The Federal Trade Commission has announced in the Federal Register that it will conduct a wide-ranging study of identity theft victims in order to assess the current remedies available to them following the crime. Identity theft victims who have contacted the FTC between January 1 and May 30, 2008, will be asked about their experiences after contacting one or more credit reporting agencies and when they sought to use their FACT Act rights.
The FACT Act (Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003) gives consumers certain rights in dealing with identity theft, including the ability to place fraud alerts on their credit files if they are, or suspect they may become, victims of identity theft, to block information on their credit reports that resulted from identity theft, and obtain copies of their credit reports free of charge.
For the seventh year in a row, identity theft has been the top consumer fraud complaint handled by the FTC. The agency's recent report shows that of 813,899 total complaints received in 2007, 258,427 (32%) were related to identity theft. The monetary losses related to identity fraud totals more than $1.2 billion; the median monetary loss per person was $349. Not included in this is the time-value equivalent (for example, the hours spent on the phone with credit bureaus, creditors and police, or monitoring bank and credit accounts for fraudulent activity), which can be significant.
And it appears that even with data breach notification laws in place by nearly all of the states, it has not slowed the proliferation of identity theft. Part of this is attributed to consumers ignoring data breach notification letters. But in most instances, inadequate security practices by companies handling sensitive data are the culprit.
The deadline for submitting comments is Sept. 2, 2008. Comments filed in electronic form should be submitted at: https://secure.commentworks.com/ftcfactasurvey. To ensure that the Commission considers an electronic comment, you must file it on the web-based form.
*** Remember: If you had any type of loan account between January 1987 and May 28, 2008, you are entitled to learn your credit score – free of charge – and get at least six months of a monitoring service from credit reporting giant TransUnion. The monitoring service would provide e-mail notification of late payment reports or accounts opened in your name – red flags that would indicate identity theft. You can file a claim by visiting http://www.listclassaction.com/ or calling 866-416-3470.
Showing posts with label FACTA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label FACTA. Show all posts
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
First, Thieves Steal Identities. Now They Steal Homes.
The Chicago Tribune recently investigated an FBI report on new identity theft tactics being used by thieves to "steal" your home.
The report warns of several ways in which people have been conned out of their homes. While thieves generally target vacation homes or empty homes, the FBI has investigated sales of occupied houses. By law, as the rightful owner, you won't lose your house as long as you have proof that you are the legitimate owner. But it's likely to cause an enormous expenditure of time and money.
Among the cases being investigated by the FBI:
All of the schemes involved using the owner's personal information to create fake IDs and Social Security cards so that the thief can file the papers to complete and/or transfer the property.
"In one case prosecuted by the feds, the ID thieves used the name-change mechanism offered to people who are getting married or divorced to obtain false driver's licenses, which they used to get Social Security numbers," the Tribune reported. In most cases, though, business records are the main source of private information theft.
A "red flag" rider to the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act of 2003 was recently passed by Congress. This rider, which takes effect Nov. 1, 2008, requires any business that handles personal documents to develop a program to prevent ID theft. That includes financial institutions and creditors.
The guidelines say institutions should be on the lookout for actions such as:
The report warns of several ways in which people have been conned out of their homes. While thieves generally target vacation homes or empty homes, the FBI has investigated sales of occupied houses. By law, as the rightful owner, you won't lose your house as long as you have proof that you are the legitimate owner. But it's likely to cause an enormous expenditure of time and money.
Among the cases being investigated by the FBI:
- Con artists "stole" an occupied house and sold it to someone so enamored of the great price is getting that he's satisfied with online photos.
- Thieves posed as the rightful owner and took out home equity lines of credit against the property, draining it slowly so it wouldn't be detected.
- Thieves deposited proceeds from an illegal loan into a business account to get under the lender's radar.
- Cons changed the title of a house to his name and sold the house.
All of the schemes involved using the owner's personal information to create fake IDs and Social Security cards so that the thief can file the papers to complete and/or transfer the property.
"In one case prosecuted by the feds, the ID thieves used the name-change mechanism offered to people who are getting married or divorced to obtain false driver's licenses, which they used to get Social Security numbers," the Tribune reported. In most cases, though, business records are the main source of private information theft.
A "red flag" rider to the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act of 2003 was recently passed by Congress. This rider, which takes effect Nov. 1, 2008, requires any business that handles personal documents to develop a program to prevent ID theft. That includes financial institutions and creditors.
The guidelines say institutions should be on the lookout for actions such as:
- ID theft alerts from fraud detection services, customers, law enforcement agencies and others
- a credit bureau's notice of credit freeze provided to an institution along with the institution's requested consumer credit report
- an increase in credit report inquiries or other unusual patterns on a credit report
the appearance of doctored or forged documents - inconsistent information
- identifying information associated with known fraudulent activity
- use of a single Social Security Number or other identifying number used to open accounts under different names
- applicants failing to provide all required identifying information
- information supplied that is not consistent with existing information on file
- a new revolving credit account used in a manner commonly associated with fraud patterns
- an account used in a manner not consistent with established patterns of activity on the account
- mail sent to the customer's on file address repeatedly returned as undeliverable.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Senate Passes "Common Sense Legislation" Regarding Credit Card Receipts
The Credit and Debit Receipt Clarification Act – a bill that says a business that printed an expiration date on a receipt over the past 18 months cannot be found in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act as long as the merchant truncated the customer's credit card to no more than the last five digits (and complied with other FCRA requirements) – has passed in the U.S. Senate.
The bill was sponsored as H.R. 4008 in the House by Financial Services Committee member Representative Tim Mahoney, D-Fla., and as S. 2978 in the Senate by Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee member Senator Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.
The decision was hailed by businesses and restaurants and is expected to nullify the more than 300 class action lawsuits that contended that FACTA required merchants to both truncate the credit card number and leave off the expiration date. The lawsuits sought fines as high as $1,000 for each non-compliant receipt and were so potentially damaging that a number of retailers threatened to file bankruptcy. Plaintiffs did not need to demonstrate any real or actual damage caused by the violation or even that the companies had willful intent to cause harm.
Merchants said their interpretation of the law was that they needed to do one or the other, but were not mandated to do both. Most reasoned (and some experts concurred) that the expiration date was of little value without a full credit card number.
According to a release issued by the National Retail Federation and the National Council of Chain Restaurants, the new legislation would protect merchants from lawsuits for expiration dates printed between the time the FACTA rule went into effect and the time the measure is signed into law. But merchants will still be required to both truncate card numbers and leave off expiration dates going forward.
“The continued proliferation of these lawsuits is an unnecessary drain on resources during a time of financial uncertainty in the nation’s economy,” NCCR Vice President Scott Vinson said. “Experts have said truncation of credit card numbers by itself is sufficient to prevent credit card fraud or identity theft regardless of whether the expiration date is printed on a receipt. Retailers and restaurant owners nationwide are delighted that Congress has passed this common sense legislation and look forward to seeing it signed into law as soon as possible.”
President Bush is expected to sign the measure shortly.
The bill was sponsored as H.R. 4008 in the House by Financial Services Committee member Representative Tim Mahoney, D-Fla., and as S. 2978 in the Senate by Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee member Senator Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.
The decision was hailed by businesses and restaurants and is expected to nullify the more than 300 class action lawsuits that contended that FACTA required merchants to both truncate the credit card number and leave off the expiration date. The lawsuits sought fines as high as $1,000 for each non-compliant receipt and were so potentially damaging that a number of retailers threatened to file bankruptcy. Plaintiffs did not need to demonstrate any real or actual damage caused by the violation or even that the companies had willful intent to cause harm.
Merchants said their interpretation of the law was that they needed to do one or the other, but were not mandated to do both. Most reasoned (and some experts concurred) that the expiration date was of little value without a full credit card number.
According to a release issued by the National Retail Federation and the National Council of Chain Restaurants, the new legislation would protect merchants from lawsuits for expiration dates printed between the time the FACTA rule went into effect and the time the measure is signed into law. But merchants will still be required to both truncate card numbers and leave off expiration dates going forward.
“The continued proliferation of these lawsuits is an unnecessary drain on resources during a time of financial uncertainty in the nation’s economy,” NCCR Vice President Scott Vinson said. “Experts have said truncation of credit card numbers by itself is sufficient to prevent credit card fraud or identity theft regardless of whether the expiration date is printed on a receipt. Retailers and restaurant owners nationwide are delighted that Congress has passed this common sense legislation and look forward to seeing it signed into law as soon as possible.”
President Bush is expected to sign the measure shortly.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Your Turn: FTC Seeks Comments on Credit-Based Insurance Scores
As part of its efforts to fulfill its obligations under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (FACTA), the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Reserve Board have been conducting ongoing studies on the effects of credit-based insurance scores on the availability and affordability of financial products such as credit cards, auto loans, mortgages and property insurance.
With the completion of its study on the effects of credit-based insurance scores on consumers of auto insurance, the Federal Trade Commission now is focusing its attention on the effects of credit-based insurance scores on homeowners insurance. A press release issued today seeks public comment on any evidence the FTC and Board should consider in conducting the study.
It's no secret that credit scores have long been used by the insurance industry to calculate what your premiums are for auto or property insurance. Consumer advocates have argued that basing premium costs on credit scores disproportionately affects minorities in a negative way. According to the FTC, the results of their investigation into the use of credit scores in underwriting auto insurance policies showed a correlation between insurance scores and the likelihood of filing an insurance claim. The FTC also stated that the use of credit information did not result in racial or ethnic discrimination. Insurers claim that more than 50 percent of policyholders have a lower premium because of good credit.
A number of states, however, have introduced legislation to ban the use of credit in homeowners and auto insurance underwriting. Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D- IL) introduced a bill in Congress (H.B. 5633) that would amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) to prohibit auto and homeowners insurance companies from using credit information for underwriting if the FTC concludes insurers’ use of credit information results in racial or ethnic discrimination or represents a proxy for race or ethnicity.
If you would like to comment, click here for instructions. The deadline for comment is June 18, 2008.
With the completion of its study on the effects of credit-based insurance scores on consumers of auto insurance, the Federal Trade Commission now is focusing its attention on the effects of credit-based insurance scores on homeowners insurance. A press release issued today seeks public comment on any evidence the FTC and Board should consider in conducting the study.
It's no secret that credit scores have long been used by the insurance industry to calculate what your premiums are for auto or property insurance. Consumer advocates have argued that basing premium costs on credit scores disproportionately affects minorities in a negative way. According to the FTC, the results of their investigation into the use of credit scores in underwriting auto insurance policies showed a correlation between insurance scores and the likelihood of filing an insurance claim. The FTC also stated that the use of credit information did not result in racial or ethnic discrimination. Insurers claim that more than 50 percent of policyholders have a lower premium because of good credit.
A number of states, however, have introduced legislation to ban the use of credit in homeowners and auto insurance underwriting. Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D- IL) introduced a bill in Congress (H.B. 5633) that would amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) to prohibit auto and homeowners insurance companies from using credit information for underwriting if the FTC concludes insurers’ use of credit information results in racial or ethnic discrimination or represents a proxy for race or ethnicity.
If you would like to comment, click here for instructions. The deadline for comment is June 18, 2008.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Get a CLUE About Your Insurance Score
A reader e-mailed me to voice her distress over her auto insurance rates. Prior to her divorce, she and her husband had been able to obtain reasonable rates for their two cars. But the divorce was messy. Their house fell into foreclosure as it languished in the stagnant real estate market. Bills that were supposed to be paid by her (now ex-) husband went into collections. Her credit score began dive. She eventually filed for bankruptcy. As things went from bad to worse, she was stunned to learn that her application for new auto insurance coverage was denied.
"I've never filed a claim or gotten a ticket for anything!" she wailed. "My husband and I always paid our insurance on time, and my driving record is totally clean!"
One thing that may have impacted her ability to get insurance for her car is her credit history and public records information. Insurance rates for homes and cars are often linked to credit scores. Insurers justify increased rates by relying on statistical analyses that purportedly show a correlation between an insured's credit history and likelihood of filing a claim.
This means if your credit file shows a history of late payments, foreclosure, tax liens, garnishments, bankruptcies, lawsuits and judgments, you may be smacked with high insurance rates or even be denied coverage.
This data - plus any information on claims you have filed (and sometimes even inquiries about your coverage that do NOT result in a claim) - is entered into a little-known database called CLUE (Comprehensive Loss Underwriting Exchange) or its smaller competitor, A-Plus. These national databases are used by insurers to determine whether you get new insurance. Insurers may also look at your claims history and "insurance score" when deciding whether to renew your coverage or how much to charge for your premiums. Because it is a national database, other insurance companies can review your claims history for five years. This may include losses for a property before you even owned it.
Some home buyers learned this the hard way, with deals falling through because of inquiries - not necessarily claims - that cause the property to be "blacklisted." The previous owner may have inquired about coverage for water damage; even though the owner may never have filed a claim, the information is posted into the database, and insurers will assume that there is a problem.
Consumer advocates have been pushing hard for reforms. As a result, some states have passed legislation to prohibit the inclusion of inquiries that did not result in a paid claim. Other states have begun passing laws to limit or prohibit the use of credit scores as the sole determining factor in deciding insurability or rates (see if your state has such laws); however, many insurance companies still rely on them to some degree.
Given the fact that 79% of credit reports contain errors, it may be concluded that rates may be artificially inflated or insurance unfairly denied when determined - in whole or in part - by credit history.
The good news is that this specialty report is governed by FCRA. Under the FACT act, you have the right to obtain a copy of your CLUE or A-Plus report each year, and the right to dispute inaccurate or incomplete information on those reports. If you have been denied coverage, had your policy cancelled or your premiums have increased, the insurer must notify you in writing; in addition, you are entitled to a free copy of your report (in addition to the free report you are allowed each year).
To get a copy of your CLUE report, visit ChoicePoint's Web site or call toll free: 1-866-312-8076. To get a copy of your A-Plus report, call toll free: 800-627-3487.
You will not get your actual insurance "score" - just the history of claims. Because your credit score is factored into whether you are insurable and what your rate will be, you should also purchase your credit score as well in order to get a complete picture of what your insurance company is seeing.
"I've never filed a claim or gotten a ticket for anything!" she wailed. "My husband and I always paid our insurance on time, and my driving record is totally clean!"
One thing that may have impacted her ability to get insurance for her car is her credit history and public records information. Insurance rates for homes and cars are often linked to credit scores. Insurers justify increased rates by relying on statistical analyses that purportedly show a correlation between an insured's credit history and likelihood of filing a claim.
This means if your credit file shows a history of late payments, foreclosure, tax liens, garnishments, bankruptcies, lawsuits and judgments, you may be smacked with high insurance rates or even be denied coverage.
This data - plus any information on claims you have filed (and sometimes even inquiries about your coverage that do NOT result in a claim) - is entered into a little-known database called CLUE (Comprehensive Loss Underwriting Exchange) or its smaller competitor, A-Plus. These national databases are used by insurers to determine whether you get new insurance. Insurers may also look at your claims history and "insurance score" when deciding whether to renew your coverage or how much to charge for your premiums. Because it is a national database, other insurance companies can review your claims history for five years. This may include losses for a property before you even owned it.
Some home buyers learned this the hard way, with deals falling through because of inquiries - not necessarily claims - that cause the property to be "blacklisted." The previous owner may have inquired about coverage for water damage; even though the owner may never have filed a claim, the information is posted into the database, and insurers will assume that there is a problem.
Consumer advocates have been pushing hard for reforms. As a result, some states have passed legislation to prohibit the inclusion of inquiries that did not result in a paid claim. Other states have begun passing laws to limit or prohibit the use of credit scores as the sole determining factor in deciding insurability or rates (see if your state has such laws); however, many insurance companies still rely on them to some degree.
Given the fact that 79% of credit reports contain errors, it may be concluded that rates may be artificially inflated or insurance unfairly denied when determined - in whole or in part - by credit history.
The good news is that this specialty report is governed by FCRA. Under the FACT act, you have the right to obtain a copy of your CLUE or A-Plus report each year, and the right to dispute inaccurate or incomplete information on those reports. If you have been denied coverage, had your policy cancelled or your premiums have increased, the insurer must notify you in writing; in addition, you are entitled to a free copy of your report (in addition to the free report you are allowed each year).
To get a copy of your CLUE report, visit ChoicePoint's Web site or call toll free: 1-866-312-8076. To get a copy of your A-Plus report, call toll free: 800-627-3487.
You will not get your actual insurance "score" - just the history of claims. Because your credit score is factored into whether you are insurable and what your rate will be, you should also purchase your credit score as well in order to get a complete picture of what your insurance company is seeing.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Identity Theft Protection or Legal Extortion?
If you've ever examined your credit card receipts, you've probably noticed that your credit card number has been reduced to a series of Xs with no more than four or five digits visible, and no other identifying information, such as expiration date.
That is, unless you've shopped at Costco, FedEx Kinko's, Toys 'R Us, IKEA, StubHub, Coffee Bean Tea & Leaf, or Jewell Food Stores, eaten at big Burrito Group eateries such as Mad Mex, purchased flowers at 1-800-FLOWERS or watched a movie at AMC Theaters.
These companies, among many others, have been targeted with class action lawsuits for violating a 16-month federal law designed to protect consumers' credit card information. The Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act (FACTA) prohibits companies from printing more than five digits of a credit card number or the expiration date on receipts to reduce the threat of identity theft.
Lawsuits have been flooding the legal system as consumers strike back against what they say is flagrant unresponsiveness to the FACTA statute. More than 300 class actions have been filed since the law went into effect in December 2006.
At stake is the livelihood of businesses across the country, from big box retailers and restaurants to small businesses such as parking garages and newsstands. With every noncompliant receipt assessed at anywhere from $100 to $1,000, companies are facing potential damages in the billions of dollars. The lawsuits are so financially damaging that retailers are threatening to file bankruptcy.
At issue is the fact that the plaintiffs don't need to demonstrate any real or actual damage caused by the violation or even that the companies had willful intent to cause harm. All they need is a receipt to claim statutory damages because a company has "flouted the law." Warehouse-club giant Costco is liable for as much as $17 billion – 15 times the company's 2007 profit – despite the fact that there are no claims of actual harm.
"In 22 years, I have never had a plaintiff sit across the table from me and say, 'I have no damages. My identity hasn't been stolen. I'm just bringing this lawsuit because I can,'" said David Block, a lawyer with Jackson Lewis, in a recent Law.com article. "There's something inherently wrong with a lawsuit where the plaintiff has no injury."
Defense lawyers are characterizing the lawsuits as "legal extortion," since the defendants did not profit from the infraction and plaintiffs have not shown evidence of actual harm. And some judges are paying attention – 12 have refused to certify some of these cases as class actions.
Many companies facing massive damage claims are quietly settling. Earlier this year, a class action lawsuit against big Burrito Group eateries was settled for FACTA violations. According to the settlement, customers who used a credit or debit card at various times at various big Burrito Group eateries last year are entitled to a $7 "settlement relief card." The cards can be used only at the company's Mad Mex restaurants under various restrictions. The settlement also calls for the company to pay for $105,000 in legal fees. Coffee Bean Tea & Leaf agreed to give customers free drinks and pay plaintiffs' lawyer fees. StubHub settled for undisclosed terms.
Should companies be compliant with the law? Heck yes. Should they be punished to the full extent of the law? Well, that depends. Bankrupting businesses or imposing maximum financial penalties will ultimately have a lasting negative impact on the quality and price of retail and online services. What price are we willing to pay to punish companies that were slow to comply with the law?
That is, unless you've shopped at Costco, FedEx Kinko's, Toys 'R Us, IKEA, StubHub, Coffee Bean Tea & Leaf, or Jewell Food Stores, eaten at big Burrito Group eateries such as Mad Mex, purchased flowers at 1-800-FLOWERS or watched a movie at AMC Theaters.
These companies, among many others, have been targeted with class action lawsuits for violating a 16-month federal law designed to protect consumers' credit card information. The Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act (FACTA) prohibits companies from printing more than five digits of a credit card number or the expiration date on receipts to reduce the threat of identity theft.
Lawsuits have been flooding the legal system as consumers strike back against what they say is flagrant unresponsiveness to the FACTA statute. More than 300 class actions have been filed since the law went into effect in December 2006.
At stake is the livelihood of businesses across the country, from big box retailers and restaurants to small businesses such as parking garages and newsstands. With every noncompliant receipt assessed at anywhere from $100 to $1,000, companies are facing potential damages in the billions of dollars. The lawsuits are so financially damaging that retailers are threatening to file bankruptcy.
At issue is the fact that the plaintiffs don't need to demonstrate any real or actual damage caused by the violation or even that the companies had willful intent to cause harm. All they need is a receipt to claim statutory damages because a company has "flouted the law." Warehouse-club giant Costco is liable for as much as $17 billion – 15 times the company's 2007 profit – despite the fact that there are no claims of actual harm.
"In 22 years, I have never had a plaintiff sit across the table from me and say, 'I have no damages. My identity hasn't been stolen. I'm just bringing this lawsuit because I can,'" said David Block, a lawyer with Jackson Lewis, in a recent Law.com article. "There's something inherently wrong with a lawsuit where the plaintiff has no injury."
Defense lawyers are characterizing the lawsuits as "legal extortion," since the defendants did not profit from the infraction and plaintiffs have not shown evidence of actual harm. And some judges are paying attention – 12 have refused to certify some of these cases as class actions.
Many companies facing massive damage claims are quietly settling. Earlier this year, a class action lawsuit against big Burrito Group eateries was settled for FACTA violations. According to the settlement, customers who used a credit or debit card at various times at various big Burrito Group eateries last year are entitled to a $7 "settlement relief card." The cards can be used only at the company's Mad Mex restaurants under various restrictions. The settlement also calls for the company to pay for $105,000 in legal fees. Coffee Bean Tea & Leaf agreed to give customers free drinks and pay plaintiffs' lawyer fees. StubHub settled for undisclosed terms.
Should companies be compliant with the law? Heck yes. Should they be punished to the full extent of the law? Well, that depends. Bankrupting businesses or imposing maximum financial penalties will ultimately have a lasting negative impact on the quality and price of retail and online services. What price are we willing to pay to punish companies that were slow to comply with the law?
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Another Victim of the Housing Market Meltdown: Your Privacy
During the recent housing bubble, millions of Americans purchased or refinanced their homes with mortgage lenders throughout the country. With the implosion of the housing market, many of these mortgage shops closed their doors permanently.
It probably occurred to very few applicants that their files -- loaded with all kinds of personal data, from Social Security numbers and bank statements to tax returns, retirement accounts and credit reports -- would ever be in danger. Yet the records of thousands have been compromised - and not from a gang of thieves breaking into these offices. It seems that once the business is shut down, some mortgage lenders are simply disposing of all these paper records in public dumpsters. According to MSNBC:
The breaches leave thousands of consumers at risk for identity theft. For former customers of now-defunct lenders, there isn't much recourse. The best safeguard is vigilant monitoring of your credit report.
It probably occurred to very few applicants that their files -- loaded with all kinds of personal data, from Social Security numbers and bank statements to tax returns, retirement accounts and credit reports -- would ever be in danger. Yet the records of thousands have been compromised - and not from a gang of thieves breaking into these offices. It seems that once the business is shut down, some mortgage lenders are simply disposing of all these paper records in public dumpsters. According to MSNBC:
- First Magnus Financial Corp., one of the nation’s largest mortgage lenders whose headquarters was one of the biggest employers in Tucson, Ariz., threw away thousands of mortgage loan records in an unlocked trash dumpster in Ft. Lauderdale, Fla.
- The records of hundreds of former customers of the defunct Alpha Mortgage Services were left in a recycling bin behind a grocery store in Toledo.
- After Union Mortgage Services of Ohio shut down last month, confidential files on hundreds of people were thrown out in a dumpster behind a pizza shop in Cleveland.
- American United Mortgage Co. of Northbrook, Ill., left hundreds of borrowers’ financial documents in an unlocked dumpster, many of them in open trash bags.
- Sheriff’s deputies in DeKalb County, Ga., outside Atlanta, found the mortgage records of at least 1,200 former customers of Ameriquest Mortgage Co. in a dumpster behind an apartment complex in October, two years after the company, once one of the nation’s biggest subprime lenders, went out of business.
- In Honolulu last year, a handyman hired by the former president of the defunct Fidelity Escrow Services dumped 39 boxes of financial records in a recycling bin.
The breaches leave thousands of consumers at risk for identity theft. For former customers of now-defunct lenders, there isn't much recourse. The best safeguard is vigilant monitoring of your credit report.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Warning! Potential Identity Theft Scam
A colleague of mine received a telephone call last night from a person who asked for her by name, then told her that he was calling on behalf of Bank of America ("BOA"). The caller said that BOA was going to provide her with a "complimentary" copy of her credit report in the next 72 days. She told them she was not interested and did not authorize them to request her report. The caller persisted, saying, "But it is complimentary." She informed him that she didn't care and that they could pay her $100 and she still would not authorize them to send her report. The caller became agitated, said "whatever" and hung up.
She immediately called BOA to inquire whether they were actually offering this service. The customer service representative checked the bank's services to see if this was a legitimate offer, and then told her to file a complaint with the FTC because this is not a service being offered by BOA.
The caller I.D. number was "IC 307-737-9533." (She said she had been receiving telephone calls from the same or very similar number every day for the past few weeks, but no one was ever on the other end of the line until last night).
As part of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA), everyone is entitled to obtain a free copy of his or her credit report once every 12 months from each of the three nationwide consumer credit reporting companies (Experian, Equifax and TransUnion). Simply go to http://www.annualcreditreport.com/.
Remember, you should never provide your personal information to any other company or person for requesting free credit reports.
She immediately called BOA to inquire whether they were actually offering this service. The customer service representative checked the bank's services to see if this was a legitimate offer, and then told her to file a complaint with the FTC because this is not a service being offered by BOA.
The caller I.D. number was "IC 307-737-9533." (She said she had been receiving telephone calls from the same or very similar number every day for the past few weeks, but no one was ever on the other end of the line until last night).
As part of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA), everyone is entitled to obtain a free copy of his or her credit report once every 12 months from each of the three nationwide consumer credit reporting companies (Experian, Equifax and TransUnion). Simply go to http://www.annualcreditreport.com/.
Remember, you should never provide your personal information to any other company or person for requesting free credit reports.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
