| Entities | |
| Topics and Issues | Credit repair (34) Identity theft (12) |
In April 2004, the FTC proposed
rules that would establish definitions for the terms ‘identity theft’ and ‘identity theft report;’ the duration of an ‘active duty alert;’ and the ‘appropriate proof of identity’ for purposes of sections 605A (fraud alerts and active duty alerts), 605B (consumer report information blocks), and 609(a)(1) (truncation of Social Security numbers) of the FCRA, as amended by the Act.
The rule was finalized in November 2004. Initially promulgated at 16 C.F.R. Parts 603, 613 – 614, the rule was rescinded by the FTC in 2012, following the transfer of authority from it to the CFPB. The definitions are now found at 12 C.F.R. § 1022.3.
Initially, when proposing the definition of “identity theft report” in the original FACTA rules, the FTC recognized that the definition would include submissions of complaints to automated systems like the portal with the FTC, but that such submissions may not have sufficient detail. The FTC recognized the possibility of abuse by credit repair (see the discussion at 69, Fed. Reg. 23370, 23372. For that reason, the original process with the FTC contemplated a consumer filing both the automated complaint and completing an identity theft affidavit:
§603.3 Identity theft report.
. . .
(c) . . .
(3) A consumer might provide a law enforcement report generated by an automated system with a simple allegation that an identity theft occurred to support a request for a tradeline block or cessation of information furnishing. In such a case, it would be reasonable for an information furnisher or consumer reporting agency to ask that the consumer fill out and have notarized the Commission’s ID Theft Affidavit or a similar form and provide some form of identification documentation.