FTC

Paying for ambiguity: the myths of instant background checks and national databases

The cottage industry of data-collection agencies that provide inexpensive background information is flourishing even in this tough economy. Many prospective employers with tight budgets believe they can save money by relying on the “national” records that are spewed out within minutes of entering a credit card number. So just what do you get for $19.99? Not much. Or a lot…a lot of worthless data, that is. Unverified name-match only records come up by the hundreds if the name is fairly common. And it is nearly impossible to determine case details or duplicate filings, as the cryptic printouts often require specialized knowledge that is specific to each state, municipality or records venue.

Many subjects who are flagged as criminals in these databases have never been convicted of a crime. In fact, according to the U.S. Bureau of Justice statistics for felony defendants in large urban counties, one-third of felony arrests never lead to a conviction. And there is no standardized process for reporting arrests and dispositions or updating the records at the various court levels. Some reported offenses are not actually violations of the criminal code in the particular state, but may still show up in these databases.

There are few regulations governing the use of background information beyond the provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) does not mandate that data aggregators provide guidance on how to properly interpret their records. The only possible value of these so-called national databases is to serve as an indicator that a record may exist, and use the search results to supplement a full investigation. Since the FCRA requires that all “reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information are followed” and that “the information is complete and up-to-date,” searches for employment purposes must be conducted either manually or through direct access in the particular court where the record is filed.

Employment experts at a July 2011 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) hearing urged the Commission to consider the comprehensive recommendations put forth by the National Employment Law Project (NELP) in its report on the effect of criminal background checks in employment decisions. Among its recommendations, the NELP suggested that the EEOC revise its now 20-year-old guide on conviction records in view of the “intervening proliferation of instant computerized background information…” The EEOC should also address the “use of arrest records and third-party databases that are considered a part of the hiring process.”

October 17th, 2011|Educational Series|

FTC and CFTC will share information on energy investigations

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announced yesterday that they entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to share non-public information on investigations being conducted by the agencies, including investigations into the oil and gasoline markets. The agreement will help the FTC enforce its petroleum market manipulation rule, which prohibits fraudulent manipulation of U.S. petroleum markets. The information sharing also will assist the CFTC in exercising its authority in the oil markets.

Both the FTC and CFTC can take legal actions in connection with fraud-based manipulation of the petroleum markets, but the CFTC has exclusive jurisdiction to regulate exchanges, clearing organizations and intermediaries in the U.S. futures industry. This MOU will further facilitate information sharing on regulatory issues of common interest.

The MOU also directs the FTC and CFTC to ensure that the confidentiality of the non-public information is maintained, and provides that the agreement does not modify the agencies’ current abilities, responsibilities, or obligations to comply with existing laws or regulations, including the FTC’s confidentiality mandates under the pre-merger laws.

April 13th, 2011|Criminal Activity, Educational Series|

“Operation Empty Promises” yields more than 90 FTC enforcement actions

The Federal Trade Commission announced that it stepped up its ongoing campaign against scammers who falsely promise guaranteed jobs and opportunities to be “your own boss.” “Operation Empty Promises,” a multi-agency law enforcement initiative, resulted in more than 90 enforcement actions, including three new FTC cases and developments in seven other matters, 48 criminal actions by the Department of Justice (many involved the assistance of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service), seven additional civil actions by the Postal Inspection Service, and 28 actions by state law enforcement agencies in Alaska, California, Indiana, Kansas, Maryland, Montana, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Washington, and the District of Columbia.

In addition to making false claims about employment opportunities, one of the actions also alleged that the defendants overcharged for background checks. In its complaint against National Sales Group, Anthony J. Newton, Jeremy S. Cooley, and I Life Marketing LLC, also doing business as Executive Sales Network and Certified Sales Jobs, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division on February 22, 2011, the FTC charged that the defendants advertised nonexistent sales jobs with “good pay” and benefits on CareerBuilder.com and other online job boards, that their telemarketers falsely told consumers that the company recruited for Fortune 1000 employers and that they had a unique ability to get the consumers interviewed and hired. The FTC also alleged that the defendants charged fees they said covered background checks and other services, and often overcharged, taking $97 from consumers who had agreed to pay $29 or $38. Further, the defendants allegedly charged some consumers recurring fees of $13.71 or more per month without their consent.

According to other documents filed in the court, the defendants’ actions generated more than 17,000 complaints to law enforcement agencies, online forums, and job boards, and defrauded consumers of at least $8 million. (CareerBuilder.com dropped the company from its website due to complaints.) The court temporarily halted the defendants’ deceptive practices, froze their assets, and put the company into receivership.

See http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2011/03/emptypromises.shtm for information about other enforcement actions brought through “Operation Empty Promises.”

March 12th, 2011|Educational Series, Fraud|

FTC’s latest privacy initiatives

On December 1, 2010, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released its long-awaited preliminary report on the protection of consumer privacy titled “Protecting Consumer Privacy in an Era of Rapid Change: A Proposed Framework for Businesses and Policymakers.” The FTC is seeking input on this proposal and intends to issue a final report sometime in 2011.

The report, which covers both online and offline data collection and use, reiterates certain concrete steps that the FTC believes organizations should take related to choice and transparency and also provides broad guidance that applies to all commercial entities that collect or use consumer data, including companies that do not interact directly with consumers, such as information brokers. The framework is not limited to personally identifiable information (PII); it applies to all consumer data that can be linked to a specific individual or to a computer or other device.

Focusing on new and growing threats to consumer privacy driven by innovations that rely on consumer data, the proposal outlines a three-step framework for data protection:

1) Privacy by Design – Organizations should integrate privacy concepts into every stage of the life-cycle of their products and services, develop marketing initiatives and data-sharing activities based on privacy guidance from the inception of such projects, and develop and maintain comprehensive information programs to protect and manage consumer data within the organization itself. Data security, reasonable collection limits, sound retention practices, and data accuracy are critical program components.

2) Choice – Organizations should offer clear and easy-to-use choice mechanisms at the point when the consumer is making a decision about his/her data, such as at the point of collection, implement a “do not track” mechanism, such as a persistent web browser setting that allows consumers to block all tracking of their online activities, obtain consumer consent before sharing data for marketing purposes with third parties or even with its affiliates if the affiliate relationship is not clear to consumers, and require enhanced consent for sensitive information, such as data about children, financial and medical information, and precise geolocation data.

3) Transparency – While privacy policies remain a critical tool for notifying consumers (and regulators) of an organization’s privacy practices, in general, most privacy polices need to be streamlined and simplified, and organizations must obtain consumer consent before implementing a change in policy that affects previously collected data. Organizations also should explore mechanisms for providing consumers with access to their data.

December 10th, 2010|Educational Series, Legislation|

One of many case studies from our files that stopped a deal in its tracks

Our client, a commercial lender, requested background investigations of a consumer products company and its two principals in connection with their application for working capital financing. The loan officer was familiar with the subjects, and was astonished by the information that SI quickly uncovered. Searches of federal court records revealed a 2008 action filed against the subjects under the Federal Trade Commission Act for falsely advertising that using their electronic exercise belt caused weight and inch loss without exercise. The action was resolved by stipulated orders as part of a global settlement of both the FTC’s lawsuit and related actions brought by county and city prosecutors. The subjects and certain retailers collectively were ordered to pay over $2 million. The FTC and state orders further barred the defendants from making false advertising claims for the product or any similar device, and provided other injunctive relief to prevent future deceptive practices. And the subjects’ nefarious acts did not stop here. Both principals had several unpaid tax liens and judgments ranging in amounts from $48,000 to $650,000, and both were convicted within the last two years of driving under the influence of alcohol.

October 1st, 2010|Criminal Activity, Judgment, Taxes|

FTC proposes changes to improve credit reporting notices

The Federal Trade Commission announced on August 16, 2010 that it is proposing revisions to the notices that consumer reporting agencies provide to consumers, and to users and furnishers of credit report information under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The FCRA requires the FTC to publish model notices for several forms that must be provided by consumer reporting agencies. The proposed changes are designed to reflect new rules that the FTC and other financial regulators have enacted under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003, and to make the notices more useful and easier to understand.

In addition to revising the general Summary of Rights notice, which informs consumers about their FCRA rights, such as how to obtain a free credit report and dispute inaccurate information, the FTC is proposing improvements to the notices that credit

reporting agencies provide to users and furnishers of credit report information.

The FTC is accepting public comments on the proposed changes until September 21, 2010.

(The FTC contact is Pavneet Singh, Bureau of Consumer Protection, at 202-326-2252.) See http://www.ftc.gov/os/fedreg/2010/august/100816fcranotice.pdf for the full text of the proposed revisions.

August 19th, 2010|Educational Series, Legislation|

Federal Trade Commission’s Red Flags rule enforcement for accountants and other professionals is postponed

The American Medical Association (AMA), the American Bar Association (ABA) and the American Institute of Public Accountants (AICPA) all have brought legal actions against the FTC on the Red Flags rule. In the most recent suit filed on May 21, 2010 by the AMA, the American Osteopathic Association, and the Medical Society of the District of Columbia, the groups argued that the FTC will require them to start verifying their patients’ identities before they agree to treat them. In August 2009, in a suit brought by the ABA, the district court barred the FTC from applying its Red Flags rule to lawyers. The FTC appealed the ruling in February 2010. A decision in the appeal is pending.

The AICPA’s suit, filed on behalf of its members on November 10, 1009, charged in part that the FTC exceeded its statutory authority by extending the rule to regulate accountants and public accounting firms. The AICPA said that “it did not believe there is any reasonably foreseeable risk of identity theft when CPA clients are billed for services rendered.” That suit is now linked to the outcome of the appeal of the ABA ruling. AICPA members have been granted a 90-day grace period – a 90-day delay of enforcement of the rule – from the date on which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit renders an opinion in the ABA’s case against the FTC.

On May 28, 2010, the FTC announced that it again delayed the implementation until December 31, 2010 of a proposed Final Rule relating to Identity Theft Red Flags under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003. The proposed “Red Flags” rule is designed to help prevent identity theft among credit providers and financial institutions.

July 26th, 2010|Educational Series, Judgment|

Resources for information about fraud

Fraud is defined as any act, expression, omission, or concealment calculated to deceive another to his or her disadvantage. Fraud can be committed through many methods, including mail, wire, telephone, written instruments, and the Internet. State and federal statutes criminalize fraud, but not all cases rise to the level of criminality. Prosecutors have the discretion in determining which cases to pursue. Victims may also seek redress in civil court. Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant’s actions involved five separate elements: (1) false statement of a material fact, (2) knowledge by the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) intent by the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result.

Below are several Web sites that provide information about various types of fraud, including tips for protecting yourself and filing formal complaints.

July 25th, 2010|Educational Series, Fraud|

Do you know how to spot online scams?

To educate consumers about online scams, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) set up a Web site for Esteemed Lending Services, an online company that looks reliable and reputable, and promises easy advance-fee loans to anyone. But the company and the site are fictitious, designed to tip you off to the signs of loan scams. The FTC also has other “phony sites” for scam awareness for products such as diet aids (FatFoe) and made-up diabetes treatment (Glucobate.) Remember that as part of our investigation strategies for business transactions, SI includes Web site reviews to detect incredulities, too-good-to-be-true statements, boasts of unrealistic investment returns, and even wording that is unfitting for the particular industry.

July 14th, 2010|Educational Series, Fraud|

What is pretexting and can it be used in background investigations?

Pretexting is the practice of obtaining someone’s personal information under false pretenses, and it is against federal law. In addition to the Federal Trade Commission Act which generally prohibits pretexting for sensitive personal information, under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act passed in 1999, it is illegal for anyone to:

use false, fictitious or fraudulent statements to obtain customer information from a financial institution or directly from a customer of a financial institution;
use false, fictitious, fraudulent, forged, counterfeit, lost, or stolen documents to obtain customer information from a financial institution or directly from a customer of a financial institution;
ask another person to obtain someone’s customer information using false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or using false, fictitious, fraudulent, forged, counterfeit, lost, or stolen documents.

July 9th, 2010|Educational Series, Employment Decisions|

This is the development site for Scherzer International and the information may not be up to date.Please visit our production website.

This is the development site for Scherzer International and the information may not be up to date.
Please visit our production website.