The Ongoing Harassment of Mexicans by Debt Collectors
For years, countless Mexicans have lived under the persistent strain of aggressive telephone debt collection practices. Many individuals receive incessant calls, odd-hour messages, and invasive communications that blur the line of decency. This troubling situation often unfolds before individuals fully comprehend the root causes or the entities behind their harassment. While the harassment appears to originate from unknown numbers, it is essential to recognize that financial institutions often hire these firms to conduct such practices.
The Key Resolution
On January 15, 2026, a landmark ruling by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) addressed this pressing issue. The court dismissed arguments from some financial entities aiming to evade penalties associated with their engagement with collection offices. The ruling affirmed the validity of regulations allowing the National Commission for the Protection and Defense of Users of Financial Services (CONDUSEF) to impose fines for non-compliance with information requirements. Additionally, the SCJN set a maximum timeframe of 180 days for the authority to act following the expiration of the hearing guarantee period, ensuring more timely resolutions.
What This Changes
This ruling represents a significant shift in accountability. It clarifies that the responsibility for harassment does not rest solely with the external collection firm but extends to the financial institutions that engage them. If a financial entity fails to meet its mandated reporting obligations to CONDUSEF, it can no longer deflect accountability by citing third-party actions. This ruling signals that financial institutions need to take their regulatory responsibilities seriously.
The Origin of the Fight
To understand how this case reached the Supreme Court, we need to revert to October 14, 2022. On this day, a critical provision was published in the Official Gazette of the Federation (DOF), which outlined new obligations for financial institutions concerning their relationships with collection offices. The regulations mandated the registration of these third-party firms in the Registry of Collection Offices and required financial entities to report user complaints. The fines subsequently imposed stemmed from infringements of these obligations.
The Route the Banks Took
In response to the enforcement of these fines, various financial entities sought judicial recourse between 2023 and 2025, culminating in the case known as Amparo in Review 323/2025. During this process, the sanctioned entity contended that the rules lacked clarity regarding reporting obligations and time limits for penalties, arguing against the validity of the rulings.
The Plenary’s Response
The Supreme Court dismissed any claims that the existing regulations created ambiguity for financial institutions. It maintained that the framework governing collection reports is coherent and transparent, specifying the parties responsible and the obligations required. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the principles of legal clarity upheld by the entity were not violated.
What Changes From Now On
While this ruling does not introduce new rules, it fortifies an existing framework that had faced challenges from financial entities. The outcome strengthens the regulatory position of CONDUSEF, making it evident that financial institutions can also be subject to administrative penalties for failing to comply with their information obligations. This shift is crucial in curbing the harassment that many individuals face, reinforcing protections for consumers in Mexico.
As consumers gain more support through legal frameworks and institutions like CONDUSEF, the hope is that such changes will lead to a reduction in the intrusive practices of debt collection by phone, paving the way for a more just financial landscape.