I would make the argument that if a collection agency represents an outdated sum of money previously owed as a debt which may be collected, then the collection agency has violated the FDCPA as follows: Â§ 807. False or misleading representations [15 USC 1962e] A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section: (1) The false representation or implication that the debt collector is vouched for, bonded by, or affiliated with the United States or any State, including the use of any badge, uniform, or facsimile thereof. (2) The false representation of -- (A) the character, amount, or legal status of any debt; or One legal theory of liability under the FDCPA which one could apply is that a collection agency which represents an outdated sum of money owed as a legally owed debt has misrepresented the legal status of the debt... I will not address the defenses available under the FDCPA at this time. The point is that in the previous post I made, re the FDCPA and an outdated obligation, I was basing my theory of liability on the above and the proposed amount demanded on the uncertain nature of "actual damages" for emotional distress and the like. Everyone should feel free to disagree, but there is at least a legitimate theory of liability which can be argued.