Consumer Financial Services Regulatory Attorney — FDCPA / TCPA opinion for AI voice platform

**Consumer Financial Services Regulatory Attorney — FDCPA / TCPA opinion for AI voice platform (fixed fee, scoped memo)** ## Category / skills Legal › Regulatory Law · FDCPA · TCPA · CFPB · Consumer Protection · Regulatory Compliance ## Job description We are a software company serving property operators (self-storage, mobile home parks, marinas, campgrounds, RV and boat storage, parking, truck yards, industrial flex). Our platform answers our customers' inbound phone calls with an AI voice agent, and we are preparing to launch outbound contact with those customers' tenants about account matters, including past-due rent. We need a written opinion from an attorney who practices in consumer financial services regulation before we ship it. We have already built the compliance architecture; we need to know whether we have built the right one. **We are not looking for general startup counsel, contract drafting, or entity work.** ### What we need answered A written memo addressing seven questions. We will supply a detailed technical and factual background document so you are not billing time to learn our architecture. 1. **Priority question.** Our AI voice agent calls a tenant on behalf of our customer, the property operator. Does the agent identifying itself as *our company* rather than as the operator implicate the "uses any name other than his own which would indicate that a third person is collecting" clause in 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6)? Specifically: could our product convert our customer, otherwise exempt as a creditor collecting its own debt, into a regulated debt collector? *(We have already changed the product to identify as the operator. We want to know whether that was necessary and whether it is sufficient.)* 2. Is our company itself a "debt collector" under § 1692a(6)'s second prong when our AI **conducts the conversation** rather than transmitting a message a human composed? We are aware of the mailing-vendor line of cases and believe our facts are distinguishable. We would like your view. 3. Does our company require a **California DFPI debt collector licence** under the Debt Collection Licensing Act? Which other states impose licensing we should assume applies? 4. Post-**SB 1286** (effective 1 July 2025), does the Rosenthal Act reach our commercial verticals (truck yard, industrial flex) in California? Does the **SB 1324** landlord disclosure exemption extend to a vendor acting for the landlord? 5. Can § 1692g validation-notice obligations sit with our customer rather than with us, and what contractual allocation would that require? 6. For self-storage specifically: how do **state statutory lien notices** interact with FDCPA validation notices — do they conflict, or stack? 7. Given the FCC's February 2024 ruling that AI-generated voices are "artificial" under TCPA, review our consent architecture (recorded per-tenant consent, source provenance, quiet hours by property timezone, Regulation F 7-in-7 caps, immediate revocation, per-call audit trail) and tell us what is missing or wrong. ### Deliverable A written memo, 8–15 pages, addressing each question with authority. Plus one 60-minute call to walk through it. We would like **question 1 answered first**, in a short email if that is faster, because it is the only one blocking something we ship this week. ### Timeline Question 1 within one week. Full memo within three weeks. ### To apply, please answer these in your proposal Short answers are fine — we are checking familiarity, not billing you for analysis. 1. Roughly how does § 1692a(6)'s "name other than his own" clause operate, and have you advised on it? 2. Have you dealt with SB 1286's expansion of the Rosenthal Act to commercial debt? 3. Have you advised any client on the FCC's 2024 AI-voice ruling under TCPA? 4. Have you handled a **DFPI debt collector licensing** question? What is your read on when a technology vendor needs one? Please also tell us whether your practice is defence-side, plaintiff-side, or both. **We are happy to work with plaintiff-side counsel** — you find these problems for a living. ### About working with us We will send you a background memo with our own research and specific citations, our system architecture, and the exact language our AI uses. We would rather pay for your judgement than for your reading time. We are building this to be compliant, not to find the edge of what we can get away with. If your answer is "you cannot do this the way you want to," that is a useful answer and we will pay for it.