When you write a 3,600-word article about the debt buying and debt collection industry, you’re going to need to talk to a few people. So, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that the author of this particular piece spoke with four consumer advocates or consumer attorneys and four different consumers. But, when you write a 3,600-word article about the debt buying and debt collection industry and elect not to mention or quote a single representative from the debt buying or debt collection industry, it makes it pretty clear what the objective of the article was without having to read it.
The article does a fabulous job of making those involved in the accounts receivable management industry look like criminals and profit-driven companies who only care about ruining the lives of those who have debts. Looking at the cases of four different women — one who claims her identity was stolen and credit cards she didn’t know about were taken out in her name, one who bought earrings at a store using a retail credit card and forgot about the debt, one who had appears to have had an accidental judgment taken out against her, and one who was using her credit card to survive but could not afford to pay the bill — the article paints a picture of a credit and collection industry that sues everyone and then uses those judgments to garnish anything it can.
In 1977, Congress passed the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) in an effort to set some ground rules for the world of out-of-court collection attempts. These ground rules are not especially onerous: Debt collectors must provide basic information about the debt they’re attempting to collect, and verify the debt if the consumer disputes it. If asked not to make another collection call, they cannot call again.
Such laws have not prevented collectors from employing tactics that range from obnoxious to unconscionable.
Companies in the industry care not about the penalties levied by regulators because they represent a drop in the bucket when compared with the massive profits reaped by companies of all shapes and sizes.
But given the billions of dollars the industry generates every year, occasional punishments are of limited deterrent value. “These companies are just finding out how they can break the law without being sued too much,” says Russell Thompson IV, an Arizona consumer protection lawyer. Especially for the collection giants, courtroom losses are the equivalent of a multibillion-dollar pharmaceutical company paying a six-figure injury settlement. “Their mindset is, ‘If we get caught doing it against you, it means we’ve succeeded against thousands of others,’” Sulaiman says.
