What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? N/A
In what is to me a disappointing event ironically coincidental to a recent discussion of the practice of Pay-To-Delete credit data in this forum, today the FTC announced settlement of a FCRA case against check authorization firm TeleCheck Inc. and its affiliated collection agency, TRS Collection Services, Inc, for $3.5M. The settlement amount matches a settlement made last year with Certegy Check Collection Services, Inc. with similar allegations.
PTD was not an issue is either case. The functional opposite was. Among the allegations made against TRS Collection Services and, in fact, both sets of defendant entities is that they violated the FTCs Furnisher Rule, which requires entities furnishing data to CRAs to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the data provided (FCRA §660.3).
These entities are demonstrably not junk debt buyers and I personally believe that both provide a beneficial service. The FTC did not allege that, in essence, they went the wrong way on a “risk vs. reward “ decision and willfully engaged in PTD. In broad, general terms, the allegations amounted to a contention that they did not do enough to ensure the accuracy and integrity of their information for both the users of their data and the parties affected thereby. In this regard, they ceased to be "good-actors" in the highest sense. My disappointment is a function of personal familiarity with both firms and a prior belief that they would not be subject to such dereliction from lawful responsibility, either willfully or negligently. They were and rightfully paid or will pay.
In what is to me a disappointing event ironically coincidental to a recent discussion of the practice of Pay-To-Delete credit data in this forum, today the FTC announced settlement of a FCRA case against check authorization firm TeleCheck Inc. and its affiliated collection agency, TRS Collection Services, Inc, for $3.5M. The settlement amount matches a settlement made last year with Certegy Check Collection Services, Inc. with similar allegations.
PTD was not an issue is either case. The functional opposite was. Among the allegations made against TRS Collection Services and, in fact, both sets of defendant entities is that they violated the FTCs Furnisher Rule, which requires entities furnishing data to CRAs to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the data provided (FCRA §660.3).
These entities are demonstrably not junk debt buyers and I personally believe that both provide a beneficial service. The FTC did not allege that, in essence, they went the wrong way on a “risk vs. reward “ decision and willfully engaged in PTD. In broad, general terms, the allegations amounted to a contention that they did not do enough to ensure the accuracy and integrity of their information for both the users of their data and the parties affected thereby. In this regard, they ceased to be "good-actors" in the highest sense. My disappointment is a function of personal familiarity with both firms and a prior belief that they would not be subject to such dereliction from lawful responsibility, either willfully or negligently. They were and rightfully paid or will pay.
Last edited by a moderator: