I don't see what's threatening or intimidating about "Have your friend Melanie call me." Seems pretty innocuous to me.
Could you buy Facebook ads that target the person's friends? All the data you need is there for the debt collector's taking. You wouldn't need to intimidate anyone or say anything hateful. The ad could be as simple as, "Get $5 in Facebook Credits. Have Your Friend Melanie Call Me." Not sure if that ad would actually work, just thinking out loud.
From Facebook's perspective, you don't want people to stop creating accounts (or quit using them) because of fear of debt collectors, but debt collectors are a business that could provide them a revenue stream.
It's already a known fact that some employers check potential hires on Facebook and I don't think that's had much of a chilling effect on the growth of their social network.
Anything that makes Facebook unpleasant is bad for business because it keeps users from logging in.
You don't see anything slimy with contacting your friends and family to embarrass you? They are threatening your reputation with friends, family, and employers.
They can't share any details about the debt or even that there is a debt. All they're allowed to say is "Have your friend contact me." Is that what constitutes threatening a reputation these days?
What about the annoyance factor? "Hey why are these strangers contacting me and asking me to send you messages to contact them?! Do I look like your personal secretary??"
Yes, I agree there's an annoyance factor. In all honesty, what do you think should happen when someone isn't paying a debt they owe? Can you think of a reasonable way to get hold of someone who's refusing your phone calls that doesn't involve potentially annoying friends and family?
Once you file suit, it's the process server's job to get ahold of you. They have less restrictions. And you can tack on court costs to the suit you bring -- and then use the grievance you win to garnish their wages.
It sounds easier than it looks, but that's how you get your money as a debt collector. The ones you can't find are probably just as like to be no shows in court. Once you have a greviance, it's easy to garnish. All that involves is contacting their employer.
You can't "tack on court costs" so easily. In most civil cases in the USA, each party is responsible for his own attorney's fees and costs. As I sadly know from personal experience trying to recover money from an insurance company.
In most cases, any amount under $10,000 is not going to be worth going to court over. You will pay lawyers that much just to get the case to trial.
Most debt collections agencies have a lawyer or lawyers on retainer for going to court. They can, and will, go to court for judgments as small as $1,000. The hearing is often the local magistrate, and unless there is something atypical complicating your case, the ruling will happen in 30 minutes or less. Having proof that you own a debt is a binary thing -- either you have it or you don't.
Here's the thing. YOUR debt collectors don't have the right or the privilege to harass ME over your debts, just because we're linked as "friends" on facebook or whatever social network, even if they don't tell me the reason why they are pestering me to deliver messages to you. If someone decides that they do, you're no longer my "friend", AND I'll likely stop using Facebook / social network I am tired of getting other people's spam on.
They can't share any details about the debt or even that there is a debt.
They can until someone takes them to court over it.
Having inherited the phone number of someone who owed money, and dealt with the fallout from that, I can personally testify that collectors do not consider themselves bound by the law unless/until a court fines them some obscene amount of money.
I absolutely see something slimy about it. I just don't think it's embarrassing, threatening or intimidating to say, "Have your friend Melanie call me" --- which was the example from the article.
Many people are Facebook friends of their employers, churches, or other organizations. Now imagine you owe (or at least a collector thinks you owe) $362 for an unpaid car loan and your employer gets a call from a known debt collector asking them to tell you to return their call. Immediate privacy violation! That's why the FTC doesn't allow debt collectors to share that information publicly.
Now, unlike a phone call at random, in the case of a Facebook contact, it would be pretty easy to figure out that the stranger who messaged you is trying to collect on a debt.
I agree 100% with the privacy concerns you've raised. My question was/is: Is buying an ad on Facebook a privacy violation?
Facebook gives you all the data you need to use people's friends to sell stuff. This is what makes advertising on Facebook attractive to a great degree. If you're trying to reclaim a debt, could you not buy an ad to target someone's friends?
Especially if that ad is simply "Have your friend call me." There is no mention of debt. No shaming in a public forum. It's just a simple message. Is that illegal?
Yes. You're a debt collector, and you need to speak to Melanie. Unless Melanie is looking for a job as a debt collector, chances are she has unpaid debt.
Even if you try to conceal where you're from, short of lying, you can't hide it if someone asks "Uh, why? Who are you?". Boom - you've violated Melanie's privacy. And what if you've yourself been "contacted" by an agency in that way, and you now see those ads for your friend?
By the time the debt collectors are called in (3 or more months overdue), the chances are already more that the money would never be paid.
These people have a bad reputation, but debtors too are reneging on a contract. It's terrible to be a business owner (not just credit-related) and to have one of your customers stiff you on a bill.
'I don't see what's threatening or intimidating about "Have your friend Melanie call me." Seems pretty innocuous to me.'
It doesn't take too many of those 'innocuous' messages for someone to figure out what they are. If your friends suddenly get 15 messages from strangers asking them to have you call, it's pretty clear what it is.
I get calls from debt collectors all the time. The problem is it's not me they are looking for; I just happen to have the same fairly unique name and live in the same city. I know it's not me because it's for a credit card debt from when I was 7. I really don't want my friends all getting messages from strangers asking me to call them. Sure, the example cited in the article was pleasant sounding, but I can guarantee you they will quickly degrade into threatening/harassing messages if Facebook gives debt collectors the signal that it's okay to use their service. I know because I deal with them on the phone all the time yelling, calling me a liar, etc. when I try to explain it isn't me they are looking for.
I had a similar problem when I got a new number a few years ago. I would get calls, usually very early in the morning asking for someone else. Even though I would say they had the wrong number they would just continue to call back day after day. The number was from a debt collection agency.
I have this problem right now and it's pissing me off. I'm starting to wonder if I can do anything against them. The guy doesn't even have the same name as me. He hasn't had this number for years yet I still get calls.
Under the fair debt collection act, all you have to do is tell them to stop calling you. Seriously. Just say something to the effect of "under the rights granted by the fair debt collection act, I'm informing you that you are calling the wrong number, I am not the person you're looking for and to please never contact me again" if they do, you can sue them for up to 10k for violating it. You have to do it with each distinct debt collector though. Check clarkhoward.com for more information.
There is an absolute dead-beat who happens to have the same (extremely rare) name as my brother. Several times a year I'll get a call from someone looking for him. Usually it's one call and that's it. However, I've had a few collectors who would harass me for weeks. I have no damn idea who the guy they are looking for is (it's not my brother, they're looking for someone who has been in the military)... it can be really annoying.
This has happened to me, as well. My cellphone number previously belonged to someone who owes lots of money to many people.
If I have the time, I make it a game, and see how long I can keep the debt collector on the phone, simply by making various grunting noises w/out any actual speech.
Either the wording will be too specific and not mean much, or it will be too broad and harm the innocent.. in a BAD way. Say, a contractor writing to a client "hey, I'm done now, could you wire me the last 50%?"...
They've got no business using Facebook to conduct business in the first place. Besides, their chat and message tools are terrible. If Facebook disallows it in their TOS and it's widely known, then don't do it, especially for business.
Businesses doing business on Facebook is exactly more of the kind of thing Facebook wants, don't kid yourself. They won't pursue a lot of this stuff directly themselves, but they're happy for anything that drives revenue without pissing off users. See: Asana.
Ah, the poor debt collector, what a burden he carries these days.
When I started in my legal career over 30 years ago, debt collectors could declare open season on their victims and pretty much harass them without limit: calling up at all hours of the night, lying through their teeth about what might happen if you did not accede to their demands, pestering friends, relatives, employers, and anyone else in reach once they had exhausted their arsenal on the hapless debtor, and when all that didn't work, cynically start the process up again the next day until the poor soul was worn out from the continuous beating.
All of this has radically changed in the past several decades, to the point where debtors (and, dare I say, deadbeats too) now pretty much have the upper hand with collectors when it comes to fending off their efforts to win through harassment or intimidation. A fascinating write-up on this appears here (http://www.dallasobserver.com/2010-01-21/news/better-off-dea...) and that piece in turn sparked an interesting HN discussion on the topic (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1075903).
Essentially, there are now innumerable laws that permit debtors to sue debt collectors who slip up on even small issues in the way they handle their collection efforts. What is more, the entire industry depends on hiring low-skilled workers whose main talent is to intimidate and such persons are normally not astute enough to avoid the legal traps. The hope is that most people will remain ignorant of the laws protecting debtors while the harassment continues.
Accordingly, this game turns on playing the percentages. I have dealt with people at the wholesale end of this business and, believe me, the amounts they pay to acquire debt packages are miniscule in relation to the size of the debts involved (often as low as 1% of the face amount of the paper). Thus, it is rare that any of this ever winds up being pursued in court (at least for the low-quality packages) because that would never pay. The goal, rather, is to scare people into paying. This means, of course, first finding the person so that the process can begin. And this in turn places a huge premium on whatever data might exist by which a debtor might be tracked.
So, yes, the debt collectors will use all forms of social media available as well as any accompanying tricks that might lead to finding their targets. Facebook may adopt policies to try to limit some of this but I would doubt that this would be effective except against flagrant offenders. Anti-harassment laws likely would be more effective, assuming the debtor is savvy enough to know about them and to use them effectively.
In the meantime, this cat-and-mouse game will continue on and on, as it has for eons, only it will now involve the new playing ground of social media.
39 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 81.4 ms ] threadCould you buy Facebook ads that target the person's friends? All the data you need is there for the debt collector's taking. You wouldn't need to intimidate anyone or say anything hateful. The ad could be as simple as, "Get $5 in Facebook Credits. Have Your Friend Melanie Call Me." Not sure if that ad would actually work, just thinking out loud.
From Facebook's perspective, you don't want people to stop creating accounts (or quit using them) because of fear of debt collectors, but debt collectors are a business that could provide them a revenue stream.
It's already a known fact that some employers check potential hires on Facebook and I don't think that's had much of a chilling effect on the growth of their social network.
You don't see anything slimy with contacting your friends and family to embarrass you? They are threatening your reputation with friends, family, and employers.
It sounds easier than it looks, but that's how you get your money as a debt collector. The ones you can't find are probably just as like to be no shows in court. Once you have a greviance, it's easy to garnish. All that involves is contacting their employer.
In most cases, any amount under $10,000 is not going to be worth going to court over. You will pay lawyers that much just to get the case to trial.
They can until someone takes them to court over it.
Having inherited the phone number of someone who owed money, and dealt with the fallout from that, I can personally testify that collectors do not consider themselves bound by the law unless/until a court fines them some obscene amount of money.
Now, unlike a phone call at random, in the case of a Facebook contact, it would be pretty easy to figure out that the stranger who messaged you is trying to collect on a debt.
Facebook gives you all the data you need to use people's friends to sell stuff. This is what makes advertising on Facebook attractive to a great degree. If you're trying to reclaim a debt, could you not buy an ad to target someone's friends?
Especially if that ad is simply "Have your friend call me." There is no mention of debt. No shaming in a public forum. It's just a simple message. Is that illegal?
Even if you try to conceal where you're from, short of lying, you can't hide it if someone asks "Uh, why? Who are you?". Boom - you've violated Melanie's privacy. And what if you've yourself been "contacted" by an agency in that way, and you now see those ads for your friend?
These people have a bad reputation, but debtors too are reneging on a contract. It's terrible to be a business owner (not just credit-related) and to have one of your customers stiff you on a bill.
It doesn't take too many of those 'innocuous' messages for someone to figure out what they are. If your friends suddenly get 15 messages from strangers asking them to have you call, it's pretty clear what it is.
I get calls from debt collectors all the time. The problem is it's not me they are looking for; I just happen to have the same fairly unique name and live in the same city. I know it's not me because it's for a credit card debt from when I was 7. I really don't want my friends all getting messages from strangers asking me to call them. Sure, the example cited in the article was pleasant sounding, but I can guarantee you they will quickly degrade into threatening/harassing messages if Facebook gives debt collectors the signal that it's okay to use their service. I know because I deal with them on the phone all the time yelling, calling me a liar, etc. when I try to explain it isn't me they are looking for.
If I have the time, I make it a game, and see how long I can keep the debt collector on the phone, simply by making various grunting noises w/out any actual speech.
These are not nice people.
If you are using our service in any way to contact a client of yours who owes you money, you agree to forgive the debt in the entirety.
This is not the type of debt collector than can provide the promissory note or judgement documentation.
When I started in my legal career over 30 years ago, debt collectors could declare open season on their victims and pretty much harass them without limit: calling up at all hours of the night, lying through their teeth about what might happen if you did not accede to their demands, pestering friends, relatives, employers, and anyone else in reach once they had exhausted their arsenal on the hapless debtor, and when all that didn't work, cynically start the process up again the next day until the poor soul was worn out from the continuous beating.
All of this has radically changed in the past several decades, to the point where debtors (and, dare I say, deadbeats too) now pretty much have the upper hand with collectors when it comes to fending off their efforts to win through harassment or intimidation. A fascinating write-up on this appears here (http://www.dallasobserver.com/2010-01-21/news/better-off-dea...) and that piece in turn sparked an interesting HN discussion on the topic (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1075903).
Essentially, there are now innumerable laws that permit debtors to sue debt collectors who slip up on even small issues in the way they handle their collection efforts. What is more, the entire industry depends on hiring low-skilled workers whose main talent is to intimidate and such persons are normally not astute enough to avoid the legal traps. The hope is that most people will remain ignorant of the laws protecting debtors while the harassment continues.
Accordingly, this game turns on playing the percentages. I have dealt with people at the wholesale end of this business and, believe me, the amounts they pay to acquire debt packages are miniscule in relation to the size of the debts involved (often as low as 1% of the face amount of the paper). Thus, it is rare that any of this ever winds up being pursued in court (at least for the low-quality packages) because that would never pay. The goal, rather, is to scare people into paying. This means, of course, first finding the person so that the process can begin. And this in turn places a huge premium on whatever data might exist by which a debtor might be tracked.
So, yes, the debt collectors will use all forms of social media available as well as any accompanying tricks that might lead to finding their targets. Facebook may adopt policies to try to limit some of this but I would doubt that this would be effective except against flagrant offenders. Anti-harassment laws likely would be more effective, assuming the debtor is savvy enough to know about them and to use them effectively.
In the meantime, this cat-and-mouse game will continue on and on, as it has for eons, only it will now involve the new playing ground of social media.
(family law systems and sex-offender registries are both fairly widely known to be disgustingly broken)