UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580

Office of the Secretary

March 5, 2013

Pam Dixon

Executive Director

World Privacy Forum

State of California

Re: In the Matter of Equifax Information Services LLC, File No. 102 3252

Dear Ms. Dixon:

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.

 The Commission appreciates your thoughtful consideration of this matter. Specifically, 

your comment: (1) asserts that the relief obtained from Equifax Information Services LLC

(“Equifax”) is inadequate; (2) asks whether affected consumers have been offered credit

monitoring or other services; (3) expresses concern that Equifax’s practices are continuing; and

(4) requests that the consent agreement be revised to include more facts. 

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 proposed consent order does not require Equifax to provide credit monitoring

services to consumers whose names were included on the prescreened lists, because that remedy

would not have addressed the conduct at issue in this case. We have not alleged that the

prescreened lists contained Social Security numbers or other information used to commit identity

theft, which is what a review of credit reports or credit monitoring would address. Rather, the

injunctive relief is tailored to the practices at issue in the complaint, as described below. 

Additionally, with respect to your concern that you have seen lists from Equifax of

consumers who were late in paying mortgages, neither the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”)

nor the proposed consent order prohibit Equifax from generating and selling prescreened lists

based upon any particular set of criteria, provided that a “firm offer of credit” is made to all

consumers on the list. The complaint alleges that Equifax furnished prescreened lists to persons

that it did not have reason to believe would use them to make a “firm offer of credit” and that it

failed to maintain reasonable procedures to prevent such sales from occurring. The proposed

consent order includes a number of injunctive provisions designed to prevent future violations of

this type. 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. The order goes beyond the requirements

of the FCRA by prohibiting 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. 

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 deductions for

overhead or any 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. Further, 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).

With respect to your requests for additional facts, we are unable to provide non-public

information or additional facts beyond the information that is already contained within the public

documents regarding this matter. The precise figures you request come from company records

which were obtained during the investigation and which are subject to confidentiality

protections. 

 

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, Commissioner Leibowitz and Commissioner Wright not

participating.

Richard C. Donohue

Acting Secretary