Jun 18, 2011
Actually this is a legal gray area in the FDCPA. A collector must make "meaningful disclosure" of its identity yet respect the privacy of whoever is named on a debt account. Some collectors fear that giving a business name, or even simply leaving a message, may expose account discussion to the wrong person, a punishable offense. Many others have turned to the clumsy practice of trying to get a person to self-authenticate in a canned message. Hence those absurd commands to stop listening if you're not the intended target.
Collectors are sued about the same no matter which rule they favor. However, there is case law which scolds them for breaking one law to satisfy another. The same dilemma often sees a live collector and call recipient dancing in circles trying to get each other to reveal an identity and call purpose. The more devious collectors use this forced ambiguity to their advantage, making incomprehensibly hurried messages with coded phrases like "important business matter", calculated to both mask themselves and worry you enough to return the call.
More solid violations would be a collector refusing to give a business name on demand, or breaking a written cease-comm, or pulling the rude and obnoxious stunts the industry at large has become infamous for.