Jump to content

Going To File Suit For EQ Ignoring My Opt-Out


Recommended Posts

As you may know, EQ continued to sell my information to potential creditors, even after I opted out. I consider this egregious, flagrant, and willful violation of FCRA 604(e), as well as enabling my privacy to be compromised and invaded. The whole thread is here:

http://www.debt-consolidation-credit-repair-service.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=33867&sid=bf66bc3a5a728705ec2014c3d1bcd63c

I've decided to file suit against them. I'll keep this thread updated as this progresses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Check out the FTC Safeguards Rule while you're at it - if the've got an issue with employees getting $ for giving out information......

I believe, Doc, that's under the Gramm-Riley Act and it governs a financial institution's duties to protect consumer information.

How would that apply to a CRA?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "financial institutions" covered by the Rule include not only lenders and other traditional financial institutions, but also companies providing many other types of financial products and services to consumers. These institutions include, for example, payday lenders, check-cashing businesses, professional tax preparers, auto dealers engaged in financing or leasing, electronic funds transfer networks, mortgage brokers, credit counselors, real estate settlement companies, and retailers that issue credit cards to consumers.

It may be a stretch, but if your vital financial information ends up in the hands of the CRA's, then they should certainly be held accountable for that information....

Section 314 of the Act....

§ 314.2 Definitions.

(B) Customer information means any

record containing nonpublic personal

information as defined in 16 CFR

313.3(n), about a customer of a financial

institution, whether in paper, electronic,

or other form, that is handled or

maintained by or on behalf of youor

your affiliates.

Maybe? It's a stretch, but hey....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doc,

I guess I didn't read that part :oops:

I don't know that it would be a HUGE stretch. In the definition of 'financial institution', it has the phrase "for example".

These institutions include, for example, payday lenders, check-cashing businesses, professional tax preparers, auto dealers engaged in financing or leasing, electronic funds transfer networks, mortgage brokers, credit counselors, real estate settlement companies, and retailers that issue credit cards to consumers

It might have been a stronger argument if it had been 'including, but not limited to'...but I think one could make a case that based on the fundamental spirit of the statute, could be applicable to CRA's.

I'll look into this further.

Thanks, Doc! :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.