On December 19, 2025, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed into law Senate Bill 1385-B addressing coerced debt arising from familial and intimate relationships. This legislation (entitled “Actions Involving Coerced Debts”) will be codified in New York’s General Business Law (“GBL”) at section 604-aa, et seq. The law is in addition to (and does not repeal) existing consumer protections for coerced debt under New York General Business Law 604-a. The law takes effect 90-days from the Governor’s signature and only applies to “debts incurred on or after such date.”
RMAI’s Advocacy
New York was on track to have two laws covering coerced debt, each with different consumer protections triggered by similar events. New York allows its Governor to make “chapter amendments” to bills presented to her for signing. RMAI worked closely with Governor Hochul’s office to avoid the conflict, preventing a compliance disaster for the credit industry while protecting consumers who are victims of coerced debt in all forms. RMAI’s solution was incorporated into Governor Hochul’s Chapter Amendments.
Coerced Debt Under Current New York Law [GBL 604-a(2)(b)(xi)]
New York’s present coerced debt law became effective on December 27, 2022. New York’s existing GBL 604-a(2)(b)(xi) covers coerced debts if the debtor provides a creditor or debt collector with a writing stating the debtor was coerced into authorizing the use of their identity or information. GBL 604-a requires covered persons to halt collection, among other things, after the consumer provides certain written information concerning the coerced debt. Existing law does not further define “coerced debt.”
Coerced Debt Under the New Law [GBL 604-aa, et seq.]
While the new law will also cover consumer debts, there are key differences in the scope of who is afforded these protections and the requirements for industry compliance. First, the new law only covers coerced debt arising “within the context of intimate relationships or relationships between family or household members,” as is defined under other New York law. Second, a significant difference is that a Federal Trade Commission ID Theft Affidavit does not trigger consumer protections under the new law, as it does under the existing GBL 604-a. The original bill passed by the legislature would have also allowed it under the new law. RMAI believed the two laws needed to have distinct triggers to ensure industry compliance and avoid consumer confusion. Third, the new law imposes different responsibilities on debt collectors and creditors once those protections are triggered; they are more rigorous under the new law. Finally, the new law grants consumers a private right of action for noncompliance, which does not exist under the existing law.
RMAI would encourage its members to share this Member Alert with their legal counsel, operations, and compliance staff.
This Member Alert is intended for members of the Receivables Management Association International, is for informational purposes only, and is in no way intended to provide legal advice. Members are encouraged to consult with an attorney of their choice for legal advice concerning this matter.