What Courts Can Learn From Package Delivery Companies

These days, when a package is delivered, it’s normal to receive confirmation via a photo of a box or envelope next to the front door. Although this practice is ubiquitous for something as basic as package delivery, it is uncommon in the civil legal system. Rarely is visual confirmation used to ensure that someone has been informed of a lawsuit, eviction, or divorce filed against them—proceedings with consequences that are typically far greater than the loss of a misdelivered package.

“Service of process,” the formal mechanism for notifying individuals that they are being sued, remains one of the least standardized and documented parts of civil court proceedings. In many jurisdictions around the country, courts require only a bare-bones statement from a process server (that is, the person who delivers the legal documents, such as a court summons or subpoena, to someone involved in a legal proceeding) confirming or denying “service.” This gives court staff very little information with which to confirm that service did indeed happen. In Davidson County, Tennessee, for example, judges are given limited information in a small corner of the filing to determine if service took place.

When people don’t know they are involved in a civil case, they lose the opportunity to participate. For example, participation rates in the most common type of civil cases—debt collection lawsuits—are as low as 2.8%. When people don't participate in their case, they can receive a default judgment -- which is an automatic win for the plaintiff. And the limited documentation required makes it difficult for courts to determine if people being sued know about their case at all.

Wrestling with low participation rates and the lack of information about service completion, locales are starting to make changes. For example:

• In 2022, Washington, D.C., enacted legislation requiring GPS verification for service.
• In 2025, California enacted a bill requiring process servers to enter GPS coordinates and time-stamped pictures into the court record.

Although some states permit a range of service options—such as mail or newspaper notices, which do not work in tandem with GPS and photo verification—serving court documents in person (aka personal service) has been shown to increase participation:

• In Wisconsin, an analysis shows that counties requiring personal service have lower default judgment rates (wherein the plaintiff wins because the person sued does not participate in the lawsuit) than those with mail service (63% vs. 72%).
• And in Oregon, personal service resulted in fewer defaults than service with first-class mail (65% vs. 74%).

These straightforward shifts are designed to increase the verifiability of delivery, deter falsified service, and ensure that people have a meaningful opportunity to participate in their cases.

Importantly, neither the technology needed for these changes nor its required use is novel or difficult to implement. For example, Receivables Management Association International, a national trade association for debt collection companies, requires process servers to use GPS and photo verification as part of its certification process in debt collection lawsuits. Many mobile applications used in process service include these features as well. Following the lead of businesses, state court leaders can increase participation with simple solutions that are already within reach. Better documentation of service can reduce disputes over whether a person was notified and give courts the confidence to focus on the merits of a claim.

Lester Bird is a senior manager and Casey Chiappetta is an officer with The Pew Charitable Trusts’ courts and communities project.