hc# 4832-4131-4626 hudson cook, llp - solutions by text · 2018-08-23 · rulemaking efforts with...

Hudson Cook, LLP • Attorneys at Law • www.hudco.com 1909 K Street NW | 4th Floor | Washington, DC 20006 202.223.6930 • Fax: 202.223.6935 Offices in: California, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia and Washington, DC

Solutions By Text (“SBT”) offers to its clients the ability to deliver SMS text messages using SBT’s

proprietary software and suite of related services. This white paper applies to SBT’s clients who are

debt collectors and creditors that use SBT’s services to send payment reminder and collection text

messages to debtors and customers of creditors (collectively referred to as “account management text

messages”).1 This white paper presents standards in the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act

(“TCPA”) and the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) applicable to these text messages

and assesses how SBT’s services enable clients to send account management text messages in

compliance with these laws. This white paper does not address any state laws; it is limited to the TCPA

and FDCPA. SBT’s two-way texting offering, which allows clients to respond to customers outside of

SBT’s template messages, is outside the scope of this white paper.

TCPA Standards.

The TCPA was enacted 26 years ago, before consumers used their phones for text messaging.

47 U.S.C. § 227. The original TCPA required consent to use an “automatic telephone dialing system” or a

prerecorded message; regulated the transmission of facsimile advertisements; and created limited do-

not-call rights for consumers to stop unwanted telemarketing calls. The TCPA gave rulemaking authority

to the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) to adopt regulations implementing the TCPA. The

FCC has issued and amended its TCPA rule repeatedly over the years and has supplemented its

rulemaking efforts with official TCPA interpretations that have the force of law without amending the

1 SBT’s non-creditor clients are outside the scope of this white paper.

HC# 4832-4131-4626 Hudson Cook, LLP Attorney-Client Communication Confidential & Privileged

Solutions By Text March 13, 2017


rule provisions. The TCPA standards articulated today in the FCC’s rule look much different from where

the TCPA began in 1991.

TCPA Consent Standard. Current standards established by the FCC’s rule require “prior express

consent” for certain non-marketing communications and require “prior express written consent” for

certain marketing communications. The “prior express consent” standard is triggered by non-marketing

telephone calls that are initiated with an “automatic telephone dialing system” or that use an artificial or

prerecorded message. This consent standard applies only when the non-marketing communication is

initiated to a telephone number assigned to cellular telephone service or any other service for which the

called party is charged for the call.2 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(1)(iii). (Because this white paper is limited to

non-marketing text message communications, it will not address any other types of communications to

any other types of telephone numbers.) The “prior express written consent” standard applies to

telephone calls that include or introduce an advertisement or constitute telemarketing, if the call is to a

cell phone and uses an automatic telephone dialing system or a prerecorded message or the call is to a

landline and uses a prerecorded message.3 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(2)-(3).

The FCC first established that text messages are “telephone calls” for TCPA purposes in 2003.

2003 TCPA Order, 18 FCC Rcd. 14014, 14115, para. 165 (July 3, 2003). The FCC reaffirmed this position

in a 2015 Declaratory Ruling and Order, 2015 TCPA Order, 30 FCC Rcd. 7961, 8017, para. 107 (July 10,

2015). As a result, at this time, there is no debate that a non-marketing text message sent using

2 This consent standard also applies to calls to any emergency telephone line, including any 911 line and any emergency line of a hospital, medical physician or service office, health care facility, poison control center, or fire protection or law enforcement agency; the telephone line of any guest room or patient room of a hospital, health care facility, elderly home, or similar establishment; or any telephone number assigned to a paging service, specialized mobile radio service, or other radio common carrier service. 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(1)(i)-(iii). 3 The TCPA defines “advertisement” and “telemarketing,” as used in the provision requiring “prior express written consent.” 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(1); (f)(12). The TCPA also defines what constitutes valid “prior express written consent.” 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(8). Because this white paper is limited to non-marketing communications (i.e., text messages that do not include or introduce advertisements and do not constitute telemarketing), these definitions are not addressed.



technology that satisfies the TCPA’s “automatic telephone dialing system” definition requires the

recipient’s “prior express consent.”

TCPA Autodialer Standard. In the TCPA and the FCC’s codified TCPA rule, the definition of an

“automatic telephone dialing system” has not changed since the original statutory definition issued in

1991: The term refers to equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to

be called using a random or sequential number generator and to dial such numbers. 47 C.F.R. §

64.1200(f)(2). However, the FCC has significantly expanded its interpretation of this term in official

guidance. In 2003, the FCC took the position that predictive dialers are “autodialers” because they have

the capacity to dial numbers without human intervention. 2003 TCPA Order, 18 FCC Rcd. at 14091,

para. 132. The FCC was acknowledging that “smarter” predictive dialers were replacing less

sophisticated autodialers by rapidly dialing numbers loaded by the user in lieu of randomly or

sequentially generated calling lists. The FCC reaffirmed this position in 2008. 2008 TCPA Declaratory

Ruling, 23 FCC Rcd. 559, 566, paras. 12-13 (January 4, 2008).

The FCC revisited the “autodialer” standard in 2015. In that Declaratory Ruling and Order, the

FCC restated its focus on whether the equipment has the capacity to dial numbers without human

intervention (as opposed to focusing on capacity to dial numbers randomly or sequentially). The FCC

also noted its concern regarding equipment that could dial thousands of numbers in a short period of

time. The FCC arguably expanded its interpretation of the “autodialer” standard by stating that the

definition’s reference to “capacity” to autodial did not exclude equipment lacking the present ability to

dial randomly or sequentially. In other words, “capacity” means something other than “present ability.”

The FCC introduced the concept of “potential functionalities” in its analysis: the TCPA’s “autodialer”

standard assesses an equipment’s capacity based on how it could be configured to operate in the future,

in addition to how it is presently configured to operate. The FCC conceded that consideration of a



dialer’s potential functionalities would be limited by a reasonableness standard. The FCC was willing to

acknowledge that rotary phones do not satisfy the TCPA’s “autodialer” standard, but it was not willing to

adopt the same position with respect to smartphones. 30 FCC Rcd. at 7972-78, paras. 10-21. The FCC’s

expanding interpretation of the TCPA’s “autodialer” standard means that callers and text message

senders must proceed with caution when taking the position that their equipment is not regulated by

the TCPA’s “autodialer” standard. This white paper assumes that SBT’s text messaging solution

constitutes an “autodialer” subject to the TCPA’s consent standards.

Obtaining Valid TCPA Consent. As noted above, the TCPA requires text message senders to have

the recipient’s “prior express consent” to send a non-marketing text message using equipment that

satisfies the TCPA’s “autodialer” standard. 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(1). Neither the TCPA nor the FCC’s

TCPA rule defines this “prior express consent” standard. In a 1992 Report and Order, the FCC stated:

“[P]ersons who knowingly release their phone numbers have in effect given their invitation or

permission to be called at the number which they have given, absent instructions to the contrary.

Hence, telemarketers will not violate our rules by calling a number which was provided as one at which

the called party wishes to be reached.”4 1992 TCPA Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd. 8752, 8769, para. 31

(October 16, 1992). The FCC reaffirmed this position in a 2008 Declaratory Ruling: “Because we find

that autodialed and prerecorded message calls to wireless numbers provided by the called party in

connection with an existing debt are made with the ‘prior express consent’ of the called party, we clarify

that such calls are permissible. We conclude that the provision of a cell phone number to a creditor,

e.g., as part of a credit application, reasonably evidences prior express consent by the cell phone

4 This position tracks one adopted by the U.S. House of Representatives in a TCPA report: “The restriction on calls to emergency lines, pagers, and the like does not apply when the called party has provided the telephone number of such a line to the caller for use in normal business communications.” H.R. Rep. 102-317 at 17 (November 15, 1991).



subscriber to be contacted at that number regarding the debt.” 23 FCC Rcd. at 564-65, paras. 9-10. This

constitutes consent only if the consumer volunteered his or her cell phone number to the creditor; this

does not extend to phone numbers captured by technological means or provided by third parties.

The FCC’s guidance does not require creditors to provide a disclosure at the time the consumer

volunteers his or her phone number in order to establish valid consent. However, the FCC encourages

creditors to provide a disclosure informing the consumer that, by providing his or her phone number,

the consumer is consenting to receive autodialed and prerecorded message calls from the creditor at

that number. This 2008 guidance also establishes that a creditor can share customers’ “prior express

consent” with third-party debt collectors contacting consumers on the creditor’s behalf: “Calls placed

by a third party collector on behalf of that creditor are treated as if the creditor itself placed the call.”

23 FCC Rcd. at 565, para. 10.5

The TCPA does not include an express recordkeeping requirement in connection with the “prior

express consent” standard. However, the FCC has made clear that text message senders bear the

burden of demonstrating that a non-marketing text message sent using an autodialer was based on valid

“prior express consent.” 23 FCC Rcd. at 564-65, para. 10; 30 FCC Rcd. at 7990; 7998-99, paras. 47; 70.

TCPA Consent Revocation. The TCPA does not expressly address the consumer’s ability to

revoke TCPA consent. Before the FCC addressed this issue in 2015, courts were split as to whether an

implied right to revoke consent existed in the TCPA. In 2015, the FCC resolved this issue definitively,

finding that text message recipients may revoke TCPA consent at any time through any reasonable

means. Text message senders are prohibited from limiting the manner in which recipients revoke

5 It is less clear whether a debt buyer can take advantage of consent provided to an original creditor. The FCC’s 2008 guidance does not address that scenario. In the mortgage context, there is case law indicating that TCPA consent does transfer to a contract assignee when the underlying contract is assigned. Moriarty v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, 2014 WL 801021 (E.D. Cal. February 27, 2014).



consent or designating an exclusive means to revoke. The means for revoking TCPA consent may be in

writing, oral, or in person. 30 FCC Rcd. at 7990; 7993-94; 7996-97, paras. 47; 55-58; 64; 66-67.

TCPA Enforcement. The enforcement structure for the FCC’s TCPA rule provision requiring

consent to use an autodialer to send text messages is set out in the statute itself. Individual text

message recipients have a private right of action under the TCPA. Each text message is an independent

TCPA violation, and the per-violation recovery is $500 in statutory damages or actual damages,

whichever is greater. Courts do not have discretion to award less than $500 per violation, but they can

award up to three times that amount based on a finding that a violation was willful or knowing. 47

U.S.C. § 227(b)(3).

The private right of action accrues to the actual recipient of the unlawful text message (i.e., the

subscriber of the receiving telephone number). 6 The “subscriber” can be either the person who pays

the bill for the service provided at the phone number or a customary user of the receiving telephone

number who does not pay the bill for service at that number. 30 FCC Rcd. at 8000-01, para. 73. On the

defendant side, the party that actually initiates or sends the text message faces direct liability for any

TCPA violations. If that party was acting on behalf of a third party, who directed the text messaging

campaign, that third party can face direct or vicarious liability, depending on the circumstances.

Vicarious liability for another’s conduct requires a showing of some kind of agency relationship: formal

6 Article III standing challenges to TCPA cases have generally been unsuccessful. Article III standing requires the plaintiff to assert a valid injury. Some defendants have argued that the mere existence of a TCPA violation does not satisfy this injury requirement. Courts have generally rejected these challenges, reasoning that the invasion of privacy that comes with a TCPA violation is sufficient for standing. See, e.g., Hunsinger v. Gordmans, Inc., 2016 WL 7048895 (E.D. Mo. December 5, 2016); Holderread v. Ford Motor Credit Company, LLC, 2016 WL 6248707 (E.D. Tex. October 26, 2016). An exception to this general rule has been applied to “professional” plaintiffs, who have attempted to attract TCPA violations. See, e.g., Stoops v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2016 WL 3566266 (W.D. Penn. June 24, 2016).



agency, apparent authority, or ratification.7 2013 TCPA Declaratory Ruling, 28 FCC Rcd. 6574, 6584,

6586-87, 6592-93; paras. 28, 33-34, 45-47 (May 9, 2013).

In cases of text messages inadvertently sent to a wrong number or a number that has been

reassigned to an unrelated third party, the fact that the sender had valid consent to contact the

intended recipient is not a defense to a claim of a TCPA violation by the actual recipient. Every text

message inadvertently sent to a wrong number is a TCPA violation, with a private right of action accruing

to the actual recipient of the message. With respect to inadvertent messages to reassigned numbers,

the FCC’s guidance is more forgiving. In 2015, the FCC announced that text message senders using an

autodialer are not liable for the first inadvertent message sent to a reassigned number, provided that

the sender had valid consent to reach the intended recipient at that number and did not know that the

number had been reassigned. (The sender bears the burden of proving both elements of this limited

safe harbor.) This safe harbor expires after the first message to the reassigned number, no matter the

result of that contact. 30 FCC Rcd. at 8007, para. 85.

States may bring enforcement actions in response to a pattern or practice of TCPA violations,

with a similar monetary damages structure. 47 U.S.C. § 227(g)(1). The FCC can also bring enforcement

actions in response to TCPA violations. The FCC must issue a citation and the target must commit a

subsequent TCPA violation for the FCC’s ability to obtain civil penalties to accrue. At that point, the FCC

may seek penalties of up to $18,936 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, and up to

$142,021 for each single act or failure to act. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(5); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(9)(ii).

7 The FCC’s discussion of vicarious liability is set out in the 2013 TCPA Declaratory Ruling. That discussion is in the context of sellers using third-party telemarketers. However, there is support for the position that the FCC would apply a similar interpretation to a creditor using a third-party collector. See 23 FCC Rcd. at 564-65, para. 10: “Calls placed by a third-party collector on behalf of that creditor are treated as if the creditor itself placed the call.” The passages in the Declaratory Ruling cited in the main text provide a detailed discussion of the three common-law agency principles and factual scenarios that could satisfy those principles for purposes of imposing vicarious liability.



SBT Model & TCPA Compliance.

The TCPA standards applicable to non-marketing text messages sent via an autodialer (i.e.,

account management text messages) can be reduced to the following main concepts: (1) account

management text messages require the recipient’s “prior express consent”; (2) recipients have the right

to revoke TCPA consent at any time by any reasonable means; (3) text message senders are liable for

text messages inadvertently sent to wrong numbers or reassigned numbers; (4) text message senders

bear the burden of proving valid consent; and (5) creditors may be liable for TCPA violations committed

by third-party collectors while acting on the creditor’s behalf. SBT has implemented a robust

compliance program to promote its services’ compliance with these TCPA requirements.

In the context of account management text messages, SBT requires clients to use its Verify By

Text feature to obtain valid TCPA “prior express consent.” Verify By Text is a double opt-in process that

documents compliance with the TCPA consent requirement and preserves that documentation for seven

years. In the first step of this process, the consumer provides his or her cell phone number to SBT’s

creditor-client (i.e., the party with the business relationship with the consumer). The SBT software

confirms that the phone number is a valid, active cell phone number. The SBT client can then use the

SBT application program interface (“API”) or user interface to send an opt-in request message that

includes a unique approval PIN or some other call to action to confirm consent. The consumer is

required to provide the unique PIN verbally, via web interaction, or by sending a responsive text

message reply to complete the VBT process. The consumer then receives a second opt-in confirmation

message with required opt-out information. 8 Under FCC guidance, SBT’s creditor-clients would have

valid “prior express consent” to send account management text messages based solely on the first part

of the Verify By Text process: having the consumer volunteer his or her cell phone number to the

8 Screenshots of a sample of Verify By Text’s double opt-in process are attached to this white paper as Appendix A.



creditor. The Verify By Text process offers stronger evidence of valid TCPA consent and gives SBT clients

a simple and reliable way to document consumer consent. All client consents completed through SBT’s

process are client brand-specific. This means that clients cannot transfer consent associated with one

brand to a second brand under which the client might also operate. This is consistent with FCC guidance

on this issue.9

Consumers have the right to revoke TCPA consent at any time by any reasonable means. SBT’s

opt-in message completing the Verify By Text process includes opt-out instructions: “To opt out reply

STOP. HELP for info.”10 All subsequent message templates for account management text messages that

SBT makes available to clients must include content leading to an opt-out opportunity, such as: “For

help reply HELP.” Consumers who use that instruction and send a “HELP” message in response to an

account management text message receive a text message providing a customer service toll-free

number and instructions for opting out via text message: “To cancel msgs reply STOP or call 888-555-

1212.”11 (SBT recommends “STOP” content for subsequent account related messages.) Because clients

are required to use SBT’s message templates, this ensures that all account management text messages

sent through the SBT software will include a means for consumers to revoke consent. Virtually all

consent revocations are submitted by a consumer texting “STOP.” When consumers reply “STOP” to opt

out, SBT’s software automatically sends one final message confirming receipt of the consumer’s TCPA

consent revocation.12 The FCC has expressly established that this confirmation message is permitted.13

9 23 FCC Rcd. at 565, note 38. 10 See Appendix A for sample messaging. 11 Screenshots of sample account management message templates with opt-out instructions are attached to this white paper as Appendix B. 12 See Appendix B for sample messaging. 13 30 FCC Rcd. at 7994, para. 57; 2012 TCPA Declaratory Ruling, 27 FCC Rcd. 15391, 15397, para. 11 (November 29, 2012). The FCC has explained that the consumer’s previous “prior express consent” extends to a single message confirming the consumer’s opt-out, provided that the confirmation message does not include any marketing content. The confirmation message should be sent within five minutes of the consumer’s opt-out text message request.



SBT offers an API and user interface option to facilitate clients’ ability to manage customers’ opt-out

requests. This allows clients to ensure that revocations are honored across all applicable forms of

communication, even if they are submitted other than by reply text message. This API allows clients to

communicate customer consent revocations to SBT for processing via SBT’s Stop Safety Net. The FCC’s

expansive approach to the consumer’s right to revoke consent means that consumers could

communicate their consent revocation directly to an SBT client. The client bears responsibility for

processing those revocations.

When a consumer revokes consent by replying “STOP” to a text message that a SBT client sends

via the SBT interface, SBT’s Stop Safety Net processes those consumer consent revocations. The

consumer’s consent revocation is communicated to the client and recorded in SBT’s client database. If a

client attempts to send a subsequent text message to a phone number for which consent has been

revoked, SBT blocks that message from being sent. With this process, SBT effectuates consumer

consent revocations instantly. The only way SBT clients can override a consumer’s TCPA consent

revocation is by repeating the VBT double opt-in process.

SBT’s clients face exposure to liability under the TCPA for account management text messages

inadvertently sent to wrong numbers and to numbers that have been reassigned from a customer to an

unrelated third party. SBT’s Verify By Text double opt-in process and user interface should significantly

mitigate the risk of text messages sent to wrong numbers. The Verify By Text process requires the SBT

client to provide a customer cell phone number to SBT. SBT requires clients to obtain customers’ cell

phone numbers only from the customers directly; clients are not permitted to use SBT’s software to

send text messages to customer cell phone numbers obtained from any other source. Verify By Text

sends an initial text message to that phone number, and the customer must send a reply message from



that number or provide a unique approval PIN to complete SBT’s authorization process. As a result, only

the initial text message in the Verify By Text process should have any risk of a wrong number delivery.

SBT’s Text Guard Service also helps prevent improper text messages to cell phone numbers that

are in the process of being reassigned from a client’s customer to an unrelated third party. If an account

management text message is attempted to a cell phone number that has been deactivated and is in the

process of being reassigned, SBT receives a report of the deactivated service and processes the number

as if it had been opted out or unsubscribed. SBT’s user interface will block all subsequent attempts to

send text messages to that number until the Verify By Text double opt-in process has been completed

for that number. There is still a risk that a client will attempt to send a text message to a reassigned

number where SBT has not had an opportunity to learn that the number has been reassigned. SBT’s

clients retain exposure to liability for those messages, after the first message sent to the reassigned

number. In supporting the one-contact limited safe harbor for reassigned numbers, the FCC’s position is

that there are tools available in the marketplace to help business identify reassigned numbers. See 30

FCC Rcd. at 8007, para. 86, note 301. The FCC also points to the sender’s option of asking customers to

alert the sender when they change numbers and of using the limited one-contact safe harbor to track

reassigned numbers. Regardless of how effective these measures are, SBT’s clients bear the burden of

avoiding texts to reassigned numbers. Clients should consider adopting the measures suggested by the

FCC to mitigate this burden and the associated risk.

All of the SBT client services described here also provide documentation of TCPA compliance.

The FCC has indicated that text message senders bear the burden of proving that their messages were

sent with valid consent and otherwise in compliance with the TCPA. See 23 FCC Rcd. at 565, para. 10.

SBT, through its VBT process, maintains records of TCPA consent and consent revocation for seven

years, which extends beyond the applicable statutes of limitation for TCPA enforcement actions.



FDCPA Standards.

Applicability. The federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”)14 was enacted in 1978 to

curb abusive collection practices by debt collectors. The FDCPA only applies to “debt collectors” who

collect “debts.” The definition of “debt collector” is broad:

[A]ny 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 to another.15

“Debt” is also defined broadly as:

[A]ny obligation or alleged obligation of a consumer to pay money arising out of a transaction in which the money, property, insurance, or services which are the subject of the transaction are primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, whether or not such obligation has been reduced to judgment.16

There are numerous exceptions to the definition of “debt collector” in the FDCPA, including one that

excludes a person collecting debts owed to another if that person began collecting (or servicing) before

the debt went into default.17

A “creditor” who collects its own accounts using its own name is not a “debt collector” under

the FDCPA.18 Rather, a “creditor” under the FDCPA is any person who offers or extends credit creating a

debt or to whom a debt is owed. The definition of “creditor” specifically excludes “any person to the

extent that he receives an assignment or transfer of a debt in default solely for the purpose of

14 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 et seq. 15 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6). 16 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5). 17 See 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6)(F)(iii). Please note that the FDCPA does not define the term “default.” In the context of this “servicer” exception, the courts most often look to the controlling consumer agreement to see if it defines “default” and apply the contractual definition of default to determine whether a person is a “debt collector.” See, e.g., Schlosser v. Fairbanks Capital Corp., 323 F.3d 534 (7th Cir. 2003); Alibrandi v. Financial Outsourcing Services, Inc., 333 F.3d 82, 86 (2d Cir. 2003). 18 See, e.g., McKinney v. Cadleway Properties, Inc., 548 F.3d 496, 501 (7th Cir. 2008); Schlosser, 323 F.3d at 539; Daros v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 19 Fed. Appx. 26 (2d Cir. 2001).



facilitating collection of such debt for another.”19 The majority of circuit courts, as well as the Federal

Trade Commission and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, take the position that debt buyers –

entities that purchase defaulted consumer debts – are “debt collectors” with respect to the debts that

were in default at the time of purchase.20

SBT is not a debt collector, but SBT does provide a platform by which clients can send FDCPA-

compliant text messages to debtors. Clients are responsible for determining whether they are “debt

collectors” and whether the FDCPA applies to them. Clients who are not “debt collectors” are not

subject to the FDCPA but may choose to adhere to the FDCPA approach described below as a matter of

“best practices.”

At the time when Congress enacted the FDCPA, text messaging did not exist. In the years since,

text messaging has grown as a very common form of personal communication. In recent years,

consumers have increasingly expressed a desire to receive personal business communications, such as

payment reminders and past due notices, by text message.

The FDCPA has not been amended to address new technology, like text messages and emails.

Similarly, case law under the FDCPA has been slow to catch up to the advent of using text messages for

collection purposes.21 Federal regulators, however, have acknowledged that debt collectors might use

text messages as a collection tool, and have tried to provide guidance for debt collectors that collect

debt using text messages.

19 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(4). 20 At least two circuit courts interpret “creditor” to mean that a debt buyer who buys a debt outright and not subject to a contingency payment to the original creditor based on collections is a “creditor,” and not a “debt collector” subject to the FDCPA. The U.S. Supreme Court recently granted certiorari in the case of Henson v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc. to settle the circuit split and decide the issue of whether a debt buyer is a “debt collector.” See https://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/16-00349qp.pdf. 21 In 2013, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York summarily treated text messages as subject to the FDCPA’s requirements applicable to both written and oral communications. Vibar v. Audubon Financial Bureau, 2013 WL 5937010 (W.D.N.Y. 2013). The court did not provide a further analysis of why a text message is both a written and oral communication.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/16-00349qp.pdf



The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”), which has authority to enforce the FDCPA, has expressly

said that collectors may use text messages to collect debt, but with a crucial caveat: such text messages

are subject to the FDCPA, and “using them can present particular compliance challenges.”22 For

example, the FTC has wielded its FDCPA enforcement authority to sue at least one debt collector for its

use of text messages to collect debt.23 Accordingly, the FTC clearly takes the position that text messages

are “communications” subject to the FDCPA.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”), which has enforcement, rulemaking24, and

supervisory authority under the FDCPA, has also made clear that while collectors may use text messages

to collect debt, the messages are “communications” subject to the FDCPA. In its outline of proposals

under consideration for its debt collection rulemaking, the CFPB indicated that it hoped to bring some

certainty to compliance questions in the context of the use of new technologies, such as text messages,

to collect debt.25 The outline of proposals contained numerous references to text messages, and

indicated that the CFPB is considering subjecting text messages to FDCPA rules that apply to telephone

communications and FDCPA rules that apply to written communications. Accordingly, the CFPB is not

contemplating an outright ban of text messages in debt collection, but is instead considering a

restrictive approach that takes into account that text messages sit somewhere between telephone calls

(because they are a telephone-based contact) and written communications (because they are in written

form), and imposes restrictions and requirements that should be familiar to debt collectors.

22 “Debt collectors: You may ‘like’ social media and texts, but are you complying with the law?,” FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION BUSINESS BLOG (Mar 28, 2016), available at: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/business-blog/2016/03/debt-collectors-you-may-social-media-texts-are-you-complying. 23 See Federal Trade Commission v. Primary Group Inc., 2015 WL 12976115 (N.D. Ga. 2015). 24 The Dodd-Frank Act that created the CFPB gave the CFPB rulemaking authority under the FDCPA that the FTC never had. 25 See CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, “Small Business Review Panel for Debt Collector and Debt Buyer Rulemaking, Outline of Proposals Under Consideration and Alternatives Considered” (July 28, 2016), at p. 3, available at: http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/20160727_cfpb_Outline_of_proposals.pdf.

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/business-blog/2016/03/debt-collectors-you-may-social-media-texts-are-you-complying

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/business-blog/2016/03/debt-collectors-you-may-social-media-texts-are-you-complying

http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/20160727_cfpb_Outline_of_proposals.pdf



In the absence of a robust body of case law about text messaging in collections, and in light of

regulatory guidance from both the FTC and CFPB on the FDCPA’s applicability to text messages, “debt

collectors” should treat text messages as both written and oral communications under the FDCPA. As

described more fully below, the use of text messages in the context of debt collection carries the

following potential FDCPA-related risks and requirements: (1) the risk that the “debt collector” will

disclose the existence of the debt to third parties; (2) the risk that the “debt collector” will cause

consumers to incur charges to receive the message by concealing the true purpose of the message; (3)

the mini-Miranda notice requirement and the requirement that the communication include a

meaningful disclosure of the sender’s identity; (4) the requirement to honor written cease

communication requests; (5) the risk of including deceptive, harassing, and abusive language in the

content of messages; and (6) the risk that the debt collector does not have sufficient controls to prevent

harassment or abuse in the messaging program, such as sending messages too frequently, or sending

them at inconvenient times. Below, we discuss how SBT’s platform addresses each of these risks and

requirements.26

Third-Party Disclosure. The FDCPA prohibits a collector from disclosing the existence of a debt

to a third party without the consumer’s prior consent, given directly to the collector.27 Text messaging

bears some risk that a third party could view the message even though the sender is directing the

message to the person who asked for it. For instance, the consumer’s employer may have issued her a

phone that she could also use as a personal phone, and reserved the right to review the phone usage,

including messaging. In another example, the consumer may share a phone with someone else or allow

26 As we mentioned above, we understand that consumers may engage in a back-and-forth exchange via text message when a Client initiates a message from Solutions by Text’s platform. Those conversations (with the exception of a consumer’s opt-out) are outside the scope of this review. Clients should consult with their own counsel on how to handle text message conversations with consumers. 27 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(b).



friends or family access to her phone. Further, the cell phone could reveal the message on the phone

screen as it arrives in the form of an alert. All of these potential fact scenarios reflect the risk of third-

party disclosure of the debt through text message communication that includes details about the debt.

To avoid exposure for inadvertent third-party disclosure in text messaging, debt collectors have

to obtain the consumer’s consent (written or oral) to receive text message communications, along with

the consumer’s acknowledgment that (a) text messaging may not be a secure means of communication,

and (b) she understands that a third party might be able to see the message even though the debt

collector sends the message directly to the consumer. By obtaining this consent before sending any text

messages, the debt collector has “prior consent” from the consumer to the third party disclosure that

could occur. While any such disclosure is inadvertent, the FDCPA does not contemplate mistakes in this

context. For that reason, SBT’s platform is built to ensure text messages only go to consumers who have

specifically asked for text messages and who have acknowledged the possibility of inadvertent third

party disclosure and given consent to that disclosure.

SBT’s platform provides a “double opt-in” feature by which the consumer first provides her cell

phone number, and then confirms the opt-in. After providing her mobile telephone number the

consumer receives an opt-in invitation message that includes a link to the client’s text message policies.

SBT provides clients with a sample text message policy (attached to this White Paper as Appendix C) that

clients can tailor to fit their business needs. SBT also recommends that the policies include certain

disclosures, among them a warning to the consumer about the possibility of other people seeing the

text messages and the acknowledgment of the consumer that she wants to receive text messages about

her debt notwithstanding that risk. The sample text message policy includes the following warning:

You understand that the text messages we send may be seen by anyone with access to your phone. Accordingly, you should take steps to safeguard your phone and your text messages if you want them to remain private. You acknowledge and agree that you



want to receive text messages regarding your account from us, even though there is a risk another person could access those messages.

The warning makes clear that text messages may not be a private and secured form of communication,

and requires the consumer to acknowledge that a third party may view her messages if she does not

take care to safeguard them. Adoption of this consent language should mitigate the risk that a

consumer will complain that the “debt collector” exposed her debt information to third-parties. If the

consumer does make that complaint, the debt collector can refer to the consent language and

acknowledgment to gently remind the consumer that she gave her express consent to the

communication, notwithstanding the risk.

Causing Charges by Concealing the True Purpose of the Text Message. Under the FDCPA, it is an

unfair practice for any debt collector to cause charges to be made to any person for communications by

concealment of the true propose of the communication. Such charges include, but are not limited to,

collect telephone calls and telegram fees.28

Some mobile phone plans feature a per-message charge for sending or receiving text messages,

or impose charges for data usage arising from text messages. As long as a text message does not

somehow conceal its true purpose, the fact that the debtor may incur a charge to read the text message

is not a concern under the FDCPA. Therefore, the appropriate way to mitigate the risk of violating

Section 1692f(5) is by making clear in the body of the text message that the purpose of the message is to

collect a debt.

All of the collection texts available on SBT’s platform for FDCPA “debt collectors” include a clear

disclosure at the beginning of the message that the sender is a debt collector (i.e., the Mini-Miranda

notice) and are drafted to be clear, straightforward messages about the purpose of the message – like

28 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(5) (emphasis added).



payment reminders and past due payment notices. As a result, the opening of the message makes clear

that it is for collection purposes, and that the message not a pretext (e.g., the collector posing as a

friend or business opportunity to “trick” the consumer into accepting the text or responding). And SBT’s

opt-in consent forms include a statement to the consumer that she could incur a charge from her mobile

phone service provider to receive the messages for which she is asking. Accordingly, SBT’s “debt

collector” disclosure sufficiently mitigates the risk of causing the consumer to incur charges for the text

message by concealing its true purpose.

Mini-Miranda Disclosure Requirements. The FDCPA requires a debt collector to disclose:

• In the initial written communication with the consumer (and, if the initial communication with

the consumer is oral, in that initial oral communication), that the debt collector is attempting to

collect a debt and that any information obtained will be used for that purpose; and

• In subsequent communications, that the communication is from a debt collector.29

SBT assumes that text messages sent by a debt collector using the SBT platform will never be the debt

collector’s initial communication (either oral or written) with the consumer. As a result, the only

requirement that applies to text messages sent using SBT’s platform is the requirement to disclose in

communications after the initial communication that the communication is from a debt collector.30

Case law under the FDCPA is clear that the exact statutory language – e.g., “this communication

is from a debt collector” – is not required. Instead, the message must simply make clear that it is from a

29 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(11) (emphasis added). 30 It is clear from the legislative history of the FDCPA that subsequent communications do not have to disclose that the debt collector is attempting to collect a debt and any information obtained will be used for that purpose. Prior to 1996, the FDCPA required the full mini-Miranda disclosure (“This is an attempt to collect a debt and any information obtained will be used for that purpose.”) in all communications. But, in 1996, Congress amended Section 1692e(11) to bifurcate the disclosure requirements, and alleviate the burden of providing the full mini-Miranda in subsequent communications. See Pub. L. 104-208, Title II, § 2305(a) (Sept. 30, 1996).



debt collector.31 For example, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland found that a law firm

that identified itself as “attorneys in the practice of debt collection” complied with the mini-Miranda

requirement for subsequent communications.32 Similarly, the U.S. District Court for the Northern

District of Illinois found that a statement on a collection communication that the debt collector was “a

different kind of debt collector” was also sufficient to fulfill the mini-Miranda disclosure requirement for

subsequent communications.33 The FTC’s guidance on using text messages to collect debt further

emphasizes that no specific language is required, as long as subsequent communications “make clear

that they’re from a debt collector.”34

In the context of text messages, where there are space constraints, the mini-Miranda warning

for subsequent communications should be brief, but must convey the required information: that the

communication is from a debt collector. SBT’s text message templates for debt collectors state at the

beginning of every message the name of the debt collector, followed by the words “debt collector”

directly below. It is clear from this immediate disclosure that the text messages are from a debt

collector. Accordingly, SBT’s text message templates should mitigate the mini-Miranda disclosure risk

under the FDCPA.

31 See, e.g., Dikeman v. National Educators, Inc., 81 F.3d 949, 952 (10th Cir. 1996) (“We also take note that § 1692e(11) does not place the required disclosure in quotation marks or set forth any specific required wording for the disclosure but merely defines what the content of the required disclosure will be…”); Emanuel v. American Credit Exchange, 870 F.2d 805, 808 (2d Cir. 1989) (“[T]here is simply no requirement that the letter quote verbatim the language of [Section 1692e(11)].”); Shanker v. Fair Collection & Outsourcing, LLC, 2009 WL 1767580 (D.N.J. June 19, 2009) (“[C]ourts… have not required ‘magic words’ or specific phrases to meet the strictures of 1692(e).”); Reed v. Global Acceptance Credit Co., 2008 WL 3330165 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (“In determining § 1692e(11) violations, courts have focused on whether the communication would suggest that the message was from a debt collector.”); Gaetano v. Payco of Wisconsin, Inc., 774 F. Supp 1404, 1409 (D. Conn. 1990) (“The section 1692e(11) notice is designed to give a debtor notice that she is dealing with a collection agency… Defendant’s notice comports with that purpose and the defendant’s decision not to use the statutory language does not obfuscate the basic message to be conveyed.”). 32 Sayyed v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 733 F. Supp. 2d 635, 641 (D. Md. 2010). 33 Ross v. Comm’l Fin. Servs., Inc., 31 F. Supp. 2d 1077, 1079-1080 (N.D. Ill. 1999). 34 Supra, Note 17.



Meaningful Disclosure of the Sender’s Identity. The FDCPA prohibits a debt collector from

placing telephone calls without meaningful disclosure of the caller’s identity.35 The U.S. District Court

for the Western District of New York, in an unreported case, summarily held that a text message from a

debt collector that failed to disclose the identity of the sender violated the FDCPA.36 The court,

however, did not analyze why a text message is subject to the requirement that a debt collector

meaningfully identify itself in telephone calls. It is unclear why the court applied this requirement to

text messages, which are not literally “telephone calls,” but concerns that other courts might adopt this

approach, with or without reasoned analysis, require conservative debt collectors to consider how to

comply with the “meaningful identity” requirement in the context of text messaging. As explained more

fully below, SBT’s text message templates take this conservative approach to specifically address the

concern.

In light of the CFPB’s consideration of rules that would treat text messages like telephone calls

for disclosure requirements and prohibitions on harassment and the general prohibitions on unfairness

and deception in the FDCPA, it is a best practice to always be forthcoming with consumers about who is

sending a communication. Therefore, given the uncertainty, the best way to avoid the risk of violating

Section 1692d(6) is to include the sender’s true business name37 in text messages.

All of SBT’s text message templates for debt collectors begin with a disclosure of the debt

collector’s name, and underneath, the word “debt collector.” Accordingly, SBT’s text message

templates allow clients to adequately identify the sender, both by name and as a debt collector, as is

evidently required by the FDCPA.

35 15 U.S.C. § 1692d(6). 36 Vibar v. Audubon Financial Bureau, 2013 WL 5937010 (W.D.N.Y. 2013). 37 A separate section of the FDCPA requires debt collectors to use their “true business name[s]” in collection communications. 15 U.S.C. § 1692(e)(14).



Cease Communication Requests. Under the FDCPA, if a consumer notifies a debt collector in

writing that the consumer refuses to pay a debt or that the consumer wishes the debt collector to cease

further communication with the consumer, the debt collector may not communicate further with the

consumer except:

(1) To advise the consumer that the debt collector’s further efforts are being terminated;

(2) To notify the consumer that the debt collector or creditor may invoke specified remedies which

are ordinarily invoked by such debt collector or creditor; or

(3) Where applicable, to notify the consumer that the debt collector or creditor intends to invoke a

specified remedy.38

In the context of collecting debt with text messages, the debt collector should not send any text

messages to a consumer after the consumer makes a cease communication request. The debt collector

should honor a request to stop sending text messages as well as a request to stop all communication.

If a consumer sends a cease communication request by text message (using the word “STOP”),

SBT will place an immediate automatic stop on text messages to that phone number. As a result of an

automatic stop, the client cannot send any more text messages via SBT’s platform to the consumer.39

Accordingly, SBT’s platform allows clients to honor a cease communication request virtually immediately

if the request is received via text message.

SBT is not responsible for how the client handles cease communication requests received via

other modes of communication. For instance, if a consumer tells a client over the phone (or by mail or

email) that she wants the client to stop contacting her altogether, it is the client’s responsibility to

handle the cease communication request and communicate it to SBT.

38 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(c). 39 If a client’s customer responds free-form to a text message and advises that she cannot pay the debt (or anything else), SBT refers those texts back to the client for a response.



Deceptive, Abusive, or Harassing Language. The FDCPA prohibits debt collectors from engaging in a

wide variety of deceptive, abusive, or harassing behavior, including, but not limited to:

• Threats of violence or other criminal means to harm the physical person, reputation, or property of any person;

• The use of obscene or profane language, or language the natural consequence of which is to abuse the hearer or reader;

• The false representation of the character, amount, or legal status of any debt; • The threat to take any action that cannot legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken; • The false representation or implication that the consumer committed any crime or other

conduct in order to disgrace the consumer; • The false representation or implication that documents are legal process; or • Taking or threatening to take any nonjudicial action to effect dispossession or disablement of

property if: (A) there is no present right to possession of the property claimed as collateral through an enforceable security interest; (B) there is no present intention to take possession of the property; or (C) the property is exempt by law from such dispossession or disablement.40

SBT’s text message templates cannot be altered once the client selects them. SBT consultants assist

clients with selecting templates for the client’s library of templates. The text message templates

available in SBT’s library should not include any language that could be considered deceptive, abusive,

or harassing in violation of the FDCPA. However, SBT’s clients should review the content of the text

message templates with their independent counsel to determine whether the messages pose a risk of

harassment, deception, or abuse in the context the client plans to use the messages.

Operational Risks: Frequency and Timing of Messages, and Consumers Represented by

Attorneys. Frequency of Messages. The FDCPA prohibits harassment, including by “[c]ausing a

telephone to ring or engaging any person in telephone conversation repeatedly or continuously with

intent to annoy, abuse, or harass any person at the called number.”41 As discussed throughout, the

CFPB and at least one court have treated text messages as both phone calls and written

communications. Further, the CFPB is considering proposals to restrict the frequency with which debt

40 See 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692d, 1692e, 1692f. 41 15 U.S.C. § 1692d(5).



collectors can send collection text messages to consumers.42 Accordingly, there is a risk that a collector

could communicate with a consumer by text message too frequently, which could lead litigious

consumers or a regulator to allege that the debt collector contacted her with excessive frequency with

the intent to harass the consumer, in violation of the FDCPA.

SBT’s clients are responsible for complying with the FDCPA’s limits on communication

frequency, including by determining how many text messages is too many text messages. SBT

recognizes that different clients have different business needs and priorities, and that clients should

have flexibility to set text message frequency based upon their experiences with their customers. As a

result, SBT does not set specific stops on contact frequency, such as limiting the number of messages a

client can send to a customer in a day or week. We note, however, that the STOP safety net – which

prevents any text messages from going to a consumer immediately after the consumer sends a “STOP”

text message – could mitigate potential claims of harassment and excessive contact, because it

empowers the consumer to shut off the flow of text messages at any time.43

Timing of Messages. The FDCPA prohibits a debt collector, without the prior consent of the

consumer, from communicating with the consumer about the debt at any unusual time or place or a

time or place known or which should be known to be inconvenient to the consumer. Generally, a debt

collector can assume that it is inconvenient to communicate with a consumer before 8:00 am and after

9:00 pm local time at the consumer’s location.44 The CFPB is considering a proposal that would

expressly apply this “convenient contact” rule to text message and email communications, treating the

42 Supra, Note 20, at p. 25 (“The Bureau also is considering whether to apply the contact caps equally to all communication channels (e.g., telephone, mail, email, text messages, and other newer technologies)…”). 43 The CFPB has indicated in enforcement actions that excessive contact includes contacting a consumer or other third party after a cease communication request by that consumer or third party. See, e.g., Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Security National Automotive Acceptance Co., LLC, complaint available at: http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201506_cfpb_complaint-security-national-automotive-acceptance-company.pdf. 44 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(a)(1).

http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201506_cfpb_complaint-security-national-automotive-acceptance-company.pdf

http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201506_cfpb_complaint-security-national-automotive-acceptance-company.pdf



timing for such communications as the time when the debt collector sends them, regardless of when the

consumer reads them.45 Therefore, there is a risk that collection text messages could be sent or

received at times that are not convenient for the consumer, in violation of the FDCPA.

SBT’s clients are responsible for complying with the FDCPA’s restrictions on contacting

consumers at inconvenient times or places. Clients are in the best position to determine whether a

communication is being sent at a convenient time – for example, the client might know if its customer

works nights, and only wants to receive text messages at night, or that the customer is traveling abroad

to a different time zone. Clients are also in the best position to determine, based on their experiences

with their customers, the best time to contact customers. Accordingly, SBT leaves it up to clients to

decide when to send text message to their customers.

Consumers Represented by Attorneys. Finally, the FDCPA prohibits a debt collector, without the

prior consent of the consumer, from communicating with the consumer if the debt collector knows that

the consumer is represented by an attorney with respect to the debt and has knowledge of, or can

readily ascertain, such attorney’s name and address, subject to certain exceptions.46 There is a risk that

a debt collector could violate this prohibition by sending a text message to a consumer after receiving

notice that she is represented by an attorney.

SBT’s clients are responsible for appropriately handling customers who are represented by

attorneys because SBT’s clients are in the best position to know when a customer is represented by an

attorney, and when the exceptions to communicating with a represented consumer apply. Clients are

responsible for communicating to SBT any cease communication requests based upon a customer being

represented by an attorney.

45 Supra, Note 20 at p. 29. 46 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(2).

Appendix A

Verify by Text™ Opt-in invitation message to include device specific approval pin # to confirm right party contact (Image 1) Opt-in invitation message to include T&C’s url to disclosures and Mini Miranda (Image 1) Upon completion, customer receives opt-in confirmation message that includes opt-out instructions (Image 2) Example: PIN# In the example below, the customer is required to provide a pin # to confirm approval and possession of device. Upon PIN # submission, the customer receives a confirmation message with HELP/STOP consent language.

Mobile phone verification/account activation Mobile phone verification (Required) Confirmed mobile #’s to receive text reply with PIN# Enter PIN# (Required) Mobile # receives opt-in confirmation message

ABC Debt Collector: Your approval number to receive text messages regarding your account is 12345

Msg&Data rates may apply

For T&C’s: {url} Disclosures / Mini Maranda

This # is verified to rcv msgs from ABC Debt Collector.

# of msgs varies by acct/preference.

Msg&Data rates may apply.

To opt out reply STOP

HELP for info

Compliance Alert

Opt-out instructions (Required)

Customer provides mobile number for account opt in

Customer receives opt in confirmation message

Image 1

Image 2

Appendix B

Industry HELP STOP language requirements combined with Stop Safety Net™ Each message to include at a minimum a HELP response footer (Image 1) Help language requirements to include brand name, customer service phone #, opt out instructions and url to T&C’s

(Image 2) Upon STOP command opt out confirmation text is delivered and SBT Stop safety Net is activated (Image 3)

ABC Debt Collector: Courtesy reminder: Your payment is due in 5 days. Thank you for your business

For questions call 800-555-1212

For help reply HELP

ABC Debt Collector: Alert

For cust svc call 800-555-1212

Msg&Data rates may apply

To cancel msgs reply STOP or call 800-555-1212

For T&C’s: {url}

ABC Debt Collector: Alert

You have successfully unsubscribed and will no longer rcv messages

For customer service call

800-555-1212

Customer receives message with HELP option

Customer replies HELP then receives reply with

STOP Instructions

Image 1 Image 2

Image 3

Customer replies STOP and receives confirmation

Stop Safety Net™

Appendix C

Sample SMS Wireless Policy [CLIENT NAME] Text Message Policy By providing your cell phone number, you have provided us with consent to send you text messages in conjunction with the services you have requested. Your cellular provider’s Msg&Data Rates May Apply to our confirmation message and all subsequent messages. You understand the text messages we send may be seen by anyone with access to your phone. Accordingly, you should take steps to safeguard your phone and your text messages if you want them to remain private. [NO CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION SHOULD BE SENT VIA TEXT MESSAGE.] You acknowledge and agree that you want to receive text messages regarding your account from us, even though there is a risk another person could access those messages. Please notify us immediately if you change mobile numbers or plan to provide your phone to another person. If we modify this Text Message Policy, we will notify you by sending you a text message with a link to the new policy. We may terminate our text message program at any time. If you have any questions about this policy, would like us to mail you a paper copy of this policy or are having problems receiving or stopping our text messages, please contact us using the following information: [CLIENT NAME, ADDRESS, EMAIL ADDRESS, TOLL-FREE NUMBER]. You agree and consent to be contacted by the Company, Our agents, employees, attorneys, affiliates, subsequent creditors, loan servicing companies, and third-party collectors through the use of email, and/or telephone calls and/or SMS text messages to your cellular, home or work phone numbers, as well as any other phone number you have provided in conjunction with this account, including the use of automatic telephone dialing systems, autodialers, or an artificial or prerecorded voice. Opt-out or STOP This policy applies to the text messages sent by [CLIENT NAME] to our customers while and after they use our product. If you wish to stop receiving marketing text messages from [CLIENT NAME], reply to any text message we have sent you and in the reply text simply type STOP. [If you wish to stop receiving all text messages from [CLIENT NAME], including those with information about payment due dates or missed payments, type STOP ALL in the reply text you send us.] Your stop request will become effective [within one day]. You may also stop text messages by calling us [or emailing us] using the contact information below. [CLIENT NAME, ADDRESS, EMAIL ADDRESS, TOLL-FREE NUMBER]. Help or Support If at any time you need our contact information or information on how to stop text messages, reply to any text message we have sent you and in the reply text simply type HELP. [DESCRIBE ANY OTHER INFORMATION PROVIDED WHEN SOMEONE TEXTS HELP.] Upon receiving your text message, we will send you a text message with this information. It is our policy to send no more than [insert number] message[s] per [month]. In general, the messages we send provide you with information about your account. Some of the text messages we send may include links to websites. To access these websites, you will need a web browser and Internet access. [IDEALLY, ANY SUCH WEBSITES WOULD BE MOBILE BROWSER OPTIMIZED.]


hc# 4832-4131-4626 hudson cook, llp - solutions by text · 2018-08-23 · rulemaking efforts with...

Documents