Thursday, May 21, 2009
Does "WWJD" Violate Fair Debt Collection Practices Act?
The federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act prohibits debt collectors from engaging in "conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person" (15 USC 1692d) or using "unfair or unconscionable means "(15 USC 1692f) in collecting amounts owed by consumers. In Neill v. Bullseye Collection Agency, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41931 (D MN, May 14, 2009), plaintiffs argued that placing "WWJD" ("What would Jesus do?") in the top corner of collection letters violated these provisions. They claimed that the practice "has the effect of invoking shame or guilt in alleged debtors and 'portray[s] the debtor as a sinner who is going to hell.'" The court denied defendant's motion to dismiss the claim, finding that plaintiffs had stated enough facts to make out a plausible claim. The court put off any consideration of the constitutionality of the statute.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
What would Jesus do? Scourge moneylenders in the Temple, that's what. I don't see why a collection agency would do this in light of the Gospel statements of money and lending.
This is political correctness gone out of control. WWJD asks the reader "What would Jesus do?" No more, no less. If the conclusion the reader comes to is "oh, gosh, I'm going to hell for this," how is that the fault of the collectors?
As far as "invoking shame," how does a WWJD notation do that more than the fact that you're getting a letter from debt collection in the first place?
I think it's pretty obvious how a WWJD notation invokes shame more than getting a letter from a debt collection agency.
After all, the choice is not an either/or - either the letter or the WWJD notation. It is the letter OR the letter plus the WWJD notation.
If the letter generates shame, which it very well might do, the letter plus anything else that also produces shame would seem to produce 'more' shame than just the letter alone. So if the WWJD notation is shame-inducing, and if inducing shame via religious means violates hte statute in question, then it would stand to reason that the WWJD notation is the type of notation which is prohibited under the statute.
After all, the shame of the letter doesn't seem to be at issue, it's the 'extra' shame that attends to invoking a religious, veiled condemnation that is the issue.
--MD
I am trying to think of a reason why anyone would put "WWJD" on the letter if the intention was not to invoke a positive response with the clear implication that any other response would be against Jesus - Seems to me that the debt collectors are getting "God" onside, employing Him as their heavy mob!
Well if you don't repay the money back that someone lent to you it's called stealing. The last time I checked, that was a sin. One of the big 10 addresses this.
Post a Comment