The Ministry of Justice and Preparedness proposes a new debt collection law to replace the 1988 Act. The proposal is based on a 2020 working group report and implements EU directives. Committee members split into overlapping coalitions: a broader majority from the Labour Party, Progress Party, Conservative Party, Centre Party, and Christian Democratic Party stressed that the law must balance multiple concerns, while a narrower majority of Labour, Conservative, and Centre Party MPs backed the proposal as necessary modernisation. The Green Party and Christian Democratic Party put forward several amendments to strengthen debtor protections, including preventing debt problems, requiring human oversight of automated decisions, and banning "pay-back models".
AI-generated summary · Model: Claude Haiku 4.5 · Generated: 14 May 2026
These are the proposals in the document, not decisions. See the votes for the outcome.
The Storting calls on the government to propose that prevention of debt problems be included as an explicit purpose in the debt collection law.
The Storting calls on the government to propose requirements ensuring human review of decisions to refer cases to court enforcement.
The Storting calls on the government to propose a ban on "pay-back models" in which debt collection firms offer financial incentives to creditors to obtain or retain collection mandates.
The Storting calls on the government to propose that debt collection notices and payment demands include information about available public and municipal debt counselling services.
The Storting calls on the government to propose clearer statutory definition of what constitutes proper debt collection practice, including that violations of provisions in or under the debt collection law during collection shall themselves constitute violations of proper practice.
Section 6, subsection 2 of the debt collection law shall read: A licence shall be limited to either third-party debt collection or debt purchase operations. If the debt collection firm is not domiciled in Norway, the licence shall be limited so that it does not permit the firm to collect claims covered by Directive (EU) 2021/2167. Section 47, subsection 7 applies correspondingly. The Financial Supervisory Authority may stipulate that a licence for third-party debt collection does not permit handling of client funds.
Section 18, subsection 2 of the debt collection law shall read: Costs of out-of-court collection cannot be recovered if the rule on proper debt collection practice under section 14 has been breached in the debtor's case, or if the debt collection firm has failed to comply with orders issued by the Financial Supervisory Authority for debtor protection. This does not apply if the breach was immaterial and could not have had any significant consequences for the debtor, if it was trivial, or if it resulted from circumstances on the debtor's side.
The Storting calls on the government to propose amendments clarifying that breaches of provisions in or under the debt collection law constitute violations of proper debt collection practice.
The Storting calls on the government to propose that violation of the prohibition on ordinary collection of disputed claims be sanctioned with an administrative fine.
The Storting calls on the government to propose rules distributing the costs of out-of-court collection more evenly between creditor and debtor.
The Storting calls on the government to ensure that debt collection fees are adjusted only after careful consideration and by explicit decision.