Capital One wants to know what 's in your wallet . It also wants to know your address , so its representatives can come visit if you owe money . At least , those are the accusations leveled at the credit card giant this week . At first blush , it seems that Capital One would be barred from this activity by federal law . Specifically , the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act outlaws even less-intrusive behavior . Under the act , debt collectors are prohibited from making repeated phone calls , calling before 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. , or even calling at times the collector should have known are inconvenient . Certainly , the debt collection act would frown upon showing up at a debtor 's home . It would . The problem is , the act protects debtors against abusive collection tactics by third-party debt collectors and debt buyers only . It does not apply to the original creditor . There 's nothing in the debt collection act that prevents Capital One from showing up at your home : In fact , the law does n't prevent the original creditor from doing anything . As long as no other law bars this activity , the parties -- consumer and credit card company -- appear to be free to enter into a contract . Capital One 's rules said customers can be contacted by mail , phone , e-mail or `` personal visit . '' Does that mean consumers can unwittingly agree to their credit card company showing up at their door because they missed a payment ? Modern contract law is on a collision course with technology . Historically , contracts have been paper , detailed in a reasonable number of pages . The expectation that a consumer would read an entire contract was not unreasonable . Today , the price of existing in the modern world is hastily clicking our assent to an endless number of `` clickwrap '' agreements , often dozens of pages long , where you simply scroll through and check a box to complete your purchase . Sure , you can read all the fine print , if you have an extra four hours a day . And if you do n't agree with Section 109 ( g ) ( 3 ) of some online purchase agreement , you can refuse to click -- but then again , who loses ? Now , you ca n't order those commemorative plates or pair of shoes for delivery . None of these contract terms is negotiable . They are all `` take it or leave it . '' Because we all depend on the Internet to a large extent for goods and services , most of us grit our teeth and agree -- Section 109 ( g ) ( 3 ) and all . Contract law has been slow to acknowledge this reality . Courts have upheld these online `` agreements '' based on the contract principles that consumers should read every page of an agreement before they sign it . That advice is still sound today -- but is it reasonable ? Is the only other option to wander the Earth as the lone Luddite , disconnected from progress and civilization ? Perhaps contract law should intervene to prevent the mega-corporation from sneaking or forcing contract terms upon an unsuspecting public . But wait . The social implications of this suggestion are equally ominous : Are we entering an era where citizens can not be expected to take responsibility for the contracts they enter into ? On one hand , it seems wrong that corporations , with their legal teams , should be permitted to impose 50 pages of one-sided terms upon the average Joe . On the other hand , have we the people gotten to the point where we are n't competent enough to be responsible for the contracts we willingly sign ? We the people apparently are not alone . Even Capital One does n't understand its contracts . Capital One was quick to release a statement saying that it does not visit cardholders , nor does it send debt collectors to homes or offices . Capital One will maintain that the credit card rules sent to cardholders have the same language as those sent to anyone who buys a car or sports vehicle through a secured loan from the bank . If those buyers default , Capital One has acknowledged that its representatives might actually visit those homes to repossess . That 's fine , but why did the cardholders receive the same contracts ? The bank is considering creating two separate agreements because this language does n't apply to the general cardholder base . That 's fine , but why did the change come only after bad press ? Notice one common theme ? All the misunderstandings , the accidents and the oversights seem to accrue to the benefit of Capital One . Coincidence ? Accident ? I 'm sure it is . Credit card companies always have their customers ' best interests at heart . And if you 're not convinced , just ask them ... when they ring your doorbell .
Capital One cardholder contract said it can make a `` personal visit '' if you owe money . Danny Cevallos : We check `` yes '' on long online contracts without really reading them . Cevallos : These contracts might be sneaky , but are n't we responsible if we sign them ? Cevallos : Capital One said it 's an oversight , just a boilerplate contract , and no one will visit .