The Florida Statute That Reaches Creditors the Federal Debt Collection Act Does Not
The short answer
A class action filed in the Northern District of Florida in May 2026 alleges that a credit card bank kept collecting from a consumer after being told he was represented by counsel. The interesting legal question is not whether that is prohibited. It is which statute prohibits it. Under Eleventh Circuit law, a bank collecting debts it owns is generally not a "debt collector" and is generally outside the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Florida's statute has no such limit. It reaches any person collecting a consumer debt, and that difference is the entire case.
Why it matters to Florida businesses
Any business that extends credit to consumers and then collects on it, in its own name, is subject to the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act. Many of those businesses have compliance programs built around the federal statute, which does not apply to them, and no program at all for the state statute, which does.
That is an avoidable exposure, and it is the reason this post exists.
What was filed
Pitts v. Merrick Bank, No. 5:26-cv-00138, was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida on May 27, 2026, before District Judge M. Casey Rodgers and Magistrate Judge Michael J. Frank.
According to reporting on the filing, the plaintiff notified the original creditor in May 2025 that he was represented by an attorney and that all future communications should go to counsel; that the notice of representation was disclosed during the sale of the debt; that the bank nonetheless retained a collection agency to contact him directly; and that a collection letter dated December 27, 2025 failed to disclose that the debt was disputed. The reporting describes claims under both the federal act and the Florida act, brought on behalf of a putative class, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, statutory and actual damages, and fees.
These are allegations in a complaint. Nothing has been adjudicated.
What the two statutes actually say
The federal provision. 15 U.S.C. 1692c(a)(2) provides that, without the consumer's prior consent given directly to the debt collector or a court's express permission, a debt collector may not communicate with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt if the debt collector knows the consumer is represented by an attorney with respect to such debt and has knowledge of, or can readily ascertain, such attorney's name and address, unless the attorney fails to respond within a reasonable period of time to a communication from the debt collector or unless the attorney consents to direct communication.
The Florida provision. Fla. Stat. 559.72(18) provides that, in collecting consumer debts, a person may not communicate with a debtor if the person knows that the debtor is represented by an attorney with respect to such debt and has knowledge of, or can readily ascertain, such attorney's name and address, unless the debtor's attorney fails to respond within 30 days to a communication from the person, unless the debtor's attorney consents to a direct communication with the debtor, or unless the debtor initiates the communication.
Read the two openings again. The federal provision governs a debt collector. The Florida provision governs a person.
Our take: the coverage gap is the whole story
Who is a "debt collector" federally. Under 15 U.S.C. 1692a(6), the term means a person whose principal purpose is the collection of debts, or who regularly collects debts owed or due another. It excludes, among others, officers and employees of a creditor collecting in the creditor's name, and persons collecting debts they originated.
The Eleventh Circuit addressed the purchased-debt scenario squarely in Davidson v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., 797 F.3d 1309 (11th Cir. 2015). Capital One had purchased defaulted credit card accounts from another bank. The court held that a bank does not qualify as a debt collector where it does not regularly collect debts owed or due another and where debt collection is not the principal purpose of its business, even where the debt was in default when the bank acquired it. The inquiry, the court said, is not whether the bank collects on debts originally owed to another and now owed to it, but whether it collects on debts owed to another at the time of collection.
The practical consequence for a case like the one filed in May is significant. If the bank owns the accounts it is collecting, the federal claim against the bank is on difficult ground. The retained collection agency is a different matter entirely, since an agency collecting a debt owed to someone else is squarely within the definition.
Florida closes the gap. Section 559.72 opens with "In collecting consumer debts, a person may not." There is no definitional gate, and no exclusion for creditors collecting their own debts. Section 559.77(1) authorizes a civil action against "a person violating the provisions of s. 559.72," and 559.77(2) makes "any person" who fails to comply liable.
The Eleventh Circuit applied the statute to a first-party creditor in Medley v. DISH Network, LLC, 958 F.3d 1063 (11th Cir. 2020), where DISH was collecting its own account. And a federal court in Florida allowed an FCCPA claim against an original credit card issuer on facts close to those alleged here in Kelliher v. Target National Bank, 826 F. Supp. 2d 1324 (M.D. Fla. 2011), where the consumer had notified the bank of representation and the bank both continued sending statements and retained a third-party agency. The court credited the theory that the creditor used the agency as the medium through which to send collection communications, noting that the statute defines "communicate" to include conveying information about a debt indirectly through any medium.
Two more differences worth knowing. Florida fixes the attorney non-response window at 30 days, where the federal statute says only "a reasonable period of time." And Florida adds a safe harbor the federal statute lacks: the prohibition does not apply where the debtor initiates the communication.
The defense side is not empty. Medley is also the leading authority on what a plaintiff must prove. The Eleventh Circuit held that even where the direct contact and the notice of representation are established, the statute requires actual knowledge, not constructive knowledge, and that the knowledge must be specific to the debt being collected. The court remanded for the district court to consider whether DISH actually knew the consumer was represented as to the debt at issue, and whether the bona fide error defense applied.
That defense, at Fla. Stat. 559.77(3), provides that a person may not be held liable if the person shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the violation was not intentional and resulted from a bona fide error. The Florida text differs from its federal counterpart in a way that has been litigated, and a business relying on it should not assume the federal case law transfers.
What it means practically
For a business collecting its own consumer accounts in Florida: build the notice-of-representation process around Florida's statute, not the federal one. That means a defined intake path for attorney representation notices, a flag that travels with the account, and, critically, a mechanism that carries the flag to any agency or purchaser the account is placed with or sold to. The theory in Kelliher is that a creditor can communicate indirectly through an agency. An account file that omits the representation flag is where that theory is born.
Understand the remedies. Fla. Stat. 559.77(2) provides actual damages plus additional statutory damages not exceeding $1,000, together with court costs and reasonable attorney's fees. In a class action, statutory damages run up to $1,000 per named plaintiff plus an aggregate award for the remaining class members capped at the lesser of $500,000 or one percent of the defendant's net worth. Punitive damages and injunctive relief are available. The limitations period is two years from the violation. And the statute contains a reverse fee provision: a plaintiff whose suit fails to raise a justiciable issue of law or fact is liable for the defendant's costs and fees.
Note that registration exemption is not substantive exemption. Original creditors are among the categories not required to register as consumer collection agencies under Fla. Stat. 559.553. That exemption is from the registration requirement only. It does not exempt anyone from Section 559.72.
When to call a lawyer
Before a collection program starts, when the process is a design question. And immediately on receiving a claim, because the two-year limitations period and the bona fide error defense both turn on records that need to be preserved at once.
Why this is not a do-it-yourself problem
The trap here is that the well-known statute is the wrong one. A business that reads the federal act, correctly concludes it is not a debt collector, and stops, has just built a compliance program around a statute that does not apply to it while ignoring the one that does. The Florida act reaches further, carries fees and class exposure, and has a knowledge element that turns entirely on internal recordkeeping that nobody designs until after the first claim. The defense, when it comes, is a factual one about what the company actually knew and what its procedures actually were, which means the case is largely won or lost by the document retention and account-flagging decisions made years before anyone sued.
Talk to us
HDD Law Firm represents businesses in commercial disputes and litigation in the Florida state courts, the Southern, Middle and Northern Districts of Florida, and the Eleventh Circuit. If your business extends and collects consumer credit in Florida, contact us to discuss your matter.
Sources
● Pitts v. Merrick Bank, No. 5:26-cv-00138 (N.D. Fla., filed May 27, 2026), docket (CourtListener)
● 15 U.S.C. 1692c, Communication in connection with debt collection
● 15 U.S.C. 1692a, Definitions
● Fla. Stat. 559.72, Prohibited practices generally
● Fla. Stat. 559.77, Civil remedies
● Fla. Stat. 559.553, Registration of consumer collection agencies required
● Davidson v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., 797 F.3d 1309 (11th Cir. 2015) (CourtListener)
● Medley v. DISH Network, LLC, 958 F.3d 1063 (11th Cir. 2020) (CourtListener)
● Kelliher v. Target National Bank, 826 F. Supp. 2d 1324 (M.D. Fla. 2011) (CourtListener)
● 12 C.F.R. 1006.6, Communications in connection with debt collection (eCFR)
Disclaimer
This post discusses publicly reported legal developments for general informational purposes. It is not legal advice, it does not create an attorney client relationship, and it does not reflect the firm’s position in any pending matter. Outcomes depend on the specific facts and the governing law of the relevant jurisdiction.