The federal guidance is gone, but the underlying rule that a collector may only add fees the contract or the law allows is still in the FDCPA and the Texas Debt Collection Act.
The CFPB interpreted FDCPA section 808(1) to bar debt collectors from collecting 'pay-to-pay' or convenience fees for paying online or by phone unless the agreement creating the debt expressly authorizes the fee or the law expressly permits it, including when the fee is collected through a third-party payment processor. The CFPB withdrew this advisory opinion effective May 12, 2025.
- Citation
- 87 Fed. Reg. 39733 (July 5, 2022), withdrawn, 90 Fed. Reg. 20084 (May 12, 2025)
- Court or agency
- Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
- Date
- July 5, 2022
- Law
- FDCPA, Regulation F, TDCA
Summary
In 2022 the CFPB issued an advisory opinion saying that debt collectors violate the FDCPA by charging convenience fees for online or phone payments that the original agreement or a law does not expressly authorize. In May 2025, under new leadership, the CFPB withdrew the opinion along with dozens of other guidance documents. The statute the opinion interpreted has not changed.
Background
Section 808(1) of the FDCPA (15 U.S.C. 1692f(1)) prohibits a debt collector from collecting any amount, “including any interest, fee, charge, or expense incidental to the principal obligation,” unless the agreement creating the debt expressly authorizes it or the law permits it.
Some collectors charged consumers a few dollars extra to pay by phone or online, often through a payment processor. The industry argued these fees were optional and therefore allowed.
What changed
On July 5, 2022, the CFPB published an advisory opinion taking the opposite view. It said section 808(1) bars collectors from collecting pay-to-pay fees unless those fees are expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or expressly authorized by law. It added that a collector can also violate the statute when it collects pay-to-pay fees through a third-party payment processor.
On May 12, 2025, the CFPB withdrew this opinion, along with 66 other guidance documents. The withdrawal notice said the Bureau would not enforce or rely on the withdrawn guidance while it continues reviewing it, and that the withdrawal “is not necessarily final.”
Our take
An advisory opinion is the agency’s reading of a statute. Withdrawing it does not change the statute’s words. Consumers can still argue that an unauthorized convenience fee violates section 808(1), and courts will decide that question on their own reading of the law.
The practical change is enforcement. The CFPB is now unlikely to pursue collectors over these fees, which leaves the issue to private lawsuits, state regulators and courts.
What it means if you’re sued in Texas
Texas law has a parallel rule. Texas Finance Code § 392.303(a)(2) bars collecting a fee, charge or expense incidental to the obligation unless the agreement creating the obligation expressly authorizes it or it is legally chargeable to the consumer. The Texas Debt Collection Act can reach original creditors as well as collection agencies.
If you are being sued and the claimed balance includes fees, ask for the documents that authorize each one. Unexplained add-on charges can be a defense to part of the claim and, in some cases, the basis for a counterclaim.
If a collector has charged you fees you never agreed to, a free case review is available.
Takeaway
If a collector adds a 'processing' or 'convenience' fee, ask where in your contract that fee is authorized. Courts read the statutes themselves, with or without CFPB guidance.
Sources
Primary authority
- Advisory opinion: Pay-to-Pay Fees (Federal Register, 87 Fed. Reg. 39733)
- Withdrawal notice (Federal Register, 90 Fed. Reg. 20084)
- Texas Finance Code § 392.303
Secondary sources
This summary and analysis are general information, not legal advice. Later decisions, amendments or agency actions may change the law; check the current status before relying on it.