A Consumer Protection and Employment Law Firm Serving California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Illinois.

Debt collectors turning to social media to harass people

Table Of Contents
Summarize with
ChatGPT Claude Gemini Perplexity Grok
At the time the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act was first enacted in 1977, Facebook and other social media services were a distant dream. Today, unscrupulous debt collectors are no longer limited to the mail and telephone as tools to harass, intimidate and misinform their targets. Anyone who has profiles on social media, or knows someone who does, can become a victim. According to Fast Company, debt collection agencies are increasingly using social media to reach debtors and their families. People familiar with the FDCPA know that it bans contacting a debtor’s friends and family over a debt, but it appears that debt collectors have taken their old illegal practices to a new method of communication. Does the fact that the FDCPA arguably does not prohibit abusive debt collection practices over the Internet mean that victims have no protection? Not necessarily. In the Fast Company article, the assistant director of the Federal Trade Commission said that another statute, the Federal Trade Commission Act, covers gaps in FDCPA’s limits on debt collectors’ practices. In one example, two acquaintances of a woman received a mysterious private message on Facebook. The message said the sender was looking for the woman’s vehicle, claiming she had “never paid on it.” At the time, the woman was two weeks behind on her loan payment. No matter how a debt collector is harassing you, it is not something you have to take lying down. An attorney experienced in defending people from illegal debt collection practices can help stop the harassment, and take the company to court if necessary.

Quick Navigation

Free Consultation

Undisclosed
Settlement

TCPA class action against the Los Angeles Times. Final approval granted 2014.

More Details
$750,000
Settlement

Common fund class-wide TCPA settlement against home healthcare provider. Final approval granted.

More Details
$27.6M
Settlement

TCPA class action certified on behalf of approximately 2,000,000 class members under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3). Subsequently settled on a Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) basis. Final approval granted.

More Details
$5.2M
Settlement

/

Unruh Act class action on behalf of approximately 240,000 consumers challenging Tinder’s age-based differential pricing for its subscription service. Final approval granted; subsequently went up on appeal.

More Details
$390,000
Settlement

TCPA class action alleging HD Supply sent unauthorized marketing text messages to consumers’ mobile phones without consent between October 21, 2011 and July 26, 2017. Presided over by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Case terminated January 29, 2018.

More Details
$1,500,000
Settlement

/

TCPA class action against a Kansas-based payday lender alleged to have contacted consumers via prerecorded calls on their cell phones to collect alleged debts without consent. California federal judge granted final approval.

More Details
$6,500,000
Settlement

/

Cal. Penal Code § 632.7 class action certified by contested motion under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of over 40,000 class members whose calls were recorded without their knowledge or consent. Final approval granted.

More Details
$13,000,000
Settlement

/

$13 Million Class action alleging HSBC recorded consumer telephone calls without knowledge or consent in violation of California’s Privacy Statute (Penal Code § 632.7). California Federal Judge granted final approval.

More Details
$34,000,000
Settlement

/

One of the largest TCPA class action settlements in U.S. history at time of approval. Alleged Chase used an automatic telephone dialing system to contact consumers on their cell phones without prior express consent from July 2008 through December 2013. Settlement class included over 32 million members. Final approval granted March 2016.

More Details
$150,000,000
Settlement

/

Class action on behalf of over 100,000 owners of GM vehicles equipped with allegedly defective LG-manufactured batteries posing fire and safety risks. Litigation commenced December 2020. U.S. District Judge Terrence G. Berg indicated preliminary approval of the $150 million settlement.

More Details
$100,000,000
Settlement

/ /

Landmark gig-economy class action. DoorDash drivers in California and Massachusetts alleged they were wrongly classified as independent contractors rather than employees. Firm served as class counsel. Final approval granted January 13, 2022 — the largest gig-economy worker class settlement in U.S. history at the time.

More Details

Office Locations

Copyright 2025 Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. All Rights Reserved.