New York City Finalizes Heightened “SHIELD” Debt Collection Rules - Deep Dive Analysis of Regulatory Challenges
On February 26, the New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP) announced the issuance of its long-awaited debt collection rule final amendments. Titled the “Stopping Harassment and Intimidation and Ensuring Lawful Debt (SHIELD) Collection Rule”, the DCWP claims that it provides the strongest protections in the country against debt collector harassment. Indeed, as detailed below, the SHIELD Rule imposes challenging new requirements on creditors as well as licensed third-party debt collectors. Many of these requirements go beyond what is required under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Regulation F.
The amended rules are effective September 1, 2026. We provide a detailed analysis below, including comparisons to existing requirements under Regulation F.
Amendments Applicable to All “Debt Collectors”
Significant changes are made to the provisions generally applicable to “debt collectors”. The substantive requirements are generally found in 6 RCNY § 5-77, and we outline certain of the changes below.
Definition of “Debt Collector” – The definition is amended to broadly cover any natural person or organization, including a “debt collection agency” (i.e., licensed entities), that: (1) is engaged in any business the principal purpose of which is the collection of any debts; (2) regularly collects, or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed to another person, or debts owed to the person collecting or attempting to collect the debt; or (3) engages in certain debt buying activity.
When Substantive Collection Requirements are Triggered – Notably, all of the substantive requirements in § 5-77 (which cover a wide range of topics, from communication restrictions to debt validation) now only apply to activity by a debt collector when engaged in “debt collection procedures” (under the existing rule, only a subset of the requirements applied “after institution of debt collection procedures”).
o The term “debt collection procedures” generally retains the definition of “any attempt by any person, including an original creditor, to collect a debt after any of the following: (1) with respect to accounts for which creditors are required to send periodic statements, the creditor has ceased sending those statements, or taken or threatened to take legal action against the consumer; (2) with respect to 30-day accounts for which periodic statements are not required, the creditor has ceased sending bills for the debt or taken or threatened to take legal action against the consumer; or (3) with respect to all other types of credit, the creditor has accelerated the unpaid balance of the debt or demanded the full balance due.”
o Accordingly, notwithstanding the broad definition of a “debt collector” (which generally covers creditors, servicers and third-party debt collectors), the substantive collection requirements will now only apply to such entities once the circumstances above are triggered.
Communication Frequency – The subsection of § 5-77 covering Communication in Connection with Debt Collection continues to prohibit communicating with excessive frequency, but there are several notable changes.
o Scope – The rule clarifies that the prohibition includes attempted communications and limited content messages (which are now defined in the definitions section), and significantly, to “any medium of communication”.
Comparison to Regulation F: The contact frequency limitations in Regulation F only apply to telephone calls (however, other communication mediums are covered by the more general restrictions on harassing or abusing contacts).
o Bright Line Cap – The rule applies a bright line cap, defining communication with “excessive frequency” as more than 3 times, per account, in a 7 calendar day period, or any time after the consumer responded to a prior communication within that 7-day period.
Comparison to Regulation F: Exceeding the call frequency limit in Regulation F only creates a rebuttable presumption of a violation. In addition, the Regulation F limit is 7 call attempts in a 7-day period.
o Exceptions – We note that the rule does define various carve-outs from the frequency limits, including: (1) hard copy communications sent by mail or delivery service; (2) responding to various types of consumer-initiated communications; (3) a communication required by state or federal law “that is unrelated to the collection of debt”; and (4) if the debt collector is an original creditor, any communication or attempted communication in the ordinary course of the creditor’s business unrelated to debt collection practices.
Verbal Cease Communication Requests – The rule is amended so that the cease communication request provisions apply to any request from the consumer, instead of applying only to written requests.
o Comparison to Regulation F: The cease communication request requirements in Regulation F only expressly apply if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing.
Electronic Communication Consents – The revised rule only allows the use of a specific email address, text message number, social media account, or other electronic communication medium if it is private and direct to the consumer, and: (1) the debt collector directly obtains revocable consent from the consumer in writing, to communicate regarding the specific debt using the electronic medium; (2) the debt collector is the original creditor and obtained direct consent to communicate about the specific account using the electronic medium; or (3) the consumer used the electronic medium to communicate with the debt collector about a debt within the last 60 days, and has not since opted-out. The revised subsection contains additional related requirements, such as required opt-out language.
o Comparison to Regulation F: The email and text consent procedures in Regulation F impose differing criteria, and simply constitute procedures that are considered reasonably adapted to avoid a bona fide error in sending an email or text message to an impermissible third party.
Email Address or Phone Number Provided by Consumer’s Employer – The revised rule prohibits sending an email or text message to an address or phone number that the debt collector knows, or should know, is provided to the consumer by the consumer’s employer. However, a consumer can provide prior revocable consent to use such a telephone number.
o Comparison to Regulation F: Regulation F imposes a more limited restriction on communicating through an employer-provided email address, and does not specifically cover an employer-provided phone number (however, there are similar restrictions on communicating at the consumer’s place of employment).
Recording Disclosure – A provision is added requiring a clear and conspicuous disclosure, before any attempt to collect the debt, that the communication is being recorded and the recording may be used in connection with the collection of the debt.
o Comparison to Regulation F: This differs from the standard “mini-Miranda” disclosure under the Regulation F.
Credit Reporting Notice and Waiting Period – The revised rule prohibits furnishing debt information to a credit reporting agency unless the debt collector has: (1) sent the consumer a notice that information about the debt will be reported, in at least one medium of communication used to collect the debt, and in written copy by mail or other delivery service; and (2) waited 14 days after sending the notice. During the waiting period, the debt collector must monitor for undeliverability of the notice. An exemption is provided for entities subject to the Fair Credit Reporting Act that issue the notice required in 15 USC § 1681s-2(a)(7).
o Comparison to Regulation F: Regulation F provides that a debt collector may not furnish information until it either (1) speaks to the consumer about the debt by telephone, or (2) sends a letter or electronic communication about the debt, and waits a “reasonable time”.
Validation of Debt Notices – The existing New York City rule imposes differing validation of debt notice requirements for: (1) creditors, but only after acceleration; (2) non-creditor debt collectors, within 5 days after the initial collection communication. As amended, a single validation notice requirement applies to all creditor and non-creditor debt collectors, within 5 days after the initial collection communication. The notice must include all content required under federal or state law, along with extensive additional New York City-specific content, including: (1) the collector’s New York City license number, if applicable; (2) contact information for a natural person who must be available at the listed telephone number to answer questions about the notice and account; (3) a specific statement of rights for New York City consumers; (4) detailed “itemization of the debt” information; and (5) language translation requirements.
o Comparison to Regulation F: The revised requirements differ in scope, process, and content from the validation notice requirements in Regulation F. While the notice must generally be provided within 5 days of the initial communication, as amended, the entirety of § 5-77 (including this validation of debt subsection), is only applicable to a debt collector when “engage[d] in debt collection procedures” (see “Scope” discussion above). Under the existing New York City rule, the validation of debt requirement is not among the provisions that only apply “after institution of debt collection procedures”.
Disputes and Verification Requests – The revised rule expands a consumer’s rights to dispute the debt or request a verification. Consumers may do so orally, or in writing, and using any communication channel the debt collector uses. Consumers may also dispute the debt or request verification during, or after, the 30-day validation notice period. Upon any such first dispute or verification request, debt collectors must cease collection and provide a verification within 60 days. The verification must include original account documentation, and account statement information. If the collector is not the original creditor, failure to meet that deadline prohibits any future collection activity. If the collector is the original creditor, it can only resume collection activity if it first sends a Notice of Unverified Debt (discussed below), and subsequently provides the verification information.
o Comparison to Regulation F: The revised requirements differ from the dispute and verification requirements in Regulation F in several important ways. Among them, Regulation F only expressly requires ceasing collections, and providing verification, if a dispute is made in writing, and within the 30-day validation period. Further, Regulation F does not impose a hard deadline for providing verification information and does not extinguish collection rights for failing to meet it.
Notice of Unverified Debt – If the debt collector cannot provide verification information within the 60-day period discussed above, if must send a detailed Notice of Unverified Debt. Thereafter, the debt collector must limit future activity as noted above.
o Comparison to Regulation F: Regulation F does not include any similar requirement.
Time-Barred Debt – The amended rule imposes several new requirements for time-barred debt, including policy and procedure requirements, and New York City-specific time-barred debt disclosure language.
o Comparison to Regulation F: The rule imposes procedural and notice requirements beyond those required under federal law.
Heightened Protections for Medical Debt – The revised rule imposes restrictions for medical debt. New provisions include a prohibition on furnishing debt information to CRAs, and expanded dispute and verification requirements.
Amendments Applicable to Licensed “Debt Collection Agencies”
In addition to the changes above for “debt collectors”, several notable changes are made to the requirements specifically applicable to “debt collection agencies”. A “debt collection agency” is the narrower scope of entities that must obtain a New York City Debt Collection Agency License.
Recordkeeping Changes – The existing recordkeeping requirements are expanded in a number of ways, including the following changes:
o Licensees must maintain searchable records for each consumer, covering all communications and attempted communications in any medium, that allow a debt collection agency to easily identify: (1) the date, time, and duration of the communication or attempted communication; (2) the medium of the communication or attempt; (3) the names and contact information of the persons involved; and (4) a contemporaneous plain language summary of the communication or attempt.
o Licensees must keep additional records to be made available upon request, and that must be easily identifiable, including: (1) detailed information for all consumer complaints, disputes, requests for verification of a debt, and cease communication requests; (2) expanded call recording information and sampling criteria; (3) records of which medium(s) of communication are permitted, not permitted, or preferred by each consumer; and (4) records of information on debt furnished to consumer reporting agencies.
o Licensees must maintain records of policies and procedures covering time-barred debts, verification of debts, furnishing of information to consumer reporting agencies, and medical debt.
o Finally, licensees must comply with amended record retention time frames, which now vary depending on the type of record.
Additional Analysis and Considerations
These changes impose a challenging new tier of requirements, on top of the substantive requirements under federal law, and New York State law.
Intricate process changes will be required for all communication channels to meet these local requirements for communication frequency controls, specific oral and written communication content, and dispute procedures.
The general trigger for applicability only when engaged in “debt collection procedures” may also present some challenges. For certain types of accounts, it may be less clear when that trigger occurs (i.e., when a debt collector has “taken or threatened to take legal action against the consumer”). Companies should review their early default servicing communications for language that could be interpreted as a threat of legal action. In addition, this framework may be especially challenging for requirements like the debt validation notice, which has substantially different triggers under federal law.
These efforts may portend additional state- or local-specific regulatory changes in the debt collection space. That kind of momentum will further complicate the patchwork of requirements, beyond what is imposed under federal law.
Thankfully, the DCWP declined to include a provision creating a private right of action for violations of the SHIELD rule, acknowledging that it lacked the statutory authority to do so. That said, this initiative has been touted by the Mamdani administration and so regulatory enforcement will likely be a focus.
Download a PDF copy HERE.
About the Authors
Reid Herlihy is a nationally recognized lawyer for regulatory compliance, enforcement, and transactional matters, with a particular focus on mortgage servicing and collections. He represents mortgage servicers, lenders, debt collectors, consumer finance companies, financial institutions, investment banks, and secondary-market investors.
SIGN UP FOR UPDATES
Never miss our news, insights or events.
FEATURED NEWS
