Debt Collection and Today's Technological innovation

Back in 1978, there wasn't e mail, there wasn't voicemail, cell phones weren't ubiquitous, and social networking was a little something that you did at cocktail events. Back then, debt collectors had two usually means of contacting a buyer: by means of landline phone and through snail mail. And maybe by way of telegram.

The FDCPA has strict prohibitions against particular kinds of debt collector communication. For instance, a debt collection agency cannot send you a letter in the mail and indicate that it is from an agency on the outer envelope. A collector cannot contact you at all hrs of the day and evening, or contact you at work if he understands that your employer does not let it. But the prohibitions are normally significantly less about the process of communication than the intention behind it. The FDCPA was written to avert debt collectors from harassing, threatening, misleading, or embarrassing people.

With the technological advances of the previous two decades, issues arise as to what sorts of communication are allowable under the FDCPA. Certainly, the Federal Trade Commission a short while ago held a daylong public workshop about new Technological innovation and the federal debt collection law. 3 queries that were addressed were the use of voicemail, the use of robo-calls, and the use of social media.

When it comes to robo-dialers, there are a couple of inquiries at play. With a robo-contact, your phone rings and you hear a pre-recorded message. That is fine - if you are the individual the debt collection agency is calling. But what if somebody else answers the phone? Or what if the robo-caller leaves a message, and a person else grabs the messages off of voicemail? The FDCPA and subsequent caselaw has produced it clear that a debt collector can't inform a 3rd celebration that they are collecting a debt. It really is also clear that a debt collection agency have to inform the buyer they are calling that the contact is from an agency, and that any information and facts you produce will be put to use in collection efforts.

So, are robo-calls legal? Judicial rulings have come down on the two sides of the fence. Quite often a robo-contact can constitute 3rd-get together disclosure. Other instances, if a robo-contact presents the title of the man or woman becoming known as and tells the particular person answering to hang up if they are not that individual, it really is not an FDCPA violation.

So, can a collector leave a voicemail? Again, there were judicial rulings the two approaches. What about tracking you down employing a social network? There is no clear caselaw in this location, but the spirit of the FDCPA is that you should not be harassed, misled, or embarrassed. It may be acceptable to send you a personal message on a social network, but not to post on your public wall.

Time will inform. The Federal Trade Commission is plainly hunting into prospective policy revisions in order to update the FDCPA. In the meantime, if you experience you have been embarrassed or harassed by a debt collector - utilizing newer Technology or a plain old landline, you will need to contact a fair debt lawyer. Client protection laws are meant to do just that - protect customers. You should not be subjected to unsavory - and illegal - debt collection practices.

Sergei Lemberg, Esq. is the Principal of Lemberg & Associates, a law firm specializing in fair debt collection law, lemon law, and other client law.