agency calling you up or knocking on the door or doing both again and again and again, attorney heather hansentheir rights, attorney randy zellin disagrees, they're going too far. heather, what do you think? >> listen, certain things the companies can't do. they can't tell your friends and family they're in debt. they can't call you at work if you told them not to. they can't threaten or harass you with physical harm. they are entitled to get money they are owed. neil: the last caller made clear she is going to all but show up. >> that was probably going beyond the bounds of what is acceptable, and they will probably face litigation, but the reality is these people -- neil: can they curse? are they allowed to curse? >> that's -- there's no specific law with regard to cursing, it would fit into the idea of harassment which is against the law, and can you pursue those types of cases. neil: you in other words, suggest, for the most part, they're going to try to get their money, right? >> right. i think they are. neil: randy? >> harassment, being degrading, humiliating, that's what we have a court

janelle says it's perry but heather hansen disagrees. heather i'll start with you. so a d.a. drunk.tle of vodka in the car. she's driving. she's arrested. she refuses to re-sign. perry says resign. she refuses so he cuts funding to her office and now he's arrested on criminal charges. >> you're assuming that that is the evidence that this grand jury heard. i don't know that that is the case. there's a lot of other issues that could come into play here. there's issues being investigated in regards to his research initiative. so to undertake this guessing about what the grand jury heard and what they based their decision on is not fair especially given you have a nonpartisan grand jury. >> if it were based on a drunken d.a. that refuses to re-sign is that a good case? >> yes but i don't think it was. >> it's absurd. the fact they got an indictment. i agree with heather that we don't know what other facts are going to unfold. however, the burden of proof is so high. it's beyond a reasonable doubt to find that his behavior was actually criminal. it's absurd to think that. we know this i

heather hansen says it could have something to worry about, why?> it's gotten up to 25,000 users at this point, neil. and a case that could expound exponentially, in europe, in austria, all across the world, other than america and canada, anyone who used facebook who feels privacy rights are violated can join this class. they could really cause major financial issues for facebook. neil: if you're facebook, what do you do? >> facebook needs to move for this to be dismissed. they already had other things, other reduce done that said that they weren't violating european union policy and european union law, so they need to have the case dismissed. it could grow into the millions and billions of people. neil: how did they say they didn't know about it? we learned since that they acquiesced to this request for information, so they didn't know about it, right? >> facebook definitely knows about it, they know about the issues. this gentleman has been pursuing this for many years, he seems like he has a vendetta against facebook and whole motivation is to g