[razwall]

Fair enough, but it seems arbitrary and capricious to single out debt collection as the one and only business function that you're not allowed to outsource. Just like accounting, payroll, advertising, lawyering, etc., it requires a specialized body of skill and knowledge that many businesses would rather not have to develop in-house.

[harrumph]

>Fair enough, but it seems arbitrary and capricious

In the current context of super-widespread collections abuse, I'd say such a suggestion is anything but arbitrary.

> it requires a specialized body of skill and knowledge that many businesses would rather not have to develop in-house.

If that specialization and skill was a real thing, then we wouldn't see widespread abuse committed by the agencies like we do today. After all, virtually every abuse involves inaccuracy on the part of the agency.

[dragonwriter]

Preventing selling debt wouldn't prevent outsourcing of collections, I can pay someone to collect debt without selling them the debt.

I can even make their fee contingent on their success in collection.

[harrumph]

>I can pay someone to collect debt without selling them the debt.

True. Legislation designed to reduce collections abuse could make contracting illegal or strictly limit outsourcing to companies with operational records that are free of abuse.