public-service · debt collector call frequency rule
What Regulation F Says About Debt Collector Call Frequency
Reg F's call-frequency rule is a presumption of compliance, not a hard 7-in-7 cap. Here is the exact regulatory text.
In this article
Updated: Sources: 2
Start here
What matters now
- Reg F's call-frequency rule sits in 12 CFR § 1006.14(b).
- A collector 'is presumed to comply' by staying within two limits.
- Limit one: no more than seven calls within seven consecutive days.
- Limit two: no call within seven days after talking to the person about the debt.
- The rule sets a presumption of compliance, not a hard call cap.
Under 12 CFR § 1006.14(b), the section titled “§ 1006.14 Harassing, oppressive, or abusive conduct,” a debt collector “is presumed to comply” with the rule against harassing call frequency only if it avoids calling “more than seven times within seven consecutive days” and avoids calling “within a period of seven consecutive days after having had a telephone conversation with the person” about that debt.
That wording describes a presumption of compliance, not a hard legal ceiling on how many calls a collector may make.
This original record-reading guide is a general reading aid, not cited evidence. It does not depict a source record; the article text and source links provide the facts.
Key points
- The rule lives in Regulation F, § 1006.14(b) — the section addressing harassing, oppressive, or abusive conduct.
- A collector “is presumed to comply” with the call-frequency restriction if it stays within two specific limits.
- Limit one: no more than seven calls “within seven consecutive days.”
- Limit two: no call “within a period of seven consecutive days after having had a telephone conversation with the person” about the debt.
- The rule text creates a presumption of compliance, not a stated cap or prohibition above that threshold.
The rule’s two conditions
That section title frames its purpose — addressing conduct that harasses, oppresses, or abuses a person in connection with debt collection — and paragraph (b) is where the call-frequency language appears. There, a collector “is presumed to comply” with the restriction on call frequency when it meets two distinct conditions, both stated in the regulatory text:
- Call volume: avoiding calls “more than seven times within seven consecutive days.”
- Post-conversation cooling-off: avoiding a call “within a period of seven consecutive days after having had a telephone conversation with the person” regarding that debt.
That phrase — “is presumed to comply” — is the operative legal mechanism. It does not say a collector “may not call more than” a set number of times, and it does not say exceeding the conditions “violates” the rule. It ties a presumption to staying within the two stated limits.
That is a different kind of rule than a flat cap that bars a specific number of calls outright: describing § 1006.14(b) as a hard “7-in-7 rule” or an absolute call limit goes beyond what this presumption language states.
What this article does not answer
This article is limited to the text of 12 CFR § 1006.14(b) itself and does not go further. It does not address what happens if a collector calls more than seven times in seven days or calls again within seven days of a conversation; that question is outside the scope of the presumption-of-compliance language quoted here.
It also does not address whether any particular caller counts as a covered “debt collector” under Regulation F, since that determination depends on facts the regulatory text alone does not settle for any specific situation.
And it does not treat the seven-times or seven-day thresholds as an absolute legal cap or hard limit; the rule’s own language creates a presumption of compliance, not a prohibition on additional calls.