Opinion ID: 185752
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Reuse Regulation

Text: 27 Next, Trans Union raises two objections to the reuse restrictions set out in 16 C.F.R. § 313.11 which limit the manner in which a third party, such as a CRA, may use information it receives from a financial institution, as, for example, in a credit report request. We reject each challenge. 28 First, Trans Union contends the regulation exceeds the FTC's authority under the GLBA because it prohibits a CRA from using aggregated information about consumers, which contains no personally identifiable information, while 15 U.S.C. § 6802(c) prohibits a third party from reusing only nonpublic personal information. We reject this challenge as not yet ripe. 29 To determine whether a controversy is ripe for judicial review the court must evaluate `the fitness of the issues for judicial decision and the hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration.' General Elec. Co. v. EPA, 290 F.3d 377, 380 (D.C.Cir.2002) (quoting Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 149, 87 S.Ct. 1507, 1515, 18 L.Ed.2d 681 (1967)). Whether the FTC may lawfully prevent disclosure of aggregated data by CRAs is plainly not yet fit for judicial decision. The FTC (as well as the other agencies) has not determined whether or to what extent aggregation should be considered use within the meaning of 16 C.F.R. § 313.11. See Appellees' Br. at 44 n. 26 (None of the agencies has taken any enforcement action or issued any formal guidance on such issues.); 5/3/2002 Oral Arg. Tr. at 42 ([I]t's an open issue at the agencies. I think if you look at the rule-making record, the statement of basis and purpose, it's quite clear that when the agencies were promulgating the use restriction, aggregation was not even discussed.). Unless and until the FTC determines that use includes aggregation, and at what level, the issue is not fit for the court to consider and Trans Union suffers no hardship from the court's withholding consideration of the issue. 30 Second, Trans Union contends the reuse regulation improperly prohibits CRAs from reusing account numbers for marketing purposes in violation of section 6802(d) which, Trans Union contends, expressly exempts CRAs from all restrictions on marketing account numbers. We conclude the FTC reasonably construed section 6802(d) otherwise. Section 6802(d) establishes a flat prohibition on disclosure by a financial institution of consumer account numbers with no provision for waiver by the consumer pursuant to the opt-out provisions in section 6802(b): A financial institution shall not disclose, other than to a consumer reporting agency, an account number or similar form of access number or access code for a credit card account, deposit account, or transaction account of a consumer to any nonaffiliated third party for use in telemarketing, direct mail marketing, or other marketing through electronic mail to the consumer. 15 U.S.C. § 6802(d). The FTC has interpreted the language other than to a consumer reporting agency to create a narrow exception that permits a financial institution to disclose an account number to a CRA only for the specific marketing purposes expressly authorized in section 605(c)(1)(B) of the FCRA, namely in connection with [a] credit or insurance transaction that is not initiated by the consumer if the transaction consists of a firm offer of credit or insurance, 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(c)(1)(B). In other words, the FTC maintains, the Congress inserted the exception into section 6802(d) solely to prevent a conflict between this section and FCRA § 605(c)(1)(B) which authorizes such marketing disclosure. We find the FTC's interpretation is both plausible and consistent with the plain intent of section 6802(d) to more tightly restrict disclosure of account numbers than of other NPI. If the exception were read as broadly as Trans Union advocates — to permit unfettered marketing use of an account number by a CRA — the account number would enjoy less, not more, protection than other NPI because it could be disclosed without any opportunity for the consumer to opt out.