A Consumer Protection and Employment Law Firm Serving California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Illinois.

How to ask a debt collector for a validation of debt

Table Of Contents
Summarize with
ChatGPT Claude Gemini Perplexity Grok

According to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), all consumers have the right to request a validation of a debt.  A debt collector who is in compliance with the FDCPA must send a consumer a written notice within 5 days of their first communication with them. The notice must tell the consumer, among other things, about their right to request validation of the debt.

Below are some things to keep in mind about the validation process:


  • You must request validation in writing and you must request it within 30 days of your receipt of the required notice.  According to the FDCPA, a debt collector does not have to honor a request for validation unless it is in writing and unless they receive it within 30 days of your receipt of the notice. While

  • Once you’ve properly requested validation, the debt collector must cease all collection attempts until they provide it to you. There is a myth that a debt collector must validate a debt within 30 days and if they do not the debt is forgiven.  However, the truth is, there is no time limit to how long the debt collector has to validate your debt. They are just not allowed to call, write, sue you, or take any other action against you until they validate the debt.

  • There aren’t any clear requirements about what type of documents are sufficient validation. The According to the FTC,  the validation only needs to confirm that the debt collector is pursuing the right person and the right amount.


If you are being harassed by debt collectors, you may be entitled to compensation.  Please call Consumer Protection Attorney, Todd M. Friedman for a free consultation.

Free Consultation

Undisclosed
Settlement

TCPA class action against the Los Angeles Times. Final approval granted 2014.

More Details
$750,000
Settlement

Common fund class-wide TCPA settlement against home healthcare provider. Final approval granted.

More Details
$27.6M
Settlement

TCPA class action certified on behalf of approximately 2,000,000 class members under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3). Subsequently settled on a Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) basis. Final approval granted.

More Details
$5.2M
Settlement

/

Unruh Act class action on behalf of approximately 240,000 consumers challenging Tinder’s age-based differential pricing for its subscription service. Final approval granted; subsequently went up on appeal.

More Details
$390,000
Settlement

TCPA class action alleging HD Supply sent unauthorized marketing text messages to consumers’ mobile phones without consent between October 21, 2011 and July 26, 2017. Presided over by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Case terminated January 29, 2018.

More Details
$1,500,000
Settlement

/

TCPA class action against a Kansas-based payday lender alleged to have contacted consumers via prerecorded calls on their cell phones to collect alleged debts without consent. California federal judge granted final approval.

More Details
$6,500,000
Settlement

/

Cal. Penal Code § 632.7 class action certified by contested motion under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of over 40,000 class members whose calls were recorded without their knowledge or consent. Final approval granted.

More Details
$13,000,000
Settlement

/

$13 Million Class action alleging HSBC recorded consumer telephone calls without knowledge or consent in violation of California’s Privacy Statute (Penal Code § 632.7). California Federal Judge granted final approval.

More Details
$34,000,000
Settlement

/

One of the largest TCPA class action settlements in U.S. history at time of approval. Alleged Chase used an automatic telephone dialing system to contact consumers on their cell phones without prior express consent from July 2008 through December 2013. Settlement class included over 32 million members. Final approval granted March 2016.

More Details
$150,000,000
Settlement

/

Class action on behalf of over 100,000 owners of GM vehicles equipped with allegedly defective LG-manufactured batteries posing fire and safety risks. Litigation commenced December 2020. U.S. District Judge Terrence G. Berg indicated preliminary approval of the $150 million settlement.

More Details
$100,000,000
Settlement

/ /

Landmark gig-economy class action. DoorDash drivers in California and Massachusetts alleged they were wrongly classified as independent contractors rather than employees. Firm served as class counsel. Final approval granted January 13, 2022 — the largest gig-economy worker class settlement in U.S. history at the time.

More Details

Office Locations

Copyright 2025 Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. All Rights Reserved.