e-mail and sms communications - why not in the U.S?
Both of these communication methods already have or will soon become SOP in the Far East due to the extreme low cost and fast turnaround. One of the reasons these methods have been accepted in that region is due to the fact that the communications carriers have been able to bill the sender, rather than the receiver of the message. These tools are but two of an entire suite of customer contact tools which should be available to collection companies.
Does anyone have any updates as to whether or not the large U.S. based carriers have plans to implement this bill-back arrangement and, if not, why not?
Does anyone have any updates as to whether or not the large U.S. based carriers have plans to implement this bill-back arrangement and, if not, why not?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by David McKenna on -
There already exists a solution to this. DIVDAT offers, through it's partnership for SMS, Free to End User (FTEU) messaging. The sender is billed and thus the recipient cannot claim issue with the receipt of the message. However not all of the major carriers support FTEU and not all SMS providers have it as part of their platform. We can give you more on this and arrange a demo if you contact us at sales.info@divdat.com
-
Permalink Reply by John Gallagher on -
We would certainly be interested in talking with you about your solution. I will be sure to contact you.
THanks
-
Permalink Reply by Jack Gordon on -
There is a bit of a widespread misconception on this subject. There really isn't a legal barrier to the debtor being billed for receipt of a message. The language of the statute:
§ 808. Unfair practices
A debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section:
(5) Causing charges to be made to any person for communications by concealment of the true purpose of the communication. Such charges include, but are not limited to, collect telephone calls and telegram fees.
Public hysteria on the issue has essentially created a new reality on the ground that distorts the intention and application of this section of the law. And use of new technology has not been tested in the courts, causing a lot of confusion about where exactly to draw the lines of acceptability.
-
Permalink Reply by John Gallagher on
-
Jack,
Interesting points .. but the fact that there may not be a legal barrier (your opinion) is enough to stop agencies from pursuing perfectly reasonable alternative collection methods. If you look at other methods such as mail, human telephone calls and automated calls there are no charges involved, so there is no gray area. As we are all aware, there are contradictory laws concerning the requirement to disclose a collection effort while not revealing that the communication is, in fact, a collection effort. You could make a point that there is some type of concealment if the message does not clearly identify the communication - yet, if the wrong party is notified, there could a FDCPA issue.
-
Permalink Reply by Jack Gordon on
-
John, I would never discourage any agency from using an abundance of caution in determining the best course of action for their circumstances. I know firsthand the feeling of weighing the options for a risk vs. benefits analysis, and it is not a very comfortable process to say the least.
And, for the record, I also know firsthand that there are consumers out there itching to test that part of the statute in court. They wouldn't win, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be expensive for the agency on the other end of that challenge.
-
Permalink Reply by Thomas la Centra on
-
Not only are there FDCPA concerns there is also the issue of the TCPA. Please follow the Satterfield v. Simon & Schuster, Inc case
-
Permalink Reply by John Gallagher on
-
Thanks tom - we'll check it out.
-
Permalink Reply by Jack Gordon on
-
I should have clarified I was speaking to the FDCPA issues only. You are absolutely right that there are TCPA issues to take into consideration, though you don't have to look any further than the Leckler v. Cashcall ping pong match to see there is certainly no shortage of murkiness there either.
-
Permalink Reply by John Gallagher on
-
Agreed Jack - murkiness means only the lawyers win.
-
Permalink Reply by John Gallagher on
-
Tom,
I reviewed the case and I find that there are a couple of points which may make this case arguable
This case deals with a telemarketing communication, not a collections effort. From case law which I've read, there have been many rulings which deem these two types of calls quite different due to the relationship between the parties.
There is a section which states that these types of calls are prohibited when there is a charge to the called party. This would not be the case when the charges are assumed by the calling party so this section would not be relevant.
I'm not suggesting for a moment that arguing the case would be inexpensive, but that it would not be a fool's errand and that it would be worth the trouble for the collections industry.
-
Permalink Reply by Shawn Yates on -
I agree, this case is interesting but it really is not on point.
-
Permalink Reply by Shawn Yates on
-
I know of two individuals who have entertained direct discussions with FTC officials and they absolutely stated that the main concern is the cost to the debtor. Having said that the next issue is our famous decision with Foti. Consumer attorneys are harping that a text message is a "message" and as such a communication as thus means you must have the required elements on any message left. Since you only have 145 characters (the SMS company need the other 21 for required FETU lang) you just do not have enough room. I have actually developed a concept for this that could alleviate this concern but at this point it is just too risky to try.
© 2010 Created by JJ Hornblass
