Big Retail Chains Dun Mere Suspects in Theft

Big Retail Chains Dun Mere Suspects in Theft

online.wsj.com

After Miami handyman Glenn Rudge was accused of shoplifting an $8 set of drill bits at Home Depot, he thought he'd settled the matter when he showed his receipt to prosecutors and they dropped the charge.

But a few weeks later, a law firm hired by Home Depot began sending him letters demanding first $3,000, then a total of $6,000, implying he'd be sued if he didn't pay it.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.fair-debt-collection.com
en.wikipedia.org
findarticles.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Collection Practices Gone Mad?

When people are convicted of shoplifting, the civil recovery of the retailer's costs under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act should be a given.

But when this process is exploited by debt collection agencies to target those who have not been convicted, or even more egregiously, people who have been cleared on all charges, then it becomes a matter of increasing concern for all consumers.

Those simply suspected of a crime, and especially those who have been found to be not guilty, should not be subject to the shady practices of debt collectors to deceive them into compliance with a conspiracy to underwrite big retailer's loss prevention efforts.

This systemic abuse would appear to warrant the emplacement of additional oversight.

Should retailers be permitted to dun mere suspects in shoplifting incidents?




online.wsj.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

This is so outrageous.

I'm sure lawyers and debt collectors will push this as far as it can go until shoppers refuse to shop at stores who use this practice. Either shop-lifting is a crime to be prosecuted or it is not, but it certainly shouldn't spawn a revenue-generating gray area like this. I guess I am even more perplexed about how they can demand more money than the product was originally worth? What legal ground do they even have if the product was recovered? The entire practice is completely questionable.

I hope I don't see too many posts squawking phrases like "If you are not stealing, what do you have to worry about?" If so, just re-read the article and take note of what happened to Mr. Rudge, an innocent citizen.

IMO this is just another example of how greedy corporations and vulturous lawyers run this country.

[edit on 21/2/08 by kosmicjack]

reply to post by kosmicjack


No doubt, kosmicjack!

According to the wiki link above:

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (aka FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., is a United States statute added in 1978 as Title VIII of the Consumer Credit Protection Act.

So it's been in effect for thirty years.

But ten years later, in 1988, it was already a cause for concern:

But Clark decried using what he calls "bounty hunters" to handle civil recovery. They charge 30 percent of whatever they recover for clients. Their vested interest in high recovery rates could lead to abuses, Clark said.

Civil recovery helps chains stem losses from shoplifting - discount store chains

It's been twenty years now and we're seeing those fears come to be realized.

Fortunately, those who were found to be innocent of charges have able to sue, and, in many cases, settle with their accusers.

But I doubt that will do much to stem the tide of abusive practices, so long as states do not enact laws declaring retailers cannot demand restitution until accused shoplifters have been found guilty.