FTC Seeking public comments

[ICANHASMUNY?]

The FTC announces that it will hold a day-long public workshop on April 28, 2011 to address consumer protection issues that have arisen as debt collectors avail themselves of advances in technology that have occurred since the 1977 enactment of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692p.

 

The workshop will explore developments in technology that debt collectors use to gather, store, and manage information about consumers, to communicate with them, and to receive payment.

 

It will provide an opportunity for government regulators, industry members, technologists, consumer advocates, and researchers, to discuss the use of these technologies in collecting debts and the relative costs and benefits for debt collectors and consumers alike.

It will also address whether and how collectors may use such technologies consistent with applicable laws, including the FDCPA and Section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(a), what consumer protection concerns may arise from industry use of those technologies, and what actions, if any, should be taken to respond to those concerns.

 

the full text of the notice - http://www.ftc.gov/o...echnologies.pdf

 

to make a comment;

 

https://ftcpublic.co...cttechworkshop/

 

 

This is all about updating the FDCPA in light of new technology

 

cell phones, internet and electronic fund transfers - electronic records of sales to JDB's,

 

How does the current FDCPA apply or should more sections be added to specifically regulate these areas?

 

 

 

the one I'm interested in is this;

 

 

feasibility of outsourcing the transfer (and storage) of information to thirdparty firms that act as repositories of information on consumer debts?

 

We All know how well MERS turned out to be as a respository for every mortgage in the country -

 

I can't imagine that they are going to be able to keep track of credit cards any better.

 

I can't believe that the federal goverment wants to create a Vault for Zombie debt.

 

 

How long will your information remain in this respository?

 

the SOL varies by state - 3 to 15 years for credit cards.

 

judgments can be renewed for just about forever.

 

some states have judgments good for 20 years.

[ICANHASMUNY?]

^^^

[clutchcargo]

Since all this happened two days ago, when will we know how it went?

[ICANHASMUNY?]

I've been monotoring the website - it ususally takes them a few days for a transcript to appear.

 

however, nothing is really decided at these meetings - it's just a round table talk with the FTC, consumer advocates , Lawyers from collectors & JDB's

 

both expressing their opinions on what should be done.

 

it's important that the public submit some inttelligent comments to it.

 

the FDCPA is going to be updated, there are a few bills floating around congress.

 

It's important that informed consumers and consumer advocates of this board, and other forums submit comments to the FTC.

 

It's important that everyone write your house and senate representative on needed reforms to the FDCPA

 

Al franken introduced a bill last fall

 

http://franken.senate.gov/?p=news&id=1116

 

its lost in committee right now.

 

I've posted that a few times. - here's a link to finding your representative in Washington.

 

https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

 

All - take a few minutes to compose your message using the program 'notepad' instead of MS word if you are going to submit comments online.

 

you can then cut and paste into the form and not worry about MSword formatting issues.

[ICANHASMUNY?]

2009 workshop report

 

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/debtcollection/dcwr.pdf

 

 

still waiting on a transcript......

 

http://htc-01.media.globix.net/COMP008760MOD1/ftc_web/FTCindex.html#April28_

[ICANHASMUNY?]

http://htc-01.media.globix.net/COMP008760MOD1/ftc_web/transcripts/042811_sess1.pdf

 

http://htc-01.media.globix.net/COMP008760MOD1/ftc_web/transcripts/042811_sess2.pdf

 

some very interesting comments.

 

 

The problem, though, is one of economics. Look, the debt buyers are buying these debts for pennies on the dollar. It has to be expedient, it has to be cheap. Technologies outrun the legal requirements that are involved. And the thing is, the portfolio buyers recognize this. They put into their sales agreements -- and this is another problem that I see that the FTC could look at -

 

- is they put in the first sheet of a bill of sale, but they don't put the entire sale agreement. Why? Because, in the sale agreement, it says the seller does not warrant, represent, or ensure the accuracy or completeness of information.

 

A fruitful source of information in this area is, again, business-to-business lawsuits. When a buyer of a portfolio sues the seller of a portfolio because the buyer has now gotten caught in a situation where they can't collect honestly the debt that they purchased, they sue the seller. And when they sue the seller, they always lose. The reason they always lose is because, in that portfolio sale agreement, it says, "We don't warrant it, it's as is."

 

 

Anyway, we'll put all of these on the Webpage. But what you find is that the buyer and the seller both agree that the data they're getting isn't accurate, it may not represent actual debt, it may not actually represent the amount of the debt, and they even put in there, oftentimes,

 

"We don't warrant that we own the debt we're selling you." Now, why would anybody buy such a thing?

 

[ Laughter ] Why would you buy that, honestly? Because you buy it cheap, and you collect it dear, to paraphrase Adam Smith. You are able to go to the court, and you have a hole in your case, of course, when you get to court.

 

That hole is the hearsay hole that's filled with a false affidavit.

 

That's why you buy debt that is being represented to you as not even being accurate, because it doesn't matter.

 

http://htc-01.media.globix.net/COMP008760MOD1/ftc_web/transcripts/042811_sess3.pdf

 

[ICANHASMUNY?]

and this; skip tracing thru public media

 

contacting a debtor thru facebook or social media.

 

 

Does anyone think there's anything wrong with using social media for skip-tracing or research purposes?

>> John Bedard: No.

>> Dan Edelman: Assuming that the information is something that anybody can get without any representation or communication, no.

>> Susan Grant: I don't think it's illegal, and I think it can be done responsibly, but I also think that we have a problem with consumers not having the legal right to know that this is going on and being able to take advantage then of the tools that are available to them to the extent that there are tools available to them to keep that information private if they want to.

>> Billy Howard: And I agree. I think that, um, from my perspective, I just see all the violations. I can imagine that there's a way to get information of the correct person that actually owes, you know, somebody money in a nonviolative way.

>> John Bedard: You can put that as a "no" for him, Bevin. Thank you. [ Laughter ]

>> Vytas Kisielius: No, nothing wrong with it. It should be used appropriately.

>> Christine Schiwietz: I think it's inescapable, and it's pervasive, and, um, I also talk about it raw public figures now if we want to or not, and knowing this, we should all take proactive efforts in also establishing parts of our identity online in ways that we choose to do so before somebody else does it for you, which will roll back around to where I see harm, which is not just from the debt collectors writing something on the wall, but if they post something onto websites that's then cataloged by Google, which is in context to somebody's name, then that might appear with you on your Google search when you look for your name, and those secondary tags are very difficult to remove if you find who even posted that about you -- let's say it is a debt collector -- and I think this opens a whole big door for harm in terms of affecting your reputation because that's who you then are because everybody's going to be researching you -- all kinds of groups.

 

 

 

-----------------

 

You know, I've looked at over 20 cases just this year where there was contact through Facebook, and, you know, some of those cases are close to being a violation, some of them are, you know, clearly a violation. The cases that I have, Facebook is not just -- they're not searching for somebody. It's not a big mystery where this person is. They just are not satisfied with how much money they're getting, so they implement different tactics than your standard harassment tactics, and then you do deal with that last thing is kind of that slimy factor. Like, oh, my God. Now, all of a sudden, they're collecting through Facebook. But that used to be the same way with text messages. People used to be shocked when they were getting

 

 

Dan Edelman: I have seen a Facebook posting used to basically shame a debtor into paying. I mean, I think it was a fair debt violation, it's a common-law violation. It's just being used to post derogatory information that somebody owes a debt and isn't paying it for the purpose of inducing them to pay that used to be done by having people visit people's homes and then park a shame automobile outside. It's just a little more modern way of doing the same thing, and it's illegal.