Editing Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (section)

==People and entities covered by the FDCPA==
The FDCPA broadly defines a debt collector as "any person who uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in any business the principal purpose of which is the collection of any debts, or who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another."<ref>{{usc|15|1692a}}</ref> While the FDCPA generally applies only to third party debt collectors—not internal collectors for an "original [[creditor]]"—some states, such as [[California]],<ref>{{cite web|title=Your Rights Under California's Fair Debt Collection Practices Act|url=https://oag.ca.gov/consumers/general/collection_agencies10|website=State of California Department of Justice|date=10 February 2012 |access-date=16 June 2017}}</ref> have similar state consumer protection laws which mirror the FDCPA, and regulate original creditors. In addition, some federal courts have ruled that a collector of debt is not a "creditor" but is rather a "debt collector" under the FDCPA where the collector of debt [[debt buyer|buys defaulted debt]] from an original creditor for the purpose of debt collection.<ref>''Holmes v. Telecredit Service Corp.'', 736 F. Supp. 1289, 1293 (D. Del. 1990)</ref><ref>''Kimber v. Federal Financial Corp.'', 668 F. Supp. 1480, 1485 (M.D.Ala. 1987)</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Federal Trade Commission Staff Opinion Letter Dated Dec. 22, 1993 (|url=http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/letters/arbuckle.htm|website=Federal Trade Commission|access-date=16 June 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070224093350/http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/letters/arbuckle.htm|archive-date=24 February 2007|date=22 December 1993}}</ref> The definitions and coverage have changed over time. The FDCPA itself contains numerous exceptions to the definition of a "debt collector", particularly after the October 13, 2006, passage of the Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2006. Attorneys, originally explicitly exempted from the definition of a debt collector, have been included (to the extent that they otherwise meet the definition) since 1986.

The FDCPA's definitions of "consumers" and "debt" specifically restricts the coverage of the act to personal, family or household transactions.<ref>{{cite web|title=15 U.S. Code § 1692a - Definitions|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1692a|website=Legal Information Institute|publisher=Cornell Law School|access-date=16 June 2017}}</ref> Thus, debts owed by businesses (or by individuals for business purposes) are not subject to the FDCPA.

In the federal tax case of ''Smith v. United States'', the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit stated that the taxpayer's "invocation of the Fair Debt Collection Act is entirely without merit, as the statute expressly excludes 'any officer or employee of the United States ... to the extent that collecting or attempting to collect any debt is in the performance of his official duties' from the definition of 'debt collector'. 15 U.S.C. section 1692a(6)(C)."<ref name="Smith">''Smith v. United States'', United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, case no. 08-10288, December 2, 2008 (''per curiam'').</ref> In 1998, however, Congress amended the Internal Revenue Code by adding a new section 6304, "Fair Tax Collection Practices", which refers to and includes certain rules that are similar to some provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.<ref>See generally {{usc|26|6304}}, as enacted by section 3466(a) of the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-206 (July 22, 1998).</ref>

In ''[[Henson v. Santander Consumer USA Inc.]]'', the Supreme Court excluded collection companies that purchase consumer debt from the FDCPA when it unanimously held that a company may collect debts that it purchased for its own account without triggering the statutory definition of a "debt collector" under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.<ref>{{cite web|title=''Henson vs. Satander Consumer USA'', 582 U.S. ___ (2017)|url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-349_c07d.pdf|website=Supreme Court of the United States|access-date=16 June 2017}}</ref> Nonetheless, at least one subsequent Circuit Court opinion has cabined the impact of ''Henson'' by subsequently finding that companies that purchase consumer debt could still be subject to the FDCPA under the alternative definition of debt collector as a business whose "principal purpose" is the collection of debts.<ref>https://www.consumerfinancialserviceslawmonitor.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/501/2019/02/Barbato-v-Crown.pdf {{Bare URL PDF|date=March 2022}}</ref>