cbsnews.com
Debt Collectors Illegally 'Re-age' Old Debts, Harming Consumers
Debt collectors illegally "re-age" old debts by manipulating the date of first delinquency to appear newer than they are on credit reports, violating federal law and harming consumers' credit scores.
- What are the immediate consequences for consumers when debt collectors re-age their accounts?
- Debt collectors sometimes 're-age' old debts, making them appear newer to pursue collection more aggressively. This practice violates federal law and can harm your credit score. Re-aging involves manipulating the "date of first delinquency" to extend the reporting period on your credit report beyond the legal seven years.
- How do debt buyers profit from the practice of re-aging old debts, and what broader systemic issues does it highlight?
- Debt buyers purchase portfolios of old debts cheaply and then use re-aging to make them seem current, increasing their collection potential and portfolio value. This deceptive practice pressures consumers into paying debts they may no longer legally owe, impacting their credit and financial well-being.
- What long-term implications might the practice of debt re-aging have on consumer credit reporting and the regulatory environment?
- The long-term impact of debt re-aging includes further erosion of consumer trust in debt collection practices and potential legislative changes to strengthen consumer protections. Increased awareness and consumer action are crucial to combatting this illegal practice.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the issue strongly from the perspective of consumers facing debt re-aging, emphasizing their potential distress and financial hardship. The headline and introduction immediately establish a tone of consumer vulnerability and the unfairness of the practice, potentially influencing readers' perceptions before presenting a balanced view. While this approach effectively raises awareness, it might overemphasize the negative aspects.
Language Bias
The article employs emotionally charged language, such as "aggressive," "deceptive," and "devastate," to describe debt collection practices. While these terms might accurately reflect the experiences of some consumers, they could be replaced with more neutral terms like "assertive," "inaccurate," and "negatively affect." The repetition of phrases highlighting consumer vulnerability reinforces a particular perspective.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the negative impacts of debt re-aging but omits discussion of potential mitigating factors or industry efforts to prevent this practice. It doesn't explore the perspectives of debt collectors, potentially neglecting their arguments or challenges in accurately managing aged debts. While acknowledging space constraints is important, a brief mention of such counterpoints could have strengthened the article's objectivity.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat simplistic dichotomy between consumers victimized by re-aging and debt collectors engaging in deceptive practices. It doesn't sufficiently address the nuances of debt collection, such as unintentional errors in record-keeping or situations where genuine disputes arise. This simplification might lead readers to view the issue as entirely black and white.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights the issue of debt re-aging, a practice that disproportionately affects vulnerable populations and exacerbates financial inequality. By providing steps to identify and challenge this practice, the article empowers individuals to protect their financial well-being and fight against unfair debt collection practices, thus contributing to reduced inequality.