UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580

Office of the Secretary

February 6, 2008

Pam Dixon, Executive Director

World Privacy Forum

California

Re: In the Matter of Milliman, Inc., FTC File No. 062-3189, Docket No. C-4213

In the Matter of Ingenix, Inc., FTC File No. 062-3190, Docket No. C-4214

Dear Ms. Dixon:

Thank you for the comments you submitted regarding the above-referenced matters. 

Your comments were placed on the public record pursuant to Section 2.34 of the Commission’s

Rules of Practice, 16 C.F.R. § 2.34, and were given serious consideration by the Commission. 

After considering your comments, the Commission has determined that the public interest would

best be served by issuing the Decision and Orders in final form without modification. 

In your comments, you object to the fact that the consent agreements do not include a

civil penalty and suggest that the appropriate civil penalty would be fifty percent of the gross

revenues from the activities that violated the FCRA. Further, you object to the consent

agreements to the extent that the failure to provide the Notice to Users adversely affects

consumers, and assert that the respondents should be required to provide “actual notice and other

remedies to consumers.” 

 You are correct in noting that the FCRA provides for a broad range of relief for

violations of its provisions. Among other remedies, the Commission may seek civil penalties in

the event of a “knowing violation which constitutes a pattern or practice of violations.” To that

end, and as specified by the FCRA, the Commission considered whether the alleged violations

were knowing and constituted a pattern or practice of violations. The Commission also

considered the factors set forth in sections 621(A)(2)(A) and (B) of the FCRA for determining

the amount of a civil penalty, including the respondent’s degree of culpability, any history of

prior such conduct, ability to pay, effect on ability to continue to do business, and such other

matters as justice may require. After considering all of these factors and the facts of these cases,

the Commission determined that the injunctive provisions contained in the orders, without civil

penalties, provide the appropriate level of relief under the circumstances. Although no single

factor was dispositive in this decision, the Commission noted in particular that respondents

provided the consumer reports at issue only to insurance companies that both had a permissible

purpose to receive the reports and obtained consent from consumers prior to requesting the

reports.
Page 2

Your letter also asserts that the orders are deficient because they do not require

respondents to provide “actual notice or other remedies to consumers.” After examining the

evidence obtained during the investigations, the Commission determined that direct notification

to consumers is not justified in these cases. The violations alleged in the complaint relate to

respondents’ failure to provide required notices to the users of their reports - the insurance

companies - and not to consumers. These notices are designed to alert the users of their FCRA

obligations, most notably that they send notices to consumers when they take adverse action

based in whole or in part on information contained in a consumer report. The Commission has

obtained no evidence that the insurance companies using these reports failed to send adverse

action notices when required. 

Accordingly, the Commission has determined that the public interest would best be

served by issuing the Decision and Orders in final form without modification. Thank you again

for your comments. The Commission is aided in its analysis by hearing from a variety of sources

in its work, and it appreciates your interest in these matters.

By direction of the Commission. 

Donald S. Clark

Secretary