7-in-7 Rule (Reg F call frequency)

The rule's own words

• The prohibition. A debt collector "must not place telephone calls or engage any person in telephone conversation repeatedly or continuously with intent to annoy, abuse, or harass any person at the called number." (1006.14(b)(1), tracking 15 U.S.C. 1692d(5))
• Presumed compliance. The two prongs quoted above, from 1006.14(b)(2)(i). On the second: "The date of the telephone conversation is the first day of the seven-consecutive-day period."
• Presumed violation. Calls "in excess of either of the telephone call frequencies." (1006.14(b)(2)(ii))
• Not a cap. The CFPB's FAQs: "The Debt Collection Rule does not impose a specific 'limit' or 'cap' on the frequency of telephone calls." The FAQs name the two parts the "call frequency prong" and the "conversation frequency prong."
• Per debt. "particular debt means each of a consumer's debts in collection," with a student loan provision for debts serviced under a single account number. (1006.14(b)(4))

(12 CFR 1006.14)

The rule's text speaks of "telephone call frequencies." "7-in-7" is a commonly used name for these presumptions, not the CFPB's term.

What counts toward the seven

• Ringless voicemail, yes. Official comment 14(b)-1: "'placing a telephone call' includes conveying a ringless voicemail but does not include sending an electronic message (e.g., a text message or an email) that may be received on a mobile telephone."
• Connected calls, yes; unconnected, no. Per comment 14(b)(3)(ii)-1, a call connects if it's answered (even if it drops), rings with no answer, or reaches voicemail. A busy signal or a not-in-service message doesn't connect, and 1006.14(b)(3)(ii) excludes calls "Not connected to the dialed number."
• Prior consent. Calls "Placed with such person's prior consent given directly to the debt collector and within a period no longer than seven consecutive days after receiving the prior consent" are excluded. (1006.14(b)(3)(i))
• Certain recipients. Calls to the persons in 1006.6(d)(1)(ii) through (vi), which are the consumer's attorney, a consumer reporting agency, the creditor, the creditor's attorney, and the debt collector's attorney, are excluded. (1006.14(b)(3)(iii))

A presumption both ways

Comment 14(b)(2)(i)-2 lists facts that can rebut the presumption of compliance, such as "two unanswered telephone calls to the same telephone number within five minutes" or "seven telephone calls to the same telephone number within one day." Comment 14(b)(2)(ii)-2 lists facts that can rebut the presumption of a violation, such as calls required by other law or tied to active litigation. And comment 14(a)-2 says harassment "may depend on the cumulative effect of the debt collector's conduct through any communication medium."

Related local rule

New York City's amended SHIELD Rule adds a separate count. DCWP's FAQ (dated Oct 22, 2026) describes a "3 x 7 Frequency Limit," three communications "per distinct consumer account within a seven-day period across all media," excluding mailed letters, with other exclusions, effective Jan 1, 2027. Our 7-in-7 post compares the two side by side.

AI-agent operations questions

• When an AI agent and a human team both call the same debt, which system holds the one count?
• How does an agent's call log label "rang, no answer," "voicemail," "busy," and "not in service," given that the official interpretation treats them differently?
• When an agent has a conversation about the debt, how does that date reach every other system that might call next?