In the battle of the titans ... er, I mean, titanic failures of consumer protection, we can expect a ruling soon. This case is like Darth Vader taking on the Witch King from the Lord of the Rings, or Dr. Doom v. The Joker or Dr. Kevorkian v. Michael Jackson's doctor ... bad guy v. bad guy (or, in the case of Experian v. LifeLock, maybe bad guy v. bad buy?) Anyway, word has it that a ruling is on the way ...
From the Arizona Republic at - http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/business/articles/2009/08/24/20090824biz-lifelock0825.html
"A U.S. District Court judge in the Central District of California is expected to rule this week on competing motions in a legal battle between credit bureau Experian and Tempe-based identity-theft protection firm LifeLock Inc.
Judge Andrew Guilford partially sided with Experian in May when he ruled LifeLock's practice of enrolling consumers in 90-day fraud alerts with the three main credit bureaus violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Experian argues that the law does not allow corporations to set the alerts on consumers' behalf.
In response, Experian sought a permanent injunction against LifeLock's practice, and LifeLock asked Guilford to reconsider his initial ruling. A hearing on both motions took place Monday in Santa Ana, Calif."
Doubt the judge will change his mind, but you never know. As for me, I'm siding with Hannibal Lecter ... I mean Experian, since I don't agree with anyone (corporation, person, puppy) placing a fraud alert on their credit report when there is not even a hint of an allegation of fraud.
From the Arizona Republic at - http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/business/articles/2009/08/24/20090824biz-lifelock0825.html
"A U.S. District Court judge in the Central District of California is expected to rule this week on competing motions in a legal battle between credit bureau Experian and Tempe-based identity-theft protection firm LifeLock Inc.
Judge Andrew Guilford partially sided with Experian in May when he ruled LifeLock's practice of enrolling consumers in 90-day fraud alerts with the three main credit bureaus violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Experian argues that the law does not allow corporations to set the alerts on consumers' behalf.
In response, Experian sought a permanent injunction against LifeLock's practice, and LifeLock asked Guilford to reconsider his initial ruling. A hearing on both motions took place Monday in Santa Ana, Calif."
Doubt the judge will change his mind, but you never know. As for me, I'm siding with Hannibal Lecter ... I mean Experian, since I don't agree with anyone (corporation, person, puppy) placing a fraud alert on their credit report when there is not even a hint of an allegation of fraud.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment