Threatening or filing suit on a time-barred debt is a misleading and unfair debt collection practice violating 15 USC 1692e and 1692f.  To allege and prove a violation of those sections, the debtor need not allege or prove that the debt collector knew the debt was time-barred.  However, the debt collector may be able to establish an affirmative defense of a bona fide error under 15 USC 1692k(c) by showing that despite its reasonable efforts, it did not determine that the debt was time-barred under applicable state law.  Here, it was uncertain whether this debt under a retail installment sale contract was governed by a 4 year statute of limitations for suit on a contract of sale or a six year statute of limitations for suit on a lien under Oregon law.  As a matter of first impression, the decision predicts that Oregon would apply the shorter statute of limitations.  However, under these circumstances, the debt collector might be able to prove the bona fide error affirmative defense.