1) On the surface I agree. However, the collections agencies must do this math themselves, and decide that n settlement tradeoffs is still profitable on the whole. Further they have probably done the math saying "if I let my employees break the law in X way, ill have $Y in extra collections, and $Z settlements/suits for breaking the law". Then it is a matter of maximizing $Y - $Z. In that respect I am in favor of more people filing suit -- there is no reason for a company to go beyond what has been deemed appropriate for debt collection. Such laws were in place when the debt was incurred (risk was taken), and when it was traded, they should be reflected in the "debt transfer" price and the initial risk interest rate.
2) Plenty of people had high credit limits. Then, because some bankers screwed up the economy, were let go of their jobs. At this point they had no incoming cash, and plenty of credit. How do you propose they take care of their necessities if not the credit cards? Not saying this is every case, just proposing that sometimes debt isn't over luxuries.
2) Plenty of people had high credit limits. Then, because some bankers screwed up the economy, were let go of their jobs. At this point they had no incoming cash, and plenty of credit. How do you propose they take care of their necessities if not the credit cards? Not saying this is every case, just proposing that sometimes debt isn't over luxuries.