FLORIDA’S LEGISLATURE PROPOSES BILL TO AMEND CONSUMER DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT

Adam Diaz
Apr 30
3 min read

Both the House and Senate filed proposed bills that would make a minor, but impactful, amendment to § 559.72, F.S., known as the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (hereinafter “the Act” or “FCCPA”). The amendment would allow a debt collector to email, but not to call, a debtor between the hours of 9 p.m. and 8 a.m. for purposes of collecting a debt, an otherwise prohibited time for pursuing a debt. A brief history of the Act demonstrates the need for the amendment.

The FDCPA, upon which the FCCPA is based, took effect in 1978 to prevent “abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices,” ostensibly, the worst of which were late night and harassing telephone calls. Because the Act prohibited “communications” generally, not limiting the Act’s application to telephone calls, recent litigation has ensued over whether certain email communications violated the Act.

While it is easy to pinpoint the time a telephone call is made, the time an email is sent is not necessarily the time it is received or read, so the timing of the communication is not controlled by the debt collector. This obviously complicates the determination of whether a communication occurred during prohibited hours under the FCCPA. Since the Act did not address email communications, Courts are now grappling with the issue of when a message is communicated to the debtor for purposes of the Act. In two recent decisions, Florida courts reached incongruent conclusions, one court finding that the Act did apply to emails but clarifying that an email is “communicated to the debtor” when the debtor reads the email. The other court finding that the Act did not apply to email communications at all.

Anticipating additional litigation over the issue, the Legislature proposed amendments to the FCCPA limiting its application to communication “with the debtor by telephone call…” The reviewing committee members reasoned that emails were “less invasive and less disruptive than telephone calls” as further support for removing them from the Act’s scope. As mentioned, the amendments have been proposed in both House and Senate bills, both of which are subject to review, debate, and a vote. Assuming a bill is adopted and voted into law, the amendments to § 559.72 will take effect on July 1, 2025.

1 Untitled, H.R. 147, 119 th Cong. (2025); S.B. 232, 119 Cong. (2025).

2 The Fair Debt Collections Practices Act

3 See The Florida Senate Bill Analysis and Fiscal Impact Statement, sec. II (Recent Litigation).

4 Quinn-Davis v. TrueAccord Corp., No. 1:23-cv-23590, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211309 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 20, 2024). The Committees reviewing the proposed bill noted this case was one of first impression. See The Florida Senate Bill Analysis and Fiscal Impact Statement, sec. II. See also, Diaz v. Afterpay US Services, Hillsborough County Case No. 24-CC-054641 (May 22, 2025).

5 Quinn-Davis, at *17. The Court reasoned: “Simply put, if a debt collector ‘sends’ an e- mail but the consumer never ‘receives’ it, the debt collector has not ‘shared information’ or ‘communicated with’ anyone.”)

6 Diaz v. Afterpay US Services, Hillsborough County Case No. 24-CC-054641 (May 22, 2025).

7 S.B. 232, 119 Cong., sec. 17 (2025).

8 See The Florida Senate Bill Analysis and Fiscal Impact Statement, sec. I.

9 Untitled, H.R. 147, 119 th Cong. (2025); S.B. 232, 119 Cong. (2025).