On March 20, 2009, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) published its long-awaited guide to the Red Flags Rule (the “Rule”), entitled “Fighting Fraud with Red Flags Rule: A How-To Guide for Business.” The guide applies to creditors and certain financial institutions (such as state-chartered credit unions and mutual funds that offer accounts with check-writing privileges) that are subject to the FTC’s jurisdiction and addresses the provision of the Rule that requires implementation of an Identity Theft Prevention Program. For entities subject to the FTC’s jurisdiction, the relevant compliance deadline is May 1, 2009. Financial institutions that are regulated by federal bank regulatory agencies or the National Credit Union Administration (which issues their own versions of the Red Flags Rule) were required to comply with the Rule as of November 1, 2008.
The guide follows the broad interpretation of the Rule that FTC lawyers have previously articulated on various panels and in FTC publications. First, the guide confirms that any entity that is a “creditor” under the Rule’s broad definition is subject to the Rule. The FTC appears to interpret this definition to encompass entities that may have little or no involvement in credit decisions, such as retailers that accept credit card applications for forwarding to credit card companies. Second, the guide sets out an expansive view of “covered accounts.” For example, the guide would require a “creditor” to evaluate not only accounts that involve credit but any accounts the business offers or maintains, including non-credit and single transaction accounts, to determine which of its accounts are “covered” under the Rule. Financial institutions, which had been required to evaluate consumer and non-consumer accounts that involve multiple transactions and have check-writing or similar withdrawal or transfer privileges, may now also have to determine whether their single transaction accounts and accounts without check-writing privileges may be “covered.”
Broad Definition of “Creditor”
According to the guide, any business that sells goods or services and allows customers to pay for them later is a “creditor” under the Rule and, therefore, is subject to the provisions requiring the implementation of an Identity Theft Prevention Program. This definition of “creditor” may encompass any “invoice billing” arrangements, including those often utilized by law firms, doctors, manufacturers, utility companies and myriad other businesses that do not require immediate payment for their products or services. Based on the FTC guide, retailers that offer “no interest/no payment” programs are also likely “creditors” under the Rule.
The second category of “creditors” is entities that “participate” in credit decisions. This definition, found in Regulation B (from which the definition of “creditor” is derived for purposes of the Rule), covers businesses that may: (i) arrange for loans, (ii) participate in decisions to renew, continue or extend credit, (iii) set the terms of credit, or participate in credit decisions in other, often relatively tangential ways. A business may be deemed a “creditor” under the Rule if it participates in conducting an initial assessment of credit applications, deciding which applications to send to a lender, receiving proceeds from a portion of the interest rate charged on a loan, restructuring the terms of the sale in order to meet the concerns of the creditor, or advocating for extending credit.
Notably, Regulation B also defines “creditors” for certain purposes as businesses that “do not participate in credit decisions” but rather only: (i) accept applications, (ii) refer applicants to creditors, or (iii) select or offer to select creditors to whom credit requests can be made. This definition, relevant only to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act’s anti-discriminatory provisions, suggests that businesses that merely accept credit applications and are in not involved in the approval process or any of the activities that constitute “participating” in a credit decision (for example, retailers, restaurants, hotels or airlines) are “creditors” subject to the Rule. The FTC appears to take this position in its guide, which lists as an example of creditors, “retailers that offer financing or help consumers get financing from others… by processing credit applications.”
Expanded Scope of “Covered Accounts”
After a business determines that it is a “creditor” or a “financial institution” within the meaning of the Rule, the next step is to determine if the business offers or maintains any “covered accounts.” If it does, the business must implement an Identity Theft Prevention Program for those accounts.
The guide appears to take a broader view of the definition of “covered accounts” than what had previously been the conventional wisdom. For example, it was thought that “creditors” needed to consider only consumer and non-consumer credit accounts in deciding which accounts were “covered.” Under the guide’s interpretation of the Rule, however, a creditor’s covered accounts could include any accounts, rather than only those involving credit. Thus, for example, if an insurance company allows some consumers to pay for policies after the coverage period and requires others to make periodic payments that prepay coverage, the guide appears to suggest that all such accounts would be “covered” and that the insurance company would need to evaluate the risk of identity theft associated with its non-consumer credit and non-credit accounts to determine if those accounts are covered. The implication of the guide’s interpretation for financial institutions subject to the FTC’s jurisdiction is that the coverage of the Rule would extend to non-transaction accounts (i.e., accounts that do not allow check writing or similar withdrawal or transfer transactions).
Finally, the guide suggests that in deciding which accounts are “covered,” financial institutions and creditors must evaluate the risks associated with “single transaction” accounts. This requirement appears to significantly expand the scope of the Rule, which defines an account only as a “continuing relationship.” Here, the guide also appears to be in conflict with the position the FTC and the federal banking agencies articulated in the preamble to the Rule that the agencies “determined that… the burden that would be imposed upon financial institutions and creditors by a requirement to detect, prevent and mitigate identity theft in connection with single, non-continuing transaction by non-customers would outweigh the benefits of such a requirement.”
The FTC guide is available on the new FTC website dedicated to the Red Flags Rule, located here.
Search
Recent Posts
Categories
- Behavioral Advertising
- Centre for Information Policy Leadership
- Children’s Privacy
- Cyber Insurance
- Cybersecurity
- Enforcement
- European Union
- Events
- FCRA
- Financial Privacy
- General
- Health Privacy
- Identity Theft
- Information Security
- International
- Marketing
- Multimedia Resources
- Online Privacy
- Security Breach
- U.S. Federal Law
- U.S. State Law
- U.S. State Privacy
- Workplace Privacy
Tags
- Aaron Simpson
- Accountability
- Adequacy
- Advertisement
- Advertising
- American Privacy Rights Act
- Anna Pateraki
- Anonymization
- Anti-terrorism
- APEC
- Apple Inc.
- Argentina
- Arkansas
- Article 29 Working Party
- Artificial Intelligence
- Australia
- Austria
- Automated Decisionmaking
- Baltimore
- Bankruptcy
- Belgium
- Biden Administration
- Big Data
- Binding Corporate Rules
- Biometric Data
- Blockchain
- Bojana Bellamy
- Brazil
- Brexit
- British Columbia
- Brittany Bacon
- Brussels
- Business Associate Agreement
- BYOD
- California
- CAN-SPAM
- Canada
- Cayman Islands
- CCPA
- CCTV
- Chile
- China
- Chinese Taipei
- Christopher Graham
- CIPA
- Class Action
- Clinical Trial
- Cloud
- Cloud Computing
- CNIL
- Colombia
- Colorado
- Commodity Futures Trading Commission
- Compliance
- Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
- Congress
- Connecticut
- Consent
- Consent Order
- Consumer Protection
- Cookies
- COPPA
- Coronavirus/COVID-19
- Council of Europe
- Council of the European Union
- Court of Justice of the European Union
- CPPA
- CPRA
- Credit Monitoring
- Credit Report
- Criminal Law
- Critical Infrastructure
- Croatia
- Cross-Border Data Flow
- Cyber Attack
- Cybersecurity
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency
- Data Brokers
- Data Controller
- Data Localization
- Data Privacy Framework
- Data Processor
- Data Protection Act
- Data Protection Authority
- Data Protection Impact Assessment
- Data Transfer
- David Dumont
- David Vladeck
- Delaware
- Denmark
- Department of Commerce
- Department of Health and Human Services
- Department of Homeland Security
- Department of Justice
- Department of the Treasury
- Disclosure
- District of Columbia
- Do Not Call
- Do Not Track
- Dobbs
- Dodd-Frank Act
- DPIA
- E-Privacy
- E-Privacy Directive
- Ecuador
- Ed Tech
- Edith Ramirez
- Electronic Communications Privacy Act
- Electronic Privacy Information Center
- Elizabeth Denham
- Employee Monitoring
- Encryption
- ENISA
- EU Data Protection Directive
- EU Member States
- European Commission
- European Data Protection Board
- European Data Protection Supervisor
- European Parliament
- Facial Recognition
- Facial Recognition Technology
- FACTA
- Fair Information Practice Principles
- Federal Aviation Administration
- Federal Bureau of Investigation
- Federal Communications Commission
- Federal Data Protection Act
- Federal Trade Commission
- FERC
- FinTech
- Florida
- Food and Drug Administration
- Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
- France
- Franchise
- Fred Cate
- Freedom of Information Act
- Freedom of Speech
- Fundamental Rights
- GDPR
- Geofencing
- Geolocation
- Georgia
- Germany
- Global Privacy Assembly
- Global Privacy Enforcement Network
- Gramm Leach Bliley Act
- Hacker
- Hawaii
- Health Data
- Health Information
- HIPAA
- HIPPA
- HITECH Act
- Hong Kong
- House of Representatives
- Hungary
- Illinois
- India
- Indiana
- Indonesia
- Information Commissioners Office
- Information Sharing
- Insurance Provider
- Internal Revenue Service
- International Association of Privacy Professionals
- International Commissioners Office
- Internet
- Internet of Things
- IP Address
- Ireland
- Israel
- Italy
- Jacob Kohnstamm
- Japan
- Jason Beach
- Jay Rockefeller
- Jenna Rode
- Jennifer Stoddart
- Jersey
- Jessica Rich
- John Delionado
- John Edwards
- Kentucky
- Korea
- Latin America
- Laura Leonard
- Law Enforcement
- Lawrence Strickling
- Legislation
- Legislature
- Liability
- Lisa Sotto
- Litigation
- Location-Based Services
- London
- Madrid Resolution
- Maine
- Malaysia
- Markus Heyder
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Mexico
- Microsoft
- Minnesota
- Mobile App
- Mobile Device
- Montana
- Morocco
- MySpace
- Natascha Gerlach
- National Institute of Standards and Technology
- National Labor Relations Board
- National Science and Technology Council
- National Security
- National Security Agency
- National Telecommunications and Information Administration
- Nebraska
- NEDPA
- Netherlands
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- New Zealand
- Nigeria
- Ninth Circuit
- North Carolina
- Norway
- Obama Administration
- OECD
- Office for Civil Rights
- Office of Foreign Assets Control
- Ohio
- Online Behavioral Advertising
- Opt-In Consent
- Oregon
- Outsourcing
- Pakistan
- Parental Consent
- Paul Tiao
- Payment Card
- PCI DSS
- Penalty
- Pennsylvania
- Personal Data
- Personal Health Information
- Personal Information
- Personally Identifiable Information
- Peru
- Philippines
- Phyllis Marcus
- Poland
- PRISM
- Privacy By Design
- Privacy Policy
- Privacy Rights
- Privacy Rule
- Privacy Shield
- Protected Health Information
- Ransomware
- Record Retention
- Red Flags Rule
- Rhode Island
- Richard Thomas
- Right to Be Forgotten
- Right to Privacy
- Risk-Based Approach
- Rosemary Jay
- Russia
- Safe Harbor
- Sanctions
- Schrems
- Scott Kimpel
- Securities and Exchange Commission
- Security Rule
- Senate
- Serbia
- Service Provider
- Singapore
- Smart Grid
- Smart Metering
- Social Media
- Social Security Number
- South Africa
- South Carolina
- South Korea
- Spain
- Spyware
- Standard Contractual Clauses
- State Attorneys General
- Steven Haas
- Stick With Security Series
- Stored Communications Act
- Student Data
- Supreme Court
- Surveillance
- Sweden
- Switzerland
- Taiwan
- Targeted Advertising
- Telecommunications
- Telemarketing
- Telephone Consumer Protection Act
- Tennessee
- Terry McAuliffe
- Texas
- Text Message
- Thailand
- Transparency
- Transportation Security Administration
- Trump Administration
- United Arab Emirates
- United Kingdom
- United States
- Unmanned Aircraft Systems
- Uruguay
- Utah
- Vermont
- Video Privacy Protection Act
- Video Surveillance
- Virginia
- Viviane Reding
- Washington
- WeProtect Global Alliance
- Whistleblowing
- Wireless Network
- Wiretap
- ZIP Code