Providing for protections against coerced debt; and imposing duties on the Treasury Department.
HB2344 would create a new chapter in Title 12 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes establishing a process for people to dispute and obtain relief from “coerced debt.” The bill defines coerced debt broadly to include debt incurred through domestic violence, fraud, duress, intimidation, threats, force, coercion, manipulation, undue influence, misinformation, or the nonconsensual use of a debtor’s personal identifying information. It directs the Treasury Department to develop and publish a standardized petition form that a debtor can use to notify a creditor that a debt, or part of a debt, was coerced.
Under the bill, a debtor would submit the petition to the creditor, who must review it in good faith, request an amended petition if needed within 10 business days, and make a determination within 10 business days after receiving a complete petition or amendment. If the creditor agrees the debt is coerced, the creditor must stop collection efforts, stop or dismiss any collection lawsuit, stop garnishment, return payments collected on the coerced debt, and ask consumer reporting agencies to delete related information. If the creditor denies the claim, the debtor may sue within two years to challenge the determination, and a court can order the same relief and potentially attorney fees. If the debt is found to belong to the perpetrator, the creditor may later sue that person to collect the debt.
The bill would add a new consumer-protection framework to Pennsylvania law governing debt collection disputes, specifically for debts tied to domestic abuse, coercion, or identity misuse. It would impose new procedural duties on creditors and debt collectors, require the Treasury Department to create and post a petition form, and establish court remedies and timelines for resolving coerced-debt claims. It also affects consumer reporting practices by requiring creditors to seek deletion of related credit information when a debt is determined to be coerced.
Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears to be framed as a protective, victim-centered consumer relief bill with no recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials. Its structure suggests an intent to help survivors of domestic violence, trafficking, and related abuse avoid being held responsible for debts incurred through coercion or identity theft. Because there are no transcripts or vote records included, there is no documented opposition or support beyond the bill’s protective purpose.
The main potential points of contention are the breadth of the definition of coerced debt, the evidentiary showing required from debtors, and the administrative burden placed on creditors to review petitions quickly and halt collection activity. Creditors may also be concerned about the requirement to return payments, stop garnishments, and notify credit bureaus, while advocates for survivors are likely to support the bill’s safe-contact provisions, use of qualified third-party documentation, and access to court review if a creditor denies relief. The bill also raises questions about how disputes will be verified when the alleged perpetrator and debtor are different people, and how creditors will distinguish legitimate coerced-debt claims from ordinary disputes.