FTC Extends Red Flags Compliance Deadline to November 1

On July 29, 2009, the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") announced another three-month delay in the enforcement of the provision of Identity Theft Red Flags and Address Discrepancies Rule (the "Rule") that requires creditors and financial institutions to implement an Identity Theft Prevention Program.  The FTC noted that small businesses and entities with a low risk of identity theft remain uncertain about their obligations under the Rule and pledged to "redouble" its efforts to educate businesses about compliance with the Rule.  The new enforcement deadline for creditors and financial institutions is November 1, 2009.  The FTC news release is available here.

FTC Delays Enforcement of the Red Flags Rule until August 1, 2009

At the eleventh hour, the Federal Trade Commission announced that it will once again delay enforcement of the Red Flags Rule.  The Red Flags Rule was promulgated pursuant to the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 ("FACTA").  The previous compliance date was May 1, 2009, which was an extension from the original deadline of November 1, 2008.  The new extension applies only to the provisions of the Rule requiring financial institutions and creditors to implement an identity theft prevention program.  The continuing enforcement delays respond to ongoing uncertainty about the Rule's intended scope.  In announcing this latest delay, the FTC cited "the ongoing debate about whether Congress wrote this provision [of FACTA] too broadly" and stated that extending the compliance deadline would "allow industries and associations to share guidance with their members . . . and give Congress time to consider the issue further."  On March 20, 2009, the FTC published the Red Flags Rule Compliance Guide to assist organizations that must comply with the Red Flags Rule.  The FTC stated in its news release yesterday that it will attempt to address some of the concerns regarding compliance with the Rule by publishing an identity theft prevention program template for low risk entities.  The FTC's news release is available here.

FTC Publishes Red Flags Rule Compliance Guide; Confirms Broad Interpretation of the Rule

On March 20, 2009, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) published its long-awaited guide to the Red Flags Rule (the “Rule”), entitled “Fighting Fraud with Red Flags Rule:  A How-To Guide for Business.”  The guide applies to creditors and certain financial institutions (such as state-chartered credit unions and mutual funds that offer accounts with check-writing privileges) that are subject to the FTC’s jurisdiction and addresses the provision of the Rule that requires implementation of an Identity Theft Prevention Program.  For entities subject to the FTC’s jurisdiction, the relevant compliance deadline is May 1, 2009.  Financial institutions that are regulated by federal bank regulatory agencies or the National Credit Union Administration (which issues their own versions of the Red Flags Rule) were required to comply with the Rule as of November 1, 2008.

The guide follows the broad interpretation of the Rule that FTC lawyers have previously articulated on various panels and in FTC publications.  First, the guide confirms that any entity that is a “creditor” under the Rule’s broad definition is subject to the Rule.  The FTC appears to interpret this definition to encompass entities that may have little or no involvement in credit decisions, such as retailers that accept credit card applications for forwarding to credit card companies.  Second, the guide sets out an expansive view of “covered accounts.”  For example, the guide would require a “creditor” to evaluate not only accounts that involve credit but any accounts the business offers or maintains, including non-credit and single transaction accounts, to determine which of its accounts are “covered” under the Rule.  Financial institutions, which had been required to evaluate consumer and non-consumer accounts that involve multiple transactions and have check-writing or similar withdrawal or transfer privileges, may now also have to determine whether their single transaction accounts and accounts without check-writing privileges may be “covered.”

Broad Definition of “Creditor”
According to the guide, any business that sells goods or services and allows customers to pay for them later is a “creditor” under the Rule and, therefore, is subject to the provisions requiring the implementation of an Identity Theft Prevention Program.  This definition of “creditor” may encompass any “invoice billing” arrangements, including those often utilized by law firms, doctors, manufacturers, utility companies and myriad other businesses that do not require immediate payment for their products or services.  Based on the FTC guide, retailers that offer “no interest/no payment” programs are also likely “creditors” under the Rule. 

The second category of “creditors” is entities that “participate” in credit decisions.  This definition, found in Regulation B (from which the definition of “creditor” is derived for purposes of the Rule), covers businesses that may: (i) arrange for loans, (ii) participate in decisions to renew, continue or extend credit, (iii) set the terms of credit, or participate in credit decisions in other, often relatively tangential ways.   A business may be deemed a “creditor” under the Rule if it participates in conducting an initial assessment of credit applications, deciding which applications to send to a lender, receiving proceeds from a portion of the interest rate charged on a loan, restructuring the terms of the sale in order to meet the concerns of the creditor, or advocating for extending credit.  

Notably, Regulation B also defines “creditors” for certain purposes as businesses that “do not participate in credit decisions” but rather only: (i) accept applications, (ii) refer applicants to creditors, or (iii) select or offer to select creditors to whom credit requests can be made.  This definition, relevant only to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act’s anti-discriminatory provisions, suggests that businesses that merely accept credit applications and are in not involved in the approval process or any of the activities that constitute “participating” in a credit decision (for example, retailers, restaurants, hotels or airlines) are “creditors” subject to the Rule.  The FTC appears to take this position in its guide, which lists as an example of creditors, “retailers that offer financing or help consumers get financing from others… by processing credit applications.”

Expanded Scope of “Covered Accounts”
After a business determines that it is a “creditor” or a “financial institution” within the meaning of the Rule, the next step is to determine if the business offers or maintains any “covered accounts.”  If it does, the business must implement an Identity Theft Prevention Program for those accounts.

The guide appears to take a broader view of the definition of “covered accounts” than what had previously been the conventional wisdom.   For example, it was thought that “creditors” needed to consider only consumer and non-consumer credit accounts in deciding which accounts were “covered.”  Under the guide’s interpretation of the Rule, however, a creditor’s covered accounts could include any accounts, rather than only those involving credit.  Thus, for example, if an insurance company allows some consumers to pay for policies after the coverage period and requires others to make periodic payments that prepay coverage, the guide appears to suggest that all such accounts would be “covered” and that the insurance company would need to evaluate the risk of identity theft associated with its non-consumer credit and non-credit accounts to determine if those accounts are covered.  The implication of the guide’s interpretation for financial institutions subject to the FTC’s jurisdiction is that the coverage of the Rule would extend to non-transaction accounts (i.e., accounts that do not allow check writing or similar withdrawal or transfer transactions). 

Finally, the guide suggests that in deciding which accounts are “covered,” financial institutions and creditors  must evaluate the risks associated with “single transaction” accounts. This requirement appears to significantly expand the scope of the Rule, which defines an account only as a “continuing relationship.”  Here, the guide also appears to be in conflict with the position the FTC and the federal banking agencies articulated in the preamble to the Rule that the agencies “determined that… the burden that would be imposed upon financial institutions and creditors by a requirement to detect, prevent and mitigate identity theft in connection with single, non-continuing transaction by non-customers would outweigh the benefits of such a requirement.”

The FTC guide is available on the new FTC website dedicated to the Red Flags Rule, located here.
 

FTC Issues Red Flags Guidance

On March 20, 2009, the Federal Trade Commission published a Red Flags Rule compliance guide for businesses, entitled “Fighting Fraud with the Red Flags Rule.”  The guide offers an overview of the Rule and practical steps businesses need to take to comply.  In addition, the guide addresses the issue that has raised the most concern among businesses -- the Rule's scope.  As expected, the FTC is interpreting the Rule broadly, suggesting, for example, that any company that sells goods or services and bills customers later is a "creditor" subject to the Rule.  According to the guide, “creditors” also may include retailers that merely “process” credit applications.  Please visit our blog next week for a detailed analysis of the FTC’s guide. The guide is available here.

Compliance Deadline Extended for Massachusetts Data Security Regulations

Massachusetts recently announced that it is extending the deadline for compliance with new state data security regulations. In consideration of the current economic climate, Massachusetts has extended its original compliance deadline of January 1, 2009. The new compliance deadline will be phased in. By May 1, 2009, companies that are subject to the regulations must generally comply with the new standards and must contractually ensure the compliance of their third-party service providers. In addition, by May 1, 2009, covered businesses must encrypt laptops containing personal information. By January 1, 2010, companies are required to have a written certification of compliance from their third-party service providers and must encrypt other company portable devices, such as memory sticks and PDAs.

Massachusetts’ new May 1, 2009, compliance deadline coincides with the updated implementation deadline for the Federal Trade Commission’s Red Flags Rule. The Red Flags Rule contains provisions requiring certain financial institutions and creditors to put in place security measures aimed at detecting and preventing identity theft. Entities that are subject to both the Red Flags Rule and Massachusetts’ new regulations may be able to address the implementation requirements of both during the same program development process.

For details regarding the scope and requirements of the Massachusetts regulations, please click here.

For details regarding the updated Red Flags Rule compliance deadline, please click here.