Texas Creditors , Texas Debt Collectors and Texas Debt Collection Attorneys are notorious for taking scrupulous actions in order to improperly pressure a Delinquent Debtor.  Our practice has seen numerous Texas Creditors, Texas Debt Collectors and Texas Attorneys cutoff the Delinquent Debtor's Internet Payment Access and thus preventing payment.  From experience, we believe the Creditor's purpose in doing this ranges from being a pressure tactic to ensuring that the Debt Collector or Debt Collection Attorney is paid whose fees might even constitute a separate debt.  These types of actions make an already tough situation worse. 

The "legal test" is if the act of suspending a Delinquent Debtor's Internet Payment Access is being done as a pressure tactic or if it specifically annotated as a valid right dictated by the formal (usually written) relationship existing between the Creditor and the Delinquent Debtor.  This is arguably supported by Section 392 of the Texas Finance Code.

Said another way, the test is two fold - 1) First, whether the conduct is being used as coercion of debt collection, and 2) Secondly, does there exists an independent (likely written) right that authorizes the Creditor to conduct such action.

Section 392 in general prohibits the collection of debt by use of threats, coercion or other improper acts.  Section 392 does not specifically apply to internet payment access but it is clearly arguable that cutting of such Internet Payment Access constitutes threats, coercion or other improper acts and could  very well constitute illegality caused by "tech injury"

There is minimal if any specific appellate law that clearly addresses a Delinquent Debtor's Internet Payment Access but the supporting law potentially establishes a good faith counter-claim that could be brought by a Delinquent Debtor who is trying to remedy the situation but only instead to be harmed by the Creditor's or that Creditor's Agent's actions.  If this occurs it is suggested to first review the Terms of Service or Terms of Agreement or other applicable materials to see if cutting off Internet Payment Access is specifically permitted but if not then maybe countering this position (pre-suit or post-suit) could possibly lead to a more equitable settlement or resolution. 

Most civil defense counsel are not necessarily focused on the "tech injury" aspects of debt but when kept it mind such aspects can be beneficial to better assisting an aggrieved Debtor.

"People v. Tech"