Atlanta ‘tops cities' with most debt collection calls in US
A recent study on debt collection calls across the United States said Atlanta is at the top of the list.
According to the report by NumberBarn, which analyzed new data from the Federal Trade Commission on debt collection calls, Atlanta was ranked No. 1 among major U.S. metros.
In 2025, Atlanta residents have already reported 6,446 debt collection complaints to the FTC.
[DOWNLOAD: Free WSB-TV News app for alerts as news breaks]
NumberBarn said that was due to 104 of every 100,000 people getting debt collection calls.
'That's more than any other major metropolitan area in the country,' NumberBarn said.
TRENDING STORIES:
Squatters leave DeKalb County home days after Channel 2 Action News confronted them
Amazon opening sorting center in west Georgia, bringing 1,000 jobs
Governor's office said it will start issuing special tax refund checks this week
The company's analysis of more than one million FTC complaints found that there's been a 'sharp national spike' in complaint calls, which it said is a reflection of national trends for rising consumer debt and financial stress.
State-by-state, "Georgia leads the nation in debt collection calls per capita, with 80.8 reports per 100,000 residents in Q1 2025."
The report said Georgia as a state reported 8,754 debt collection calls, meaning Atlanta accounted for nearly 74% of all reported calls in the state.
NumberBarn said Atlanta highest for per capita debt collection call reports, followed by Dallas, Miami, Houston, and Memphis.
As for specifics, here's how NumberBarn broke it down for Atlanta and Georgia:
Atlanta ranks No. 1 for debt collection calls per 100,000 people
The average Georgian has $60,440 in debt
Debt collection calls were up more than 150% compared to 2024
Millennials were the most likely to report debt collection calls
[SIGN UP: WSB-TV Daily Headlines Newsletter]
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Verge
4 hours ago
- The Verge
Inside the courthouse reshaping the future of the internet
The future of the internet will be determined in one building in Washington, DC — and for six weeks, I watched it unfold. For much of this spring, the E. Barrett Prettyman Courthouse in downtown Washington, DC, was buzzing with lawyers, reporters, and interested onlookers jostling between dimly lit courtrooms that hosted everyone from the richest men in Silicon Valley to fired federal workers and the DOGE-aligned officials who terminated them. The sprawling courthouse, with an airy atrium in the middle and long, dark halls that spring from it, is where cases involving government agencies often land, and that meant it was hosting two of the most consequential tech cases in the country, all while fielding a flurry of unprecedented lawsuits against President Donald Trump's administration. Between mid-April and late May, Judges James Boasberg and Amit Mehta respectively oversaw FTC v. Meta and US v. Google, a pair of long-running antitrust lawsuits that seek to split up two titans of Silicon Valley. Over the same period, several DC judges — including Boasberg — had a full docket of cases related to Trump's first 100 days in office, covering the administration's attempt to mass-deport immigrants, strip security clearance from law firms, and fire thousands of federal workers. On the first day of the Google trial, a sign with a comically contorted arrow directed visitors toward their chosen antitrust case. It was soon joined by directions to the high-profile hearing over Trump's order against law firm Jenner & Block. While the FTC's lawyers were calling witnesses against Meta in one courtroom, a nearby room was hosting arguments about whether Trump could fire two of the agency's own commissioners. My colleagues gathered around the feed waiting for a Google witness, only to see a prison-jumpsuited defendant step into the box For reporters, the weeks were an exercise in constant case-juggling. During the overlap of Google and Meta, I'd arrive to long security lines that would sometimes jut into the small park that adjoins the courthouse, waiting to hunt down a media room that streamed video for reporters and avoid the electronics-free courtrooms. I'd occasionally show up to find out no such room existed, and in a small stampede of reporters, I'd rush up a few flights of spiral stairs to the courtroom, scribbling handwritten notes from the back rows. One day, my colleagues gathered around the feed waiting for a Google witness, only to see a prison-jumpsuited defendant step into the box — in the brief moment before reporters realized Mehta was taking a quick break for a criminal hearing, they wondered which high-profile tech executive it was. The executives, for their part, were plentiful. On one day a witness box saw Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg praising Instagram's success; a week later, former colleague and Instagram co-founder Kevin Systrom sat there describing him as a jealous boss. Google CEO Sundar Pichai would soon testify a couple floors up, followed by executives at some of Google's biggest rivals, including Microsoft and OpenAI. For all of them, the stakes were high. Judge Boasberg is tasked with determining whether Meta built an illegal monopoly by gobbling up Instagram and WhatsApp, while Judge Mehta will decide whether Google must spin off its Chrome browser or syndicate its search data. For the judges, the gauntlet seemed nothing short of exhausting. Boasberg, chief judge of the US District Court in DC, had been assigned to the Meta case long before Trump took office, but after the inauguration, he became one of the busiest judges in America — overseeing a challenge of the administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport migrants, and a lawsuit over Trump's cabinet's use of encrypted messaging app Signal to communicate about attack plans. As I concluded a day of the Meta trial at 5PM, a fresh crop of reporters arrived to cover Boasberg's consideration of the Alien Enemies Act, which Trump was using to deport Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador. Outside the courtroom, Boasberg fielded attacks from Trump — who labeled him a 'Radical Left Lunatic' and a 'troublemaker and agitator' and called for his impeachment. At the Meta trial, Boasberg appeared even-keeled — sometimes to the point of boredom. He rarely mentioned the rest of his docket beyond subtle references to his overflowing schedule; his interventions were astute, signaling a deep understanding of the case. But he'd often sit with his head in his hand, only occasionally gently encouraging attorneys to move on from a particularly tedious line of questioning. He used a lunch break in the Meta trial to file one of the most scathing legal rulings of the early Trump administration, accusing the administration of 'willful disregard' for his temporary restraining order on deportation flights to El Salvador, with 'probable cause' to find it in criminal contempt. By the Meta trial's end in late May, Boasberg sounded relieved as the final day wrapped. 'I will take a welcome respite from thinking about this between now and when the first brief is due,' he told the attorneys. In 1998, the E. Barrett Prettyman courthouse played host to another tech giant fighting for its life: Microsoft. US v. Microsoft was a landmark monopoly case that determined the company had illegally wielded its dominance over Intel-compatible PC operating systems to tamp down threats to its monopoly, including up-and-coming web browsers like Netscape. But in the wake of that case and subsequent settlement, regulators took a hands-off approach to the next generation of tech companies. It would take two decades for the government to return to the battleground — until 2020, when the cases against Meta and Google were filed. The search and social networking landscape has changed dramatically in the last five years, with the rise of TikTok and generative AI. But so too has the zeitgeist around tech. As Silicon Valley remains politically embattled, the goal of more aggressive antitrust enforcement has won bipartisan support. At the same time, there's a growing fear of foreign competition, particularly from TikTok, which appeared in the very same courthouse last year to argue against a (since-delayed) nationwide ban. The company found itself back there as a witness during Meta's trial, where lawyers confronted a TikTok executive with statements made during its failed 2024 fight. Those weeks of courthouse testimony helped illuminate countless decisions that made the tech world as we know it Inside the courthouse, it was easy to forget about everything else going on in Washington — until it wasn't. I was removed from the day-to-day antics of Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) hacking away at the federal workforce, but the cases about its handiwork — including gutting the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) — kept winding through court. During a break on the fourth day of Meta's trial and days before the start of Google's, I got a New York Times push notification walking back from the bathroom, telling me Virginia Judge Leonie Brinkema had ruled against Google in the DOJ's separate ad-tech antitrust case. I hustled back to the media room and found several of my colleagues from other outlets already in the hallway writing up their stories. Of course, we commiserated, a decision we expected months ago would drop right now. Rulings in this spring's Google and Meta trials will likely take months to arrive, and their fallout probably won't be seen for years. But those weeks of courthouse testimony helped illuminate countless decisions that made the tech world as we know it. During the early 2010s, Facebook executives expressed fears that Google might buy WhatsApp and bundle it with Android, giving itself a stranglehold over mobile messaging. With the context of the Google trial, that fear looks prescient — the company cemented its search dominance by making Android phone makers preinstall its search engine in the same way. It's also possible to see the shape of giants yet to rise. Should Judge Mehta order Google to sell Chrome, several witnesses said they'd be more than happy to buy it, including Yahoo, Perplexity, and OpenAI. The Justice Department's landmark antitrust trial against Microsoft is widely credited with opening up the tech industry for innovative players like Google, and a quarter-century later, there's hope something similar could happen for new companies today. Yet it seems equally possible that in another decade or two, we'll be back in this same courthouse, hearing the government argue they've nailed the doors shut once again.
Hamilton Spectator
6 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Jetoptera Executes FETT for FTC-250 at Paris Air Show 2025
PARIS, June 21, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — On the occasion of Jetoptera's debut at the Paris Air Show 2025, we are proud to announce the successful completion of the first test of the engine that will power the J-500, the 500-lb VTOL cargo unmanned aircraft system Jetoptera is developing in collaboration with Eanan Al Samma, for the United Arab Emirates (UAE) market. The First Engine To Test (FETT) was evaluated at the VAN DER LEE Turbo Systems facilities in Zaandam, The Netherlands. The 250 kW turbocompressor, that is the heart of the Fluidic Propulsive System™, is a two-shaft engine using a free turbine that is mechanically coupled to a two-stage axial compressor designed to produce the appropriate flow rates and pressure ratios required by the FPS™. 'The FETT demonstrated a very smooth startup and operability when operated in a turbofan mode. The engine was instrumented in this configuration, to monitor pressure and temperature as well as thrust produced. The next step includes the performance mapping of the turbocompressor, followed by the integration with the FPS™ onto the J-500 airframe,' said Dr Andrei Evulet, CEO/CTO of Jetoptera, Inc. The J-500 prototype is developed specifically for the UAE and MENA market and will be uniquely enabled by the FPS™ to perform unmanned cargo missions with VTOL and unmatched speed, low noise, and reliability thanks to the patented propulsion system. The modularity of the FTC-250 system allows its components to operate in turbojet, turbofan and FPS™ modes. Jetoptera and Eanan Al Samma thank Parametric Solutions, Inc. and VAN DER LEE Turbo Systems for their critical support in the design and manufacturing of the unique FTC-250 architecture in record time. For information about this press release please contact Todd Newton todd@ Jetoptera, Inc. Facebook: LinkedIn: A photo accompanying this announcement is available at
Tom's Guide
9 hours ago
- Tom's Guide
How to avoid Airbnb and vacation booking scams — and what to do when they happen
You've packed a bag, hopped a flight and caught a taxi through narrow unfamiliar streets trying to find the right address, with the kids impatiently in tow. But when you get there, and ring the bell as instructed, the man who answers isn't your Airbnb host with a key for the sublet. The dude has no idea what you're talking about and tells you this address isn't an Airbnb. Or maybe the hotel room you thought was a suite fit for a king winds up to be more like a kid sized closet and the bed is actually a folding table with a comforter on it. So… now what? The unfortunate reality is that it's incredibly easy to copy-and-paste photos from real property listings, create fake websites, and even fake reviews in order to make a legitimate looking travel website with fake bookings. If you've found yourself the victim of a fake booking site, the first thing to do is, find yourself a safe place to stay. From here, you're going to take the following steps to protect yourself and your data and make sure it never happens again. Once you realize that you've fallen victim to a scam booking, your next immediate step is going to be to start documenting everything: Start screenshotting all the communications, listing details, confirmation emails and payment receipts for the booking, listing, payments, entire process, text messages — all of it. Get instant access to breaking news, the hottest reviews, great deals and helpful tips. Save all the photos and descriptions you can find of the original listing, and make a timeline of all the events of the booking. What method of communication was used (chat boxes in an app, texts, email, phone calls) and note the dates and times they happened. Try to save as much detail of everything that occurred as you can. Next, contact your financial institution and report the fraudulent charges to them. Let your credit card or bank know about the fraud and request a chargeback or dispute the transaction as soon as possible. If you think there may be any further unauthorized access on your card, you can also ask to have your card frozen, though that will also prevent you from using it which may make things difficult if you also need it. Keep in mind when traveling or purchasing anything online, credit cards generally offer better fraud protection than debit cards so whenever possible try to use them then pay them off as soon as possible. If you found a fake listing on a legitimate platform, then report the listing to the platform ideally within 24 to 48 hours. Contact their customer service and provide them with all the details from your timeline. Follow their fraud reporting procedures, and document your interactions with them as well and add that to your timeline. Within 72 hours, make sure you've also filed any official reports with federal agencies. You can contact the FTC at and file a complaint with the Internet Crime Complaint Center at If there's a significant enough amount of money involved, you may also wish to contact local law enforcement, and you should also try your state's Attorney General's office. Again, keep notes and details of who you contact and when and add this information to your timeline. Lastly, monitor your accounts and identity – from bank and credit card statements, to check for unauthorized charges, to requesting credit reports where you'll be checking for suspicious activity. Additionally, it's not a bad idea to change passwords for any and all accounts that were involved, like the booking site involved, and set up fraud alerts with credit bureaus. Keep in mind, if you have a comprehensive antivirus software package, it might offer features that could be helpful, from dark web monitoring or identity monitoring, to a VPN for traveling, or scam protection for suspicious websites. Now that you've taken care of the immediate issue, here's how to make sure that you can spot a booking or travel scam in the future. There are particular red flags you should be on the look out for when it comes to property listings and booking sites. When it comes to listings, be suspicious of: When it comes to shady booking sites, there are other things to look out for there, for example be concerned: It's particularly worth knowing these signs as more and more scams appear on Airbnb and other booking sites – particularly around heavy travel times like holidays. Scammers aren't against using every tool they have, including AI, to create even more realistic looking listings to convince their targets and leverage social media to make "too good to be true" style offers. Airbnb in particular has worked with Get Safe Online to help raise awareness of how to spot booking scams, especially around the holiday seasons. They echo many of the same tips we've included above and add that you should always trust your instincts – if something seems suspicious or off, then just walk away.
