this step can be costly. Scrubbing both levels protects your team and strengthens your compliance process.

Monitor all vendors  

You are still responsible for calls made through third-party partners. Vendors who skip consent checks or fail to scrub lists can create instant exposure for your company. Regular oversight keeps everyone aligned.

Audit your dialing systems  

Know how your dialer works and what type of technology it uses. Many lawsuits claim that a system meets the definition of an autodialer, which increases risk. A simple review helps prevent that.

Honor opt-out requests  

A single ignored stop request can trigger a complaint. You need a fast way to capture and block future calls the moment someone opts out. This protects both your team and your reputation.

Use clear scripts  

Consumers want to know who is calling and why. Simple and direct scripts help reduce confusion. This also lowers complaint volume. Not only it is a good to have, but mandated by TCPA to identify yourself when calling.

Final Thoughts

These cases show what happens when contact information is not verified or when calls reach the wrong person. Debt collectors already face tight margins and heavy workloads. A single TCPA lawsuit can drain your budget and shift attention away from everything else you are working on.

You can move into the new year with a stronger process and fewer risks. It is safer to review your system now instead of reacting after a demand letter arrives.

If you want to strengthen accuracy and reduce TCPA exposure, you can try Searchbug tools by registering for a FREE API Test Account. You get access to compliance checks, DNC screening, reassigned number verification, and other features that protect your calling workflow.