Lois Artz, of Petaluma, Calif., is a 70-year-old retired bank employee who wrote a bad check. Artz said she intended to deposit another check to cover the $28 check that bounced, but forgot.

Simona Pickett, a 35-year-old government worker who lives in Middle River, Md., also bounced a check. Pickett wrote a $21.66 check to a store. The check was returned for non-sufficient funds.

No question these two women were wrong.

For their errors, both consumers were referred to a check restitution program operated by prosecutors in their local areas. They were sent letters telling them they owed fees several times the bounced check. They were informed they would have to take a class intended to teach them financial responsibility.

And they were told that if they didn’t pay up and go to class, they would be prosecuted.

A number of state and local prosecutors across the country are using “check diversion” companies to operate their restitution programs in an effort to reduce the number of bounced checks. Check diversion companies are private, for-profit debt collectors that contract with prosecutors to collect returned checks. Prosecutors using check diversion companies argue the programs work by returning millions to merchants and decreasing court cases.

It is certainly not unreasonable for people who write bad checks to pay for their financial mismanagement.

But Public Citizen and the National Consumer Law Center are complaining to the media and to Congress that some check diversion companies are engaging in abusive and deceptive collection practices. They claim that consumers such as Artz and Pickett are not given a fair chance to make good on their bounced checks before they get threatening letters and are assessed excessively high fees.

Artz, the former bank employee, said she forgot to deposit the check because she’s dealing with a daughter who has a terminal illness.

“I was treated like a criminal,” she said. “I was terrified of going to jail.”

Pickett was changing banks and because of a mix-up, her new account didn’t have the overdraft protection she wanted.

“By no means am I saying I shouldn’t pay what I owe, but they shouldn’t be allowed to terrify me either,” Pickett said.

You already may be judging these consumers and you may think this issue has nothing to do with you, but it does. That’s because Congress is considering legislation to exempt check diversion companies from the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which prohibits deceptive and abusive collection methods.

The proposed legislation would amend the FDCPA to essentially allow check diversion companies to be excluded from the definition of a debt collector.

Paul Logli, the president of the National District Attorneys Assn., said the exemption was needed to protect prosecutors and the companies they hired from consumer lawsuits.

It’s preposterous to amend the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to grant private, for-profit companies the same immunity given to state and local prosecutors. What won’t be fair is if Congress allows check diversion companies to go unchecked for abusive and unfair practices.