Wrong. If that were true, why would ASG be leaving the message thousands of times a day? Clearly, a judge thought it was legal enough. I have heard of one single complain call based on the new message.

The message goes like this:

This is a confidential and important message meant solely for [insert debtor name]. If you are not [insert debtor name], do not listen to this message. (At this point, if you're not that person, you're supposed to stop listening. If a person listens to the rest of the message, it's his/her fault, not ASG's.) By continuing to listen to this message, you acknowledge that you are [insert debtor name].

The law requires I notify you that my name is [insert collector name] and I'm calling from Account Solutions Group, LLC., a debt collection company. This is an attempt to collect a debt and any information obtained will be used for that purpose. Please call me toll-free today at [insert toll-free number] and refer to reference number [insert reference number]. Thank you.

Collectors are only to use that message on VERIFIED residential numbers (i.e. the debtor has answered the phone there, a third-party has answered and confirmed that they live there, or it is registered to their name) or VERIFIED PERSONAL cell phones. If the voicemail identifies a business, that message cannot be left.

Listening to the message when it is not for you is exactly the same as pretending to be the debtor when speaking to a collector. It's misrepresentation.

It's not illegal.

The phone # is not under my name, phone was answered once and they (ASG) didn't hang up like they usually do, they were told I was not here, never really knowing if I do or do not live where they placed the call. I would think (and hope) that it would be illegal to leave this message for anyone to hear.

If the person who answered inferred that you were not home, and didn't say that you didn't live there, it's safe to reason that you do in fact live there and it is a verified home number, am I right?

The person who answered the phone simply stated 'she is not here' when asked if they could speak to -----. Does that imply that I am living at the number they called, NO, not in my eyes. I can't see where you find that it it is 'safe to reason that you do in fact live there and it is a verified home number'. I am sure that if I did file charges on them that it would be hard for me to prove that they didn't know for sure if I resided there or not.
I have called a few houses looking for my son from time to time, and was told 'no he is not here'. Doesn't mean he lives there. When I went to collage, I lived with 5 others who shared a large home, would it have been illegal for them (asg) to call there and have someone else listen to the message? Same goes for the number they called, so if I had roommates now, would it be legal for those messages left on machine when others can hear it? Are you one of those who would walk away from the machine when it is said 'if you are not ---, do not listen to this message'. ???????
Why even have the fdcpa if Judges are going to rule opposite of what the laws of FDCPA state?

[Law Student]

By reading case law, I find that many people take a collector to court for the wrong violations, when other charges should have been there instead, and would have prevailed.

[cajunbulldog]

I still think hat message is wrong,because it infers that collector has the correct party for that phone number. When Asg is sued over it by someone with documentation,maybe they will change their procedures.An example using their own message is a friend hears message while you are out of room.

Too bad your opinion doesn't matter. ASG and other agencies have been using the message for months now with no sign of pending litigation.

Well, I think that everyones opinion matters....
And may I ask you, 'Guest', what is it you do for a living? You seem so sure of your answers. Why does it state in the rules that they cannot leave messages? Where does it state that they CAN? Maybe I missed something.........

[Sassnlucy]

cajunbulldog's opinion absolutely matters! Just remember that it only takes one persont to file a lawsuit to put some collection agency in its place. It has happened many times.

[Anthony Lemons]

Hey Cajun, we better keep our opinions to ourselves, someone may not approve of them. Thats most likely just David Jacobs trying to shut ya down.

[cajunbulldog]

Opinions are like a**h***s,everyone has one & quite a few of them are smelly. The day I worry about some anonymous poster is probably gonna be the day I no longer desire to help out here.I expect that to be when I am a lot older & grayer. Guest,just remember as Sassy said it only takes one person to start up a lawsuit.

Right, so any lawsuit that pops up because of this message would be going directly against a judge's ruling on the matter already. Which way do the debtors really want it? Do they want to be "inconvenienced" by having to call to find out what a collection message is or do they want to be mad about third-party disclosure on verified home numbers and personal cell phones?

[cajunbulldog]

Guest always remember that underlying debt has absolutely nothing to do with a collector following fdcpa & FCRA. You have peaked my interest so I will check with some consumer lawyers I know and find out which way the courts are swaying on the voicemail subject.

[cajunbulldog]

I have gathered some legal material on this subject and will post after I have deciphered them to an understandable level. Dog gone lawyers must study long and hard to bombard you with words and take a month and a moon to get to the point. I do respect our attornies here,it just makes some caselaw very difficult to read without having all the degrees and training to read it.

[Anthony Lemons]

I have no respect for people who come here, make dumbass comments, and use 'guest' as their credible alias.