UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580

Office of the Secretary

March 5, 2013

Mr. Robert Ellis Smith

State of Rhode Island

Re: In the Matter of Equifax Information Services LLC, File No. 1023252 

Dear Mr. Smith:

Thank you for your comment regarding the Federal Trade Commission’s consent

agreement in the above-entitled proceeding. The Commission has placed your comment on the

public record pursuant to rule 4.9(b)(6)(ii) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, 16 C.F.R. §

4.9(b)(6)(ii), and has given it serious consideration.

 In your comment you state that you concur with commenter Robert Gellman’s concern

that the complaint and proposed consent decree do not provide sufficient facts about the amount

of disgorgement that Equifax Information Services LLC (“Equifax”) has agreed to pay for the

public to assess the adequacy of the settlement. The precise figures you request come from

company records which were obtained during the investigation and which are subject to

confidentiality protections. The Commission is committed to protecting consumers in financial

distress as well as safeguarding consumer privacy and believes that the proposed order with

Equifax will further this objective. 

The monetary remedy in the proposed consent order is disgorgement, which is limited to

the amount of the entity’s ill-gotten gains. The order requires Equifax to pay $392,803 which

represents its gross revenue from the sale of the lists at issue and does not include any deduction

for overhead or other expenses. In deciding whether the amount and type of monetary remedy in

this or any other consent order is appropriate in relation to the alleged violations, the

Commission carefully considers a variety of factors, including the type of monetary relief

authorized by law, the specific facts at issue, and the alleged violations of the law. The

Commission considered these factors in this case and determined that disgorgement and

injunctive provisions will provide the appropriate level of relief. 

 In addition to disgorgement, the proposed consent order includes a number of injunctive

provisions designed to prevent future violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”). For

example, the order prohibits Equifax from furnishing prescreened lists to anyone that it does not

have reason to believe has a permissible purpose to receive them and from failing to maintain

reasonable procedures to limit the furnishing of prescreened lists to anyone except those who

have a permissible purpose to receive them. Further, the order prohibits Equifax from selling

prescreened lists in connection with offers for debt relief products or services and mortgage

assistance relief products and services, when advance fees are charged, with limited exceptions. 
Should Equifax violate any term of the final order, it could be liable for civil monetary penalties

of up to $16,000 per violation per day (pursuant to Section 5(l) of the FTC Act).

Your comment also states that you believe disgorgement is inadequate and that you

believe that there “has not been one year since the Fair Credit Reporting Act was enacted that

Equifax, Inc. has been in compliance with the act,” because Equifax has been subject to a

number of Commission orders since 1973. With regard to previous Commission actions

involving Equifax, the complaints in those matters involve a variety of different provisions of the

FCRA and different fact patterns from the allegations in the present complaint. See U.S. v.

Equifax Credit Information Services, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:00-CV-0087-MHS, (N.D. Ga July

30, 2003) (consent order); U.S. v. Equifax Credit Information Services, Inc., Civil Actions No.

1:00-CV-0087, (N.D. Ga Jan. 13, 2000) (consent order); In the Matter of Equifax Credit

Information Services, Inc., FTC Docket No. C-3611 (Aug. 14, 1995) (consent order); In the

Matter of Equifax Inc., FTC Docket No. D-8954 (Dec. 15, 1980) (final order). The Commission

carefully monitors compliance with all of its orders. 

 Having considered all the facts of this case and all of the comments submitted in

response to the proposed order, the Commission has determined that the public interest would

best be served by issuing the Decision and Order in final form without any modifications. The

final Decision and Order and other relevant materials are available from the Commission’s

website at http://www.ftc.gov. It helps the Commission’s analysis to hear from a variety of

sources in its work. The Commission thanks you again for your comment.

By direction of the Commission, Commissioners Leibowitz and Wright not participating.