travel, hotel and booking Information

www. .com ³⁶² Id. The Consumer-Privacy Side On the other side, those favoring stronger consumer protection and expansion of the state role included the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, ³⁶³ the Consumer Federation of America, ³⁶⁴ and Consumers Union, ³⁶⁵ which is publisher of the popular magazine Consumer Reports, the National Consumer Law Center;³⁶⁶ and the National Association of Consumer Advocates.³⁶⁷ hotel booking

Aligned with these groups was the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG), ³⁶⁸ representing state Attorneys General. Supporting roles were played by the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a well-respected organization based in Washington, D.C., ³⁶⁹ the Identity Theft Resource Center, the American Association for Retired People (AARP), and a handful of other groups and individuals with expertise in privacy, credit reporting, and/or identity theft.³⁷⁰ travel agency

The House Goes First

It is customary for Congressional committees to hold public hearings before voting on legislation. Sometimes the committee members already know how they will vote and the hearings are just a formality. But sometimes the testimony can actually have an impact. ³⁶³ Led by Consumer Programs Director Ed Mierzwinski ³⁶⁴ Exec. Director Stephen Brobeck, Legislative Affairs Dir. Travis Plunkett, and Housing Director Brad Scriber cheap hotel

³⁶⁵

Janell Mayo Duncan, Consumers Union legislative counsel; Shelley Curran, Policy Analyst, CU West Coast Regional Office; Gail Hillebrand, Senior Attorney, CU West Coast Regional Office; Ami Ghadia, Esther Peterson Fellow, CU Washington Office. flight booking

³⁶⁶

Margot Saunders and Anthony Rodriguez ³⁶⁷ Exec. Director Ira Rheingold and Newport News, Virg. attorney Leonard Bennett ³⁶⁸ Led by Julie Brill, an Assistant AG of Vermont, and Susan Henrichsen, Asst. AG of California ³⁶⁹ www.epic.org/privacy/fcra ³⁷⁰ Prof. Joel Reidenberg, of Fordham Law School, Prof. Peter Swire, Ohio State Univ. Law School and former senior privacy counselor of the Clinton Administration, and this author. travel agent

A subcommittee³⁷¹ of the House Financial Services Committee opened hearings on May 8, 2003. The title of the hearing, The Importance of the National Credit Reporting System to Consumers and the U.S. Economy, reflected the committee s pro-industry stance. The opening statement of Subcommittee Chairman Spencer Bachus reflected the pro-industry conclusions of the AEI-Brookings report: hotel chicago

We will hear in detail today how our uniform credit system under the FCRA benefits consumers and the economy as a whole. Among the consumer benefits afforded by our national credit system are efficient and convenient access to credit and insurance, strong competition in the financial services marketplace, and lower costs of credit. ³⁷² online booking

The Republicans had the votes in the committee. The financial industry lobbyists had blanketed the Hill. Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD) and Rep. Patrick Tiberi (R-OH) had both introduced bills that would make preemption permanent and which were silent on consumer protection.³⁷³ Everything seemed set for smooth sailing. Even Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan heartily endorsed keeping pre-emption of state law.³⁷⁴ travel health insurance

³⁷¹

Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit ³⁷² Opening Statement of Chairman Spencer Bachus, The Importance of the National Credit Reporting System to Consumers and the U.S. Economy, May 8, 2003. ³⁷³ No senator agreed to co-sponsor Johnson s bill. In praising the credit card industry at a June hearing, Tiberi said his father was an immigrant who used his credit card to buy everything and received cash back at the end of the year. hotel reservation

³⁷⁴

Blackwell, Rob; Greenspan Is 1st Regulator To Endorse FCRA Extension, The American Banker; February 13, 2003. Actually, Greenspan was quite vague, stating, The system cannot function without ... the credit histories of individual borrowers, he said. I should certainly hope that it is maintained. He did not address accuracy and reliability problems, even though his own researchers had found such problems. (See Footnote 27, Chapter 10 on history) london hotel booking

There was one problem. At the opening hearing, Assistant Treasury Secretary Wayne Abernathy stunned many Republicans when he testified that the Bush Administration had not yet finalized its position on the FCRA. Therefore, he said, he could not even say whether the Administration supported extension of the law s preemption provision, or whether new safeguards were needed to help consumers fight against identity theft.³⁷⁵ discount travel

What happened According to sources, political higher ups in the White House discovered through their polling data that the vast majority of Americans cared strongly about such issues as financial privacy, credit report accuracy, and identity theft. The polling data indicated it actually could be risky to endorse industry s wish for preemption without due consideration for consumers interest. In other words, the Bush Administration was still at the drawing board. It was clearly a setback for the industry s fast-track timetable. orlando hotel

Despite the Administration s reticence, Committee Chairman Michael Oxley (R-OH) left no doubt that the committee s priority was reauthorizing preemption. While acknowledging that the committee had many issues to explore, he declared: At the end of the day, this committee will act and will pass legislation reauthorizing the FCRA. That is job No. 1. booking agency

But Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), the Ranking Independent on the subcommittee, said that extensive inaccuracy in credit reports, coupled with growing identity theft, underscored the urgent need for stronger consumer protections. Sanders repeatedly said the place to start was one free credit report per year. Vermont was one of the first states to have a law requiring one free credit report per year. Throughout the House s spring and summer hearings, Sanders continued to harangue committee members about the need for a federal right to a free credit report. international travel medical

³⁷⁵

Bush Admin. Still Formulating Position; Oxley Vows Action, Privacy Times, Vol. 23 No. 10, May 13, 2003 Challenging Dogma At the early hearings, pro-consumer witnesses quickly challenged industry claims that state laws were bad for commerce, or even that there were uniform national standards. Fordham Law Professor Joel Reidenberg, an author and expert on privacy law, testified that three states with the strongest credit-reporting laws Vermont, Massachusetts, and California ranked 50th, 49th, and 27th in bankruptcies. Moreover, those three States offered the lowest interest rates.³⁷⁶ new york hotel

Vermont Asst. Attorney General Julie Brill displayed three common ads from Vermont newspapers showing that zero percent financing and instant credit for mortgages, car loans, and personal loans were widely available in the state. ³⁷⁷ online travel booking

As every pro-consumer witness pointed out, it had been the states, and not Congress, that had enacted the best financial privacy, credit reporting, and identity theft protection laws. Preemption would shut off the key source of pro-consumer solutions to real and ever-changing problems, they argued. travel medical insurance

None of this testimony deterred industry witnesses and some House Republicans from droning on about the uniform national standards and the miracle of instant credit made possible by the federal FCRA. By early June, the Bush Administration still had not announced its position. miami hotel

On June 11, Rep. Darlene Hooley (D-OR), long-time sponsor of identity theft legislation, upped the ante. Hooley, along with 11 other so-called New Democrats, came out in support of reauthorizing preemption, provided four major conditions were met. In a letter to Committee Chairman Michael Oxley (R-OH), and ranking member Barney Frank (D-MA) Hooley and the New Dems said it was imperative that the legislation address problems that had arisen since the 1996 Amendments: (1) Identity theft and mitigation; (2) expeditious handling of consumer complaints and disputes; (3) greater accuracy in credit reports; and (4) consumers access to their credit data. air deccan booking

³⁷⁶

Statement of Prof. Reidenberg, House hearing, May 8, 2003, op cit. ³⁷⁷ Statement of Julie Brill, Fair Credit Reporting Act: How it Functions for Consumers and the Economy, Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit, June 4, 2003 The Hooley letter was significant because it signaled to Oxley that it was possible to reauthorize preemption with a bipartisan bill, but only if badly needed consumer protections were part of the package. las vegas nevada travel

Crippling Effects

It was also a great prelude to the House subcommittee s June 24 hearing on identity theft, when the panel finally heard two victims describe the emotional distress and frustration they experienced spending hour upon hour trying to repair their reputations and clean up their credit reports. It seems rather incomprehensible that our previously impeccable credit reports, which clearly showed wise and careful use of credit along with a stable twenty year residence history, now showed over twenty five unauthorized credit inquiries and six out-of-state address changes, all of which had been entered on our credit reports between September and November of 1999, testified Maureen V. Mitchell, of Madison, Ohio.³⁷⁸ las vegas nv hotel

³⁷⁸

Statement of Maureen V. Mitchell, Fighting Identity Theft The Role of the FCRA, Subcom. On Fin. Inst., June 24, 2003 Furthermore, I am concerned because I can see how it could be nearly impossible to fight these problems from overseas. ³⁷⁹ The First Bill At the end of June, Hooley and the New Dems joined forces with Oxley, Bachus, and other Republicans, in sponsoring a bill (HR 2622) to make permanent the FCRA s preemption of state law, to provide consumers with one free credit report, to require fraud alerts, and to add other provisions to protect against identity theft and improve credit report accuracy. Senator Shelby called the bill a good start. But consumer privacy groups said it fell short on several fronts, especially by not placing stronger duties on creditors, who are often culprits in causing inaccuracies. hotel florence booking online

Muris Calls For More

At a packed July 9 hearing on HR 2622, FTC Chairman Timothy Muris and Treasury Secretary John Snow said the Bush Administration and the FTC agreed that preemption should be reauthorized, and that new consumer protections were necessary. The pair endorsed the call for one free credit report per year. Muris went further. He said that the reinvestigation standards that applied to CRAs should be extended to creditors. The change was significant because generally, disputing errors directly with creditors did not trigger liability. Although many may not have realized it, the current law required consumers to route all disputes through credit bureaus before they could enforce their rights. orlando travel

Moreover, Muris said a new risk-based pricing notice was needed so consumers would know when their credit reports caused them to lose out on favorable interest rates or insurance premiums. Under current law, adverse action notices were only required when a consumer was denied credit and did not accept any counter-offers. This counter-offer loophole allowed creditors to avoid giving adverse actions. In such cases, consumers were not told their credit reports were causing them to lose out. hilton hotel

³⁷⁹

Statement of Franklin D. Mellott, June 24, 2003. Mellott is the Military Victim Assistance Coordinator for the ID Theft Resource Center Enter Barney Frank Until 2003, Rep. John LaFalce, from upstate New York, had been the ranking Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee. LaFalce was seen as a strong privacy advocate, having sponsored legislation to strengthen financial privacy after Gramm-Leach-Bliley. In fact, LaFalce s involvement in privacy went way back to 1978, when he played a role in the enactment of the Right to Financial Privacy Act, which regulated law enforcement agents access to bank records. booking delta com

MBNA agents responded by comparing the disputed data with the account information contained in MBNA s computerized Customer Information System (CIS). Since the two were identical, MBNA verified that the disputed information was correct. In other words, MBNA did nothing more than confirm that it indeed reported the original (inaccurate) data. The CRAs continued to report it on Johnson s credit report. travel insurance online

Tricia Furr, an MBNA credit reporting specialist, confirmed that MBNA s Desktop Procedure manual directs specialists to confirm a match of two out of three identifiers - name, address and/or SSN. Once a two-out-of-three match is established, MBNA can inform the CRA that the disputed information is verified as reported. Ms. Furr said that MBNA s reinvestigations do not go beyond the information contained in its own CIS.¹²⁷ london hotel

Furr

: I looked at the balance that we have on CIS and the history of the account as compared to the trade line as opposed to what we had on our Customer Information screen... Bennett: In performing the investigation and re-investigation of consumer disputes, once it receives an ACDV¹²⁸ from a credit reporting agency, when are MBNA s credit reporting specialists supposed to look beyond the Customer Information System for investigation ...I am asking the practices and procedures now. online hotel booking

Furr

: The Customer Information System is the only thing that we have to use for verification. So, there is no where else to look. Bennett: Do you ever pull documents, like old statements, and check payments and credit card applications Furr: No, sir. ¹²⁷ The depositions of MBNA personnel were taken in the case, Linda Johnson v. MBNA America Bank, N.A., Slip Op. No. 3:02 cv 523, U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Virginia (Richmond Division). travel insurance

¹²⁸

The dispute form is known as an ACDV, or Automated Consumer Dispute Verification Reading from MBNA s internal records, MBNA Vice President Edward Hughes quoted an MBNA employee s communication to a customer s attorney: It would be up to (c)ard holder to prove MBNA was reporting wrong, not MBNA proving right. paris hotel

Here Comes The Judge

In a sense, Hughes statement proved to be wrong. Linda Johnson was one of the few consumers who sued and actually had the chance to tell her story to a jury. MBNA argued that it verification methods complied with the FCRA. The jury disagreed, and awarded Johnson $90, 300. Judge Richard Williams affirmed the jury verdict. According to [MBNA], the duty to investigate means that any investigation is sufficient, no matter how cursory. Such a construction is illogical. There would be no point in having the statute, and the requirement of an investigation, if there was no qualitative component to the investigation. The statute itself does impose a qualitative component to the [MBNA s] negligence Judge Williams said.¹²⁹ airline booking

MBNA appealed Judge Williams decision. But on February 11, 2004, a three-member panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed, finding that MBNA s standard response to consumer disputes did not amount to a true reinvestigation under the FCRA. travel trailer

¹²⁹ Johnson v. MBNA

, op. cit., bench ruling February 24, 2003 MBNA argues that the language of 1681s-2(b)(1)(A), requiring furnishers of credit information to conduct an investigation regarding disputed information, imposes only a minimal duty on creditors to briefly review their records to determine whether the disputed information is correct, the panel wrote, in an opinion authored by Chief Judge William W. Wilkens. Stated differently, MBNA contends that this provision does not contain any qualitative component that would allow courts or juries to assess whether the creditor s investigation was reasonable. ¹³⁰ san francisco hotel

The key term at issue here, investigation, is defined [by the dictionary] as a detailed inquiry or systematic examination. Thus, the plain meaning of investigation clearly requires some degree of careful inquiry by creditors, he wrote. air ticket booking

Further, he said, the statute uses the term investigation in the context of articulating a creditor s duties in the consumer dispute process outlined by the FCRA. It would make little sense to conclude that, in creating a system intended to give consumers a means to dispute and, ultimately, correct inaccurate information on their credit reports, Congress used the term investigation to include superficial, unreasonable inquiries by creditors. We therefore hold that 1681s-2(b)(1) requires creditors, after receiving notice of a consumer dispute from a credit reporting agency, to conduct a reasonable investigation of their records to determine whether the disputed information can be verified. cheap travel

MBNA also tried to argue that its investigation in Johnson s case was reasonable. But the court pointed to the specific nature of Johnson s dispute, and the testimony of MBNA agents that their investigation was primarily limited to (1) confirming that the name and address listed on the ACDVs were the same as the name and address contained in the Customer Information System, and (2) noting that the CIS contained a code indicating that Johnson was the sole responsible party on the account. bangkok hotel

The MBNA agents also testified that, in investigating consumer disputes generally, they do not look beyond the information contained in the CIS and never consult underlying documents such as account applications. Based on this evidence, a jury could reasonably conclude that MBNA acted unreasonably in failing to verify the accuracy of the information contained in the CIS, he wrote. music booking

¹³⁰ Linda Johnson v. MBNA America Bank

: CA-4 - No. 31-1235; Feb. 11, 2004 Richard Rubin, a Sante Fe, New Mexico attorney who argued the case for Johnson before the Fourth Circuit, noted that the panel adopted his position that had MBNA simply told the truth and stated that its investigation was inconclusive, the CRAs would have deleted the tradeline as required by the FCRA, and the litigation never would have occurred. travel and tourism

Veracity - History of the Credit Bureaus and Reporting Agencies (CRA)

condemned to repeat it. - George Santayana, Life of Reason, Reason in Common Sense, Scribner s, 1905, page 284 Credit bureaus had humble beginnings. Local credit bureaus started taking shape in the late 1800s, when merchants who increasingly offered credit needed to keep track of those who failed to repay. One of the first credit bureaus was established in Brooklyn in 1860.¹³¹ new york city hotel

Equifax was founded as the Retail Credit Co. in Atlanta in 1899 by brothers Cator and Guy Woolford, who compiled credit records of the city s citizens in a Merchants Guide that they sold to local grocers for $25 a year.¹³² air asia ticket booking

Also in the 1890s, J.E.R. Chilton started to collect information on customers in Dallas, Texas. In 1906, the first national organization of credit bureaus was founded the National Association of Retail Credit Agencies. It later became the Associated Credit Bureaus (ACB); it is now known as the Consumer Data Industry Association (CDIA). ¹³¹ Cole, R.H. (1992), Consumer and Commercial Credit Management (Irwin, Homewood) los angeles travel

¹³²

Serwer, Andy, Street Life: Credit Bureaus Exposed, Fortune.com, April 14, 2003 This original organization was set up as a network of six small credit bureaus. The number of credit bureaus increased remarkably in the 1920s as well as the 1950s with the introduction of credit cards and installment credit. During that period, the credit reporting market was homegrown: information was collected from local lenders and distributed locally.¹³³ cancun hotel

Automation Consolidation

In the 1970s, however, the industry started to automate on a larger scale. Database concentration led to industry consolidation. The larger market-players began to bring smaller bureaus into their computer systems to benefit from their information collection. Smaller agencies used the computer processing power and network of the larger companies. Local credit bureaus either became affiliates of one of the bigger players, or remained independent as resellers of credit reports. hotel booking florence

In the 1970s, there were 2, 250 credit bureaus in the market. This number has been reduced to 1, 833 bureaus in 1997. Currently, it is estimated there are only 220 independent resellers. In the 1980s, there were five national credit reporting agencies: Trans Union, TRW, Equifax, Chilton Corporation and Pinger Systems. The Chilton Corporation eventually merged with TRW, whereas Pinger was sold to the Computer Science Corporation (CSC). CSC is a separate company, but for credit-reporting and operational purposes, it is now an affiliate of Equifax. business travel

Credit reporting was only one division of TRW. Other divisions were devoted to aerospace and automotive parts. TRW later purchased Chilton. In the mid-1990s, TRW sold its credit reporting division, renamed Experian, to an intermediary. Experian was later bought by Grand Universal Stores, a United Kingdom company that continues as owner. atlantic city hotel

¹³³

Jentzsch, Nicola, The Regulation of Financial Privacy: U.S. vs. Europe, European Credit Research Institute (ECRI Report No. 5 - June 2003) The Marmon Group is a Chicago-based company, privately owned by the Pritzkers of Chicago, one of America s wealthiest families. The Pritzkers also own the Hyatt Hotel chain. In 1981, the Marmon Group bought a large, failing amalgamation of businesses called Trans Union, which was into railcar and equipment leasing, water treatment, and international trade. It also had a credit bureau, a business that grew from a company called the Credit Bureau of Cook County. indian railway online ticket

So, by the end of the 1980s there were three national consumer credit reporting agencies (CRAs) - Equifax, TRW (Experian) and Trans Union. Congress, Consumers Discover Credit Reporting The growth and consolidation in the credit reporting system was felt by the public and by Congress. By the late 1960s, Congress increasingly was concerned with a broad range of consumer protection issues. It was during this period that Congress enacted the Truth in Lending Act, requiring disclosure of credit terms. adventure travel

There was also growing concern about privacy. For the first time, the specter of huge computerized databanks containing personal information on millions of Americans spurred debate over the need to protect citizens from Big Brother. In 1967, Prof. Alan Westin of Columbia University published Privacy and Freedom, one of the first books to explore the need for a code of fair information practices to ensure Americans privacy in the computer age.¹³⁴ seattle hotel

The Fair Credit Reporting Act has a rather odd sort of history. ¹³⁴ Westin, Alan, Privacy and Freedom (New York: Atheneum, 1967) While the legislation was supposed to protect consumers, initial support for the bill among consumer groups turned to opposition, while the credit reporting industry came to embrace it. While the House held most of the public hearings and debate, the bill was drafted largely in secret by Senate Banking Committee members and representatives of the credit reporting industry.¹³⁵ booking buddy com

In 1969, the proposal s leading proponent was Sen. William Proxmire (D-WI). Proxmire believed that inaccuracy and misleading data were the most serious of several problems plaguing the credit reporting system. The other problems were maintaining confidentiality, and the volume of untimely or irrelevant data. yahoo travel

Although a number of Congressional committees have recently begun to investigate the activities of credit reporting agencies, most Americans still do not realize the vast size and scope of today s credit reporting industry or the tremendous amount of information which these agencies maintain and distribute, Proxmire said on the Senate Floor.¹³⁶ discount hotel deal

A Legislative Coup

Unfortunately for Proxmire, he was outnumbered by pro-industry Senators. They undertook their own negotiations with the credit-granting and credit-reporting industries and produced a bill that was quietly attached to a separate Senate bill. The legislative maneuvering allowed the pro-industry Senators to get their version into a final House-Senate conference even before the House could start moving a more pro-consumer bill. Proxmire was forced to compromise. room booking software

monebaggasse