Experian, aids and abets ID theft...

Experian, aids and abets ID theft?...

stops anti-ID theft services.

Experian, aids and abets ID theft...one of the big

three credit services has brought suit to stop

the biggest anti-ID theft services company.

Prima facia evidence they profit from ID theft.

Under the 2003 Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, or FACTA, fraud alerts are available for free to any consumer who believes he may have been a victim of identity theft, or is at imminent risk of it. With a fraud alert on a consumer’s credit profile, banks and other businesses are required to make a reasonable effort to check with a consumer before opening a new line of credit in his or her name.

The consumer normally has to contact a credit reporting bureau directly to place the alert, and then repeat the process every 90 days for as long as the risk remains — a minor hassle that LifeLock and other companies have been happy to help consumers avoid, for a fee. On its face, the business model appeared consistent with FACTA, which allows fraud alerts to be placed by third parties acting on behalf of the consumer.

But in its lawsuit, Experian complained that LifeLock LINK (.pdf) “surreptitiously placed hundreds of thousands” of alerts on Experian files “by posing as the consumer,” even when there was no suspicion of identity theft. LifeLock then renewed the alerts every 90 days.

Tell Experian what you think. 1 888 397 3742

Claiming it was losing “millions of dollars every year” processing such requests, Experian asked a judge to rule that LifeLock was engaging in unlawful and unfair business practices under California’s Unfair Competition Law.( EXPERIAN MAKES BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, FROM THEIR WEB SITE, "Total Group revenue of US$3.9bn. Revenue from continuing activities up 8% at constant exchange rates to US$3.8bn..THEY MAKE BILLIONS OFF OUR DATA, OUR INFORMATION, AND DON'T REALLY GIVE A DAMN ABOUT ITS CUSTOMERS, G )

U. S. District Judge Andrew Guilford granted the motion< LINK (.pdf) last week, finding that federal lawmakers, in writing FACTA, did not intend for consumers to be able to contract with a business to place fraud alerts.

( LET THE CONSUMER GET THEIR ID STOLEN. LIKE EXPERIAN GIVES A DAMN . G )

JUST ONE MORE EXAMPLE OF HOW THE PARADIGM HAS SHIFTED FROM "THE CUSTOMER IS ALWAYS RIGHT" TO "HOW BAD CAN WE LEAGLY SCREW THE CUSTOMER" ... PART OF THE BANKING MAFIA. G

U. S. District Judge Andrew Guilford wins our "HEAD UP HIS ASS" LIFE TIME AWARD.any one have

his contact info? G

To reach his conclusion, Guilford examined the legislative history of the law and determined that Congress intended only that a family member, guardian or attorney should make the request on behalf of a potential fraud victim, not “companies and entities such as credit repair clinics.”

The judge’s ruling opens the door for Experian to seek damages from LifeLock, and for the judge to issue an injunction barring the company from placing fraud alerts with any credit reporting agency. "STOP PROTECTING THE PUBLIC FROM ID THEFT".g

SOURCED FROM Permalink

The public can now see Experians true colors, and

demand legisative changes.

Service offers ID protection and the banking mafia crushes

the service, because it interferes with THEIR PROFITS. !!

Gerald

Anthropologist

.

Rebuttal:

Mike Thomas said...Before you attack the judge, take a moment to understand the ruling. The law (FCRA) was explicit and was written to specifically disallow companies from setting fraud alerts (only “individuals”). There was no question of the intent of the law to exclude companies.

The judge’s job is to respect, interpret and uphold the law. His ruling did just that. In fact, the evidence was so clear and not in dispute on the claim, he issued a partial summary judgment. This means the THE CLAIM DID NOT EVEN NEED TO GO TO TRIAL. That’s how blatantly Lifelock violated the law.

So get your facts straight and understand what you’re talking about before you rant and rave against the judge. He did his job–he upheld the law. If you don’t like it, work to get the law changed.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Our reply forthwith:G.

.

Our reply:

ID theft is rampant, ID theft occurs every 8 seconds.

Experian is not protecting the people it collects data on.

Resulting in hundreds of billions of dollars in losses.

ID theft is so rampant and easy the prices for the stolen

ID's has dropped on the black market.

Section 1681c-1 of the FCRA requires consumer reporting agencies to place a fraud alert

“[u]pon the direct request of a consumer, or an individual acting on behalf of or as a personal

representative of a consumer, who asserts in good faith a suspicion that the consumer has been

or is about to become a victim of fraud or related crime, including identity theft . . . .”

"who asserts in good faith a suspicion that the consumer has been

or is about to become a victim of fraud or related crime"

With the epidemic of ID theft rampant Everyone with a credit record

has a good faith a suspicion that they are about to become a victim of fraud or related crime.

Experian's lack of protection and failure to protect consumers has lead

to services like LifeLock.

The section “was intentionally framed in its broad, sweeping language, precisely to enable judicial

tribunals to deal with the innumerable new schemes which the fertility of man’s invention would

contrive.”

The schemes for ID theft are rampant, it now constitutes the largest form of theft in the world.

And Experian has failed to protect its consumers, while making billions of dollars from the same

consumers they fail to protect.

It would appear U. S. District Judge Andrew Guilford , has it with in his perview to

rule against Experian in favor of protecting the consumers, and instead ruled

against consumer protection,

The section “was intentionally framed in its broad, sweeping language, precisely to enable judicial

tribunals to deal with the innumerable new schemes which the fertility of man’s invention would

contrive.”

Instead of dealing with the bigger more important issue of ID theft protection, the judge focused

on semantics and minimal corporate profit loss.

A request for a fraud alert must be made directly by the consumer, or

directly by an individual acting on behalf of or as a personal

representative of the consumer. The Committee used the word

‘individual’ instead of ‘person’ to ensure that the provision would

only apply to specific individuals such as a consumer’s authorized.

Rejecting the consumer rights to engage a corporation to protect their ID.

When Experian failed to act to protect those same consumers,

while making billions off those same consumers.

Judge Guilford it would seem had the power and the responsibility

to protect consumers Experian was not and is not protecting,

The loss to Experian is minimal, their systems are automated

and web based. It is Experians business plan that failed to protect

consumers leading to the market demand for Life lock.

Our award to judge Guilford stands.

And a summary judgement is not evidence of a

valid ruling, For justice to prevail Judge Guilford

should be reversed.

Gerald

Sections excerpted from the Judges

summary judgement.

Follow up

The big three credit corps have it within their power to wipe out ID theft, but that would mean sending out millions of automated emails

a day, telling people what is going on in their accounts.

Like life lock did.

The credit corps pradigm

says there no profit in protecting consumers,

and they are not protected,

If they request protection,

they can get it for only 90

days, thats what the law says

they have to do, of course they could make protection available free, automated emails, but that would be a "COST", they are not willing to incur.

It feels like "lets see how much we can screw the consumer, legally".

Gerald

Identity theft is one such crime. It is the fastest

growing type of fraud in the United States; in 2008 about 9.9 million Americans were reportedly

victims of identity theft, an increase of 22% from the number of cases in 2007. In addition, the

Federal Trade Commission (FTC) estimates that it costs consumers about $50 billion annually.

Identity theft is often committed to facilitate other crimes such as credit card fraud, document

fraud, or employment fraud, which in turn can affect not only the nation’s economy but its

security.

SOURCE:CRS"