Identity thieves are not ones to discriminate based on age. In fact, some of their favorite targets are children. This is so for various reasons, not the least of which is that their crime is likely to go undiscovered longer if the ID theft victim is a child.
A recent study performed by Debix, an identity theft monitoring company, found that 4000 children's identities had been stolen or otherwise compromised out of only 40,000 children surveyed.
So what do you do to protect your children's identity? First, when your child turns 16, check his credit report. This should leave enough time to correct any errors caused by any identity theft before the child starts college and starts needing credit in his own name.
Second, watch out for any early signs of identity theft. If your minor son or daughter starts getting collection calls or preapproved credit offers, then you should request his credit reports from the Big Three to see what's up.
When you request the report, the credit bureaus should respond that there is no report regarding your child. If they have a report, then your child is either the victim of identity theft or a mixed file. How do you tell the difference? Two ways - first, if all three bureaus have a file on your child, its probably identity theft. If only one has a file, its likely a mixed file. But, the only way to know for sure is to contact the creditors who appear on the report and find out what Social Security number was used to open the accounts. If its your child's SSN, then he or she is a victim of identity theft. If its a different but similar SSN, its a mixed file and all the blame lies with the credit bureau's faulty matching logic.
In either scenario, the first step after learning of the problem is to dispute the errors to the credit bureaus in writing. If that doesn't work, after multiple tries, then you need to hire someone like me to sue the bureaus' for your child. Remember, I'm only an e-mail away.
Custom Search
July 19, 2011
July 18, 2011
The Fourth Credit Bureau?
But what a lot of people don't realize is that there are many, many consumer reporting agencies outside of the Big Three. I was reminded of this recently when I read a Washington Post article entitled "Five Facts about the Fourth Bureau". At first I thought there might be a new bureau emerging (kind of like Shemp, the fourth stooge). Instead, the article lumps together all the smaller, unorthodox consumer reporting agencies as the "fourth bureau".
The other bureaus tend to cover topics that are missed by the Big Three. Some can be seen as niche market CRAs, such as the ones that collect information about rent paying history, which they then sell to potential landlords. Other types of information collected by the "fourth bureau" are payment histories regarding utilities payments, cellphone bills, magazine subscriptions and gym memberships. Some even keep up with whether consumers return their rental movies on time. Others include companies that compile investigative consumer reports and that provide criminal history type reports that can be used for background checks.
These smaller bureaus can play important roles as over 30 million U.S. consumers don't show up in the Big Three's databases. These consumers are in a credit morass, as they can not get a loan without a credit history and can not get a credit history without getting loans. But they can rent apartments, rent movies, sign up for utilities, etc. The payment histories generated by these actions can sometimes be used in place of a more traditional credit report.
But these types of payment histories can also hurt a consumer's chances of getting credit if they do not reflect a responsible payment pattern, or if they contain damaging errors, which they are apt to contain. Approximately 25% or more of the Big Three's reports contain damaging errors, so the other bureaus are likely to have a similar error rate. The good news ... even though these companies are not the "Big Three", they are still subject to the vast majority of the requirements of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, including the requirement that they provide to consumers upon request a complete report of all information in their database about the consumer and 15 U.S.C. 1681i's requirement that they reasonably investigate consumer's disputes of inaccurate information.
The down side ... to get your report from the small bureaus will cost you some money (approximately $11) since the yearly free credit report requirement only applies to the Big Three. Consumers can also get a free credit report from any CRA if they are denied credit (or suffer some other adverse action) as a result of the contents of the CRA's report.
The same rules regarding disputing errors also apply to the "fourth bureau" ... namely disputing in writing and dispute often. If that doesn't work, hire someone like me to sue for damages resulting from the errors (which usually also includes the benefit of a corrected credit report. Funny how a lawsuit will do things that a multitude of even the best dispute letters can not.) If any of you need help with the Big Three or the "fourth bureau", I'm only an e-mail away.
July 17, 2011
Starbucks' new iPhone app a risk for identity theft?
According to 9News.com (Colorado's News Leader), Starbucks' new iPhone app, that allows iPhone users to pay for purchases, check gift card balances and purchase gift cards for others, is causing identity theft concerns.
Actually, the identity theft concerns are not really related to Starbucks' app as the concerns would apply to many apps. Any app that encourages the storage of personal financial information (i.e. credit card info, passwords, etc.) on a mobile device increases the chances of identity theft, just because mobile phones are easier to lose than a desktop computer. Just ask my niece, who loses her cell phone at what seems like a rate of one a month. But that's a subject for another blog.
One of the next waves of technology will no doubt be some way to pay for purchases using your cell phone rather than a credit card. But the trade off for something so convenient is the increased risk of identity theft. Just like the trade off of being able to receive instant credit decisions while you wait to buy a toaster at Sears is that the decision must be based on information that can be transmitted to Sears while you wait.
True story - I once had a client who was unable to purchase a toaster on credit at a Sears because of an error on his credit report. The defendant in the case was Experian, one of the three national credit bureaus. Their argument regarding the credit denial was that he was not denied credit due to the error but due to the statement added to his credit report regarding the error, indicating that he was an identity theft victim and that he should be called at his home number to verify his identity before being granted credit. In the case of instant credit, he would never be home to receive the verification call, since he would be out shopping, waiting for the credit decision. Kind of a catch 22, huh? Client should have used his cell phone number but, then again, this was back before everyone had cell phones.
Anyway, the trade off for "instant" stuff is almost always going to be an increased risk of something such as identity theft. The trick is first recognizing the increased risk and then building safeguards into the app to handle the increased risk. Hopefully, the apps of Starbucks and others take this into account when designing their apps.
Actually, the identity theft concerns are not really related to Starbucks' app as the concerns would apply to many apps. Any app that encourages the storage of personal financial information (i.e. credit card info, passwords, etc.) on a mobile device increases the chances of identity theft, just because mobile phones are easier to lose than a desktop computer. Just ask my niece, who loses her cell phone at what seems like a rate of one a month. But that's a subject for another blog.
One of the next waves of technology will no doubt be some way to pay for purchases using your cell phone rather than a credit card. But the trade off for something so convenient is the increased risk of identity theft. Just like the trade off of being able to receive instant credit decisions while you wait to buy a toaster at Sears is that the decision must be based on information that can be transmitted to Sears while you wait.
True story - I once had a client who was unable to purchase a toaster on credit at a Sears because of an error on his credit report. The defendant in the case was Experian, one of the three national credit bureaus. Their argument regarding the credit denial was that he was not denied credit due to the error but due to the statement added to his credit report regarding the error, indicating that he was an identity theft victim and that he should be called at his home number to verify his identity before being granted credit. In the case of instant credit, he would never be home to receive the verification call, since he would be out shopping, waiting for the credit decision. Kind of a catch 22, huh? Client should have used his cell phone number but, then again, this was back before everyone had cell phones.
Anyway, the trade off for "instant" stuff is almost always going to be an increased risk of something such as identity theft. The trick is first recognizing the increased risk and then building safeguards into the app to handle the increased risk. Hopefully, the apps of Starbucks and others take this into account when designing their apps.
June 28, 2011
Identity theft - the latest summer risk for kids?
Its summer. I know this due to the repeated "I'm bored" comments I hear from my nine year old.
Summer also brings additional risk of identity theft to children. Thanks to the additional free time caused by the long days of summer, children spend more time in front of the computer or on their internet capable cell phones. With this additional time online comes the additional risk of identity theft.
Why would an identity thief want to steal the identity of a child? Basically because the child's credit history is a blank slate and can be misused longer than an adult's credit history, since the kid is not out doing the things that cause identity theft victims to learn of the theft of their identity, like applying for credit.
“The younger the victim, the more time these thieves have to exploit the child’s identity,” said Sandy Chalmers, Administrator of the Wisconsin Division of Trade and Consumer Protection. “Identity theft against a child can go undetected for years and do a lot of damage to their good name.”
So, parents, please warn your kids not to give out personal information online unless and only if its to a reliable source. And, be sure to monitor what your kids are doing online. A little bit of prevention can prevent a lot of problems later on.
Summer also brings additional risk of identity theft to children. Thanks to the additional free time caused by the long days of summer, children spend more time in front of the computer or on their internet capable cell phones. With this additional time online comes the additional risk of identity theft.
Why would an identity thief want to steal the identity of a child? Basically because the child's credit history is a blank slate and can be misused longer than an adult's credit history, since the kid is not out doing the things that cause identity theft victims to learn of the theft of their identity, like applying for credit.
“The younger the victim, the more time these thieves have to exploit the child’s identity,” said Sandy Chalmers, Administrator of the Wisconsin Division of Trade and Consumer Protection. “Identity theft against a child can go undetected for years and do a lot of damage to their good name.”
So, parents, please warn your kids not to give out personal information online unless and only if its to a reliable source. And, be sure to monitor what your kids are doing online. A little bit of prevention can prevent a lot of problems later on.
June 27, 2011
Social Intelligence - a new social network credit bureau?
According to a recent article on pcworld.com, the Federal Trade Commission has authorized a new company called "Social Intelligence" to conduct background checks of consumers based not on their credit or criminal histories, but instead using the online social network activity. This means there is yet another way that your online activity (or posts online regarding your less than stellar offline activity) can affect consumers' ability to land a job.
It was a big deal when companies started running a credit report on job applicants during the vetting process. But this made sense. Sometimes its because the job applicant would be handling large sums of money and, if they are in deep debt, they may be more likely to embezzle from the company.
This is even bigger. Now, a potential employer doesn't have to expend its own resources to check your online identity, it can hire Social Intelligence to do it for you. According to the PC World article, the potential employer would indicate what type of activity its worried about (i.e. illegal drug use, racism, or other illegal activity) and then Social Intelligence would allegedly only report back to the potential employer about anything it found related to those areas of concern.
But, in reality, Social Intelligence would be a consumer reporting agency (as defined by the Fair Credit Reporting Act) and thus would have to comply with the requirements of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, including maintaining its database of information in such a way that the reports it generates are done so utilizing "reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy" and that it would have to perform reasonable investigations of any disputes made by the consumer of items reported to the potential employer.
How, pray tell, is Social Intelligence going to perform a "reasonable investigation" of the online content? That's got potential for some interesting case law.
The moral of the story, though, is to quit posting your business on Facebook and quit tweeting from the bar, etc. Limit your Facebook posts to the kind of things an employer wants to see - i.e. things that demonstrate stability and maturity, not childish or inappropriate behavior. This isn't new advice. I've been telling clients for a while to watch what they post (and to make their profiles "private" to limit access to what they do post), because defense lawyers have started trolling plaintiff's facebook and other online profiles for juicy information to use against them later.
So, listen up folks, watch what you post 'cause it could come back to haunt you.
It was a big deal when companies started running a credit report on job applicants during the vetting process. But this made sense. Sometimes its because the job applicant would be handling large sums of money and, if they are in deep debt, they may be more likely to embezzle from the company.
This is even bigger. Now, a potential employer doesn't have to expend its own resources to check your online identity, it can hire Social Intelligence to do it for you. According to the PC World article, the potential employer would indicate what type of activity its worried about (i.e. illegal drug use, racism, or other illegal activity) and then Social Intelligence would allegedly only report back to the potential employer about anything it found related to those areas of concern.
But, in reality, Social Intelligence would be a consumer reporting agency (as defined by the Fair Credit Reporting Act) and thus would have to comply with the requirements of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, including maintaining its database of information in such a way that the reports it generates are done so utilizing "reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy" and that it would have to perform reasonable investigations of any disputes made by the consumer of items reported to the potential employer.
How, pray tell, is Social Intelligence going to perform a "reasonable investigation" of the online content? That's got potential for some interesting case law.
The moral of the story, though, is to quit posting your business on Facebook and quit tweeting from the bar, etc. Limit your Facebook posts to the kind of things an employer wants to see - i.e. things that demonstrate stability and maturity, not childish or inappropriate behavior. This isn't new advice. I've been telling clients for a while to watch what they post (and to make their profiles "private" to limit access to what they do post), because defense lawyers have started trolling plaintiff's facebook and other online profiles for juicy information to use against them later.
So, listen up folks, watch what you post 'cause it could come back to haunt you.
June 04, 2011
Horrible decision on s-2(b) claim
A bad decision was rendered recently, dismissing a consumer's claim against a furnisher who failed to perform a reasonable investigation of the consumer's dispute of the collection of a fraudulently opened account.
In Healey v. Trans Union, a decision rendered May 18, 2011, by the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington threw out a consumer's 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2(b) claim against a furnisher because the Court found that the furnisher's investigation, which was non-existent as best as I can tell, was sufficient.
Healey was the victim of identity theft. The impostor opened an account with Sprint, which eventually resulted in the fraud Sprint account being sold to DRS, a collection agency. Despite numerous disputes made by Healey to DRS regarding the fraudulent nature of the collection account, DRS continued to report the account to the credit bureaus for inclusion on Healey's credit reports.
Healey then disputed the DRS collection account to the credit bureaus, including Trans Union and Experian, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681i. Apparently, Healey did not possess evidence that Trans Union forwarded the 1681i dispute to Trans Union and thus could not establish that DRS's requirement to perform a reasonable investigation of the dispute pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2(b) was ever triggered. Thus, dismissal of the s-2(b) claim against DRS relating to the Trans Union dispute was proper.
However, the dismissal of the s-2(b) claim related to the Experian dispute is another matter. There was proof that Experian complied with 1681i and forwarded the dispute to DRS. However, the Court found that summary judgment was appropriate because there was no evidence regarding what exactly DRS did to investigate and it was Healey's duty to establish that DRS' investigation was not reasonable. DRS obviously failed to include in its "investigation" a review of its own files regarding Healey's previous disputes. As a result, it is clear that DRS did not perform even the most elementary investigation of Healey's dispute to Experian regarding the DRS collection. However, the Court did not think so and, as a result, wrongly (in my opinion) granted summary judgment.
Unfortunately for Healey, it was a sad day for justice in the western district of Washington.
In Healey v. Trans Union, a decision rendered May 18, 2011, by the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington threw out a consumer's 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2(b) claim against a furnisher because the Court found that the furnisher's investigation, which was non-existent as best as I can tell, was sufficient.
Healey was the victim of identity theft. The impostor opened an account with Sprint, which eventually resulted in the fraud Sprint account being sold to DRS, a collection agency. Despite numerous disputes made by Healey to DRS regarding the fraudulent nature of the collection account, DRS continued to report the account to the credit bureaus for inclusion on Healey's credit reports.
Healey then disputed the DRS collection account to the credit bureaus, including Trans Union and Experian, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681i. Apparently, Healey did not possess evidence that Trans Union forwarded the 1681i dispute to Trans Union and thus could not establish that DRS's requirement to perform a reasonable investigation of the dispute pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2(b) was ever triggered. Thus, dismissal of the s-2(b) claim against DRS relating to the Trans Union dispute was proper.
However, the dismissal of the s-2(b) claim related to the Experian dispute is another matter. There was proof that Experian complied with 1681i and forwarded the dispute to DRS. However, the Court found that summary judgment was appropriate because there was no evidence regarding what exactly DRS did to investigate and it was Healey's duty to establish that DRS' investigation was not reasonable. DRS obviously failed to include in its "investigation" a review of its own files regarding Healey's previous disputes. As a result, it is clear that DRS did not perform even the most elementary investigation of Healey's dispute to Experian regarding the DRS collection. However, the Court did not think so and, as a result, wrongly (in my opinion) granted summary judgment.
Unfortunately for Healey, it was a sad day for justice in the western district of Washington.
April 19, 2011
Photo Contest
Cute pic, huh? This is my 3 year old son in his "frog" hat. He's in a photo contest on Facebook and I would appreciate all your votes. Here's how you vote. You must first "like" the photographer's Facebook page at Studio 8 One 8. You then must also "like" my son's pic. Do both and you have officially voted for my cute little boy. Fail to do either and your vote won't count, much like a hanging chad.
Thanks a TON!
April 01, 2011
Online Video Gamers also at Risk of Identity Theft
Here's a link to an article about online gamers at risk for ID theft - online gamers, take heed. Or you won't be typing "Woot" anytime soon.
Here's the link -
Here's the link -
March 31, 2011
Interesting experiment regarding what personal data is left on discarded or sold cell phones
An interesting experiment conducted by a company called CPP regarding second hand cell phones to determine what treasure troves of personal identifiers an identity thief would find. The results of the experiment were disheartening (well, except maybe for me - I call the results "job security". :)
The whole article can be found at http://pr-usa.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=669843&Itemid=29.
"Life assistance company CPP purchased second hand mobile phones and SIM cards through Ebay and used electronic shops. The experiment examined what personal data was available on the mobile handsets purchased and whether this information could be used to commit identity fraud.Cell phones are the only electronic items that you need to wipe clean before discarding. You should do the same with any electronic device - PDAs, computers, even copying machines these days store information. Today's copiers, for instance, don't copy, they scan and print. The documents they scan stay on their memory, whether its a hard drive or some other type of storage device. People who buy used copiers potentially have access to thousands of pages of previously copied documents. Scary, huh?
Alarmingly the experiment revealed 247 pieces of personal data were left on a range of mobile phones and SIM cards, leaving previous owners open to the risk of identity theft. Information found included:
• Credit and debit card PIN numbers
• Bank account details
• Passwords
• Phone numbers
• Company information
• Log in details to social networking sites, such as Facebook and LinkedIn.
The experiment also revealed 81% of those questioned claim to have wiped their mobile phone before selling on and that six out of ten people were confident that all their personal details have been removed. However 54% of mobiles and SIM cards were found to contain sensitive information, unknowingly putting people at risk of identity theft.
The life assistance company's findings were supported by data that found 50% of second hand mobile phone owners said they had found personal data when they had purchased second hand mobile phones or SIM cards.
Most people claim to have wiped their mobile handsets manually, which security experts acknowledge leaves information intact and retrievable and therefore at risk of id fraud.
Mobile data expert from CPP, Danny Harrison said: "This report is a shocking wake up call and shows how mobile phones can inadvertently cause people to be careless with their personal data and put them as risk of identity fraud.
"With the rapid technology advancements in the smartphone market and new models released by manufactures multiple times a year, consumers are upgrading their mobiles more than ever and it is imperative people take personal responsibility to properly manage their own data."
Danny continues, "If they do sell or recycle them online or even give them to friends and family, they need to ensure they remove all their personal information thoroughly and consider the serious consequences of not doing so, such as being a victim of id theft."
Jason Hart, Senior Vice President of CRYPTOCard who was commissioned by CPP to carry out the experiment said, "The safest way to remove all of your data from a mobile phone or SIM card is to totally destroy the SIM and double check to ensure that all content has been removed from your phone before disposal. With new technology does come new risks and our experiment found that newer smartphones have more capabilities to store information and that information is much easier to recover than on traditional mobiles due to the increase of applications."
CPP's top tips on wiping your mobile phone of personal information to prevent identity theft:
1. Restore all factory settings - this is the first step that you should take as it is the easiest precaution before disposing of the unit, but factory resets are far from permanent so follow steps 2 - 4 to protect your data
2. Remove your SIM card and destroy it
3. Delete back-ups - even if your smartphone, PDA or laptop data is securely removed from the mobile device, it can continue to exist on a back up somewhere else
4. Log out and delete- make sure you have logged out of all social networking sites, emails, wireless connections, company networks and applications. Once you are logged out make sure you delete the password and connection
5. Various passwords - avoid using the same ID/password on multiple systems and storing them on your mobile phone, if you are going to store them on your phone use a picture that reminds you of the password
6. If you are selling on your phone ensure you ask for it to be wiped to be on the safe side
7. Don't store vast amounts of personal information on your mobile phone / SIM
8. Make sure you check your bank statements regularly to monitor for suspicious transactions
9. Remember the Golden Rule: Identity thieves are experts at spotting an opportunity to steal your identity and only need a few personal details
10. If you want more information on how to protect yourself from id fraud or see how these experiments worked, please visit CPP's blog"
The whole article can be found at http://pr-usa.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=669843&Itemid=29.
March 30, 2011
Tips for avoiding Identity Theft when shopping online
Here are some tips from http://www.retail-digital.com/ regarding how to avoid identity theft when shopping online. I especially agree with tip # 2 - why risk your money when you can risk the credit card company's?!
1. Keep your internet security up-to-date
Updating your internet security, keeping your operating system and browser updated and securing your internet connection can all help to greatly minimise the possibility of a security breach. It is also important to regularly run anti-virus software.
2. Use a credit card over a debit card
Where possible use your credit card instead of a debit card for online purchases. This is important for two reasons. Firstly, if you do become a victim of online fraud and your personal information is stolen, the worse they can do is run up charges on your card. With a debit card this would mean they could drain your bank account. Credit cards are usually easier to dispute fraudulent charges over debit cards and also offer you an extra layer of security.
3. Use secure shopping sites
Always make sure that you use a secure site when submitting information like your credit card details online. Secured websites can be distinguished from unsecure sites in two ways. They use something called SSL and are usually identified by the display of a padlock or other icon in the address bar. The URL of secure starts should also start with https. Secure sites ensure that your personal information is encrypted as it travels across the web. If you are ever unsure, do not use it.
4. Be vigilant
Check your bank statements every month. Research shows that identity thieves often do a test charge to see the card works or not and may not take a lot of money out until months later. By monitoring your account regularly you can notice any suspicious account early and take action before more damage can be done.
1. Keep your internet security up-to-date
Updating your internet security, keeping your operating system and browser updated and securing your internet connection can all help to greatly minimise the possibility of a security breach. It is also important to regularly run anti-virus software.
2. Use a credit card over a debit card
Where possible use your credit card instead of a debit card for online purchases. This is important for two reasons. Firstly, if you do become a victim of online fraud and your personal information is stolen, the worse they can do is run up charges on your card. With a debit card this would mean they could drain your bank account. Credit cards are usually easier to dispute fraudulent charges over debit cards and also offer you an extra layer of security.
3. Use secure shopping sites
Always make sure that you use a secure site when submitting information like your credit card details online. Secured websites can be distinguished from unsecure sites in two ways. They use something called SSL and are usually identified by the display of a padlock or other icon in the address bar. The URL of secure starts should also start with https. Secure sites ensure that your personal information is encrypted as it travels across the web. If you are ever unsure, do not use it.
4. Be vigilant
Check your bank statements every month. Research shows that identity thieves often do a test charge to see the card works or not and may not take a lot of money out until months later. By monitoring your account regularly you can notice any suspicious account early and take action before more damage can be done.
March 27, 2011
Where Have I Been?
You may be wondering about the lack of posts recently. Just so happens that I had several trials scheduled one every other week for the past several weeks. I got trial ready for three of them, only to have two settle and one get postponed at the last minute. The other did go to trial and resulted in a $250,000 verdict for my client.
The case involved injuries that my client suffered when she slipped and fell at the buffet in the Gold Strike Casino. The proof at trial showed that the Gold Strike Casino's drink machine (which the "brass" at Gold Strike claimed did not exist, despite my client, her husband, her son and an honest Gold Strike employee all testified was there) was leaking and had been leaking for some time. Apparently, the drink machine had leaked earlier in the day, resulting in Gold Strike employees cleaning up the water from the buffet's tile floor. The employees, however, did not fix the leak, which resulted in additional water leaking onto the buffet floor. My client's husband and son, who entered the buffet line about 20 minutes before my client, saw the water on the floor.
When my client returned from the restroom, she went directly to the buffet line, slipped in the water and broke her right elbow. The injuries suffered by my client were severe, resulting in a permanent range of motion loss of 10 degrees. Ten degrees may not sound like much, but it keeps her from doing various activities of daily living and will for the rest of her life.
While I asked for nearly twice as much as what the jury eventually awarded my client, Gold Strike thinks the verdict is completely unfair. Crazy, I know, but that's what they think. In my opinion and in the opinion of everyone I have told about the verdict, it is completely fair and deserved by my client. Gold Strike needs to get over it and realize that, unlike the gamblers in its casinos, my client got a fair shake and won. Justice prevailed.
I still have another trial in a couple of weeks and Gold Strike's post trial motions to respond to, but hopefully I will have more time to post in the near future.
The case involved injuries that my client suffered when she slipped and fell at the buffet in the Gold Strike Casino. The proof at trial showed that the Gold Strike Casino's drink machine (which the "brass" at Gold Strike claimed did not exist, despite my client, her husband, her son and an honest Gold Strike employee all testified was there) was leaking and had been leaking for some time. Apparently, the drink machine had leaked earlier in the day, resulting in Gold Strike employees cleaning up the water from the buffet's tile floor. The employees, however, did not fix the leak, which resulted in additional water leaking onto the buffet floor. My client's husband and son, who entered the buffet line about 20 minutes before my client, saw the water on the floor.
When my client returned from the restroom, she went directly to the buffet line, slipped in the water and broke her right elbow. The injuries suffered by my client were severe, resulting in a permanent range of motion loss of 10 degrees. Ten degrees may not sound like much, but it keeps her from doing various activities of daily living and will for the rest of her life.
While I asked for nearly twice as much as what the jury eventually awarded my client, Gold Strike thinks the verdict is completely unfair. Crazy, I know, but that's what they think. In my opinion and in the opinion of everyone I have told about the verdict, it is completely fair and deserved by my client. Gold Strike needs to get over it and realize that, unlike the gamblers in its casinos, my client got a fair shake and won. Justice prevailed.
I still have another trial in a couple of weeks and Gold Strike's post trial motions to respond to, but hopefully I will have more time to post in the near future.
February 15, 2011
New identity theft protection in Indiana causing problems
From an article by Joe Astrouski on wthitv.com -
TERRE HAUTE, Ind. (WTHI) - A new system at the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles designed to prevent identity theft has left some unable to cash checks or fill prescriptions.
Under the system, when someone orders a driver’s license or identification card, he or she is given a temporary identification slip to use for driving and voting for ten business days.
In the meantime, the state checks the person’s documents and photograph.
“It gives us time to accurately check the documents that are being presented to us as well, as well as do some facial recognition,” said Graig Lubsen, a BMV spokesman.
That time proved expensive for Kevin Mulikins, when he tried cashing a paycheck with the temporary ID.
“They wouldn’t cash it,” he said. “When I went to Wal-Mart to get a prescription, they wouldn’t fill it because they said it wasn’t valid ID.”
Mulikins said he had to spend $50 at a check cashing center to get his check cashed.
Lubsen said the temporary slips are not considered valid identification since they have been issued before the state could confirm the holder’s identity.
He said businesses can decide whether to accept the temporary IDs.
“It’s up to each business whether they want to accept these as proof of identity,” Lubsen said.
That inconsistency, together with the temporary card’s use for voter identification, has Mulikins concerned.
“It says it’s valid for voter registration,” Lubsen said. “If it’s valid for voter registration, why isn’t it valid to cash a check or get a prescription?”
February 14, 2011
Honestly.com - a new CRA?
15 U.S.C. 1681a(d) defines a consumer report as "any written, oral, or other communication of any information by a consumer reporting agency bearing on a consumer's credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living which is used or expected to be used or collected in whole or in part for the purpose of serving as a factor in establishing the consumer's eligibility for (A) credit or insurance to be used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes; (B) employment purposes; or (C) any other purpose authorized under section 604 [§ 1681b]."
15 U.S.C. 1681f defines a consumer reporting agency as "any person which, for monetary fees, dues, or on a cooperative nonprofit basis, regularly engages in whole or in part in the practice of assembling or evaluating consumer credit information or other information on consumers for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports to third parties, and which uses any means or facility of interstate commerce for the purpose of preparing or furnishing consumer reports."
Based on these definitions, I think http://www.honestly.com/ is a new CRA and thus subject to the provisions of the FCRA.
What is honestly.com, you ask? According to their website, "Honestly.com is an online resource for building, managing, and researching professional reputation, using community-contributed, professional reviews. Honestly.com reviews help you get the inside scoop on other business professionals, providing candid assessments of coworkers, potential hires, business partners, and more. By contributing Honestly.com reviews, you can share your knowledge of other professionals, giving credit where credit is due, and valuable feedback where needed."
In other words, you supply the scoop on past and current co-workers, professionals you have had dealings with, etc. Honestly.com then assembles that data into a professional reputation about that particular person, so you can determine whether you want to do business with or work with that person. Sounds like it falls squarely within the definition of consumer reporting agency to me. Wonder if Honestly.com realizes that?
If Honestly.com is a CRA, that means they must comply with the requirements of the FCRA, including providing complete copies of your consumer report on request (and payment of a small fee) and investigating any disputes made by consumers regarding the contents of the consumer's consumer report. Wonder if Honestly.com is set up to handle requests from consumers for copies of their credit reports and/or to investigate disputes made regarding errors in their reports? Anybody know? Anybody game to find out?
15 U.S.C. 1681f defines a consumer reporting agency as "any person which, for monetary fees, dues, or on a cooperative nonprofit basis, regularly engages in whole or in part in the practice of assembling or evaluating consumer credit information or other information on consumers for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports to third parties, and which uses any means or facility of interstate commerce for the purpose of preparing or furnishing consumer reports."
Based on these definitions, I think http://www.honestly.com/ is a new CRA and thus subject to the provisions of the FCRA.
What is honestly.com, you ask? According to their website, "Honestly.com is an online resource for building, managing, and researching professional reputation, using community-contributed, professional reviews. Honestly.com reviews help you get the inside scoop on other business professionals, providing candid assessments of coworkers, potential hires, business partners, and more. By contributing Honestly.com reviews, you can share your knowledge of other professionals, giving credit where credit is due, and valuable feedback where needed."
In other words, you supply the scoop on past and current co-workers, professionals you have had dealings with, etc. Honestly.com then assembles that data into a professional reputation about that particular person, so you can determine whether you want to do business with or work with that person. Sounds like it falls squarely within the definition of consumer reporting agency to me. Wonder if Honestly.com realizes that?
If Honestly.com is a CRA, that means they must comply with the requirements of the FCRA, including providing complete copies of your consumer report on request (and payment of a small fee) and investigating any disputes made by consumers regarding the contents of the consumer's consumer report. Wonder if Honestly.com is set up to handle requests from consumers for copies of their credit reports and/or to investigate disputes made regarding errors in their reports? Anybody know? Anybody game to find out?
February 12, 2011
More on Google v. Bing
I recently posted about Bing's theft of Google's identity - see http://fcralawyer.blogspot.com/2011/02/has-yahoos-bing-been-stealing-googles.html - so I thought I would also report on the below subject, even though it really has nothing to do with the FCRA (although it does involve Experian). I just found it interesting and thought you might as well.
Recently, Experian's Hitwise, which allegedly tracks the performance of different search engines including Google and Bing, reported that Bing was more accurate than Google. This sent shockwaves through the internet techie world. But a closer examination reveals that Experian's Hitwise made a pretty big leap to get to this conclusion. Instead of giving you my own thoughts, I'd rather point you to a post by Chris Richardson which I think is spot on - particularly in comparing Experian's methodology to Office Space's "Jump to Conclusion Mat". Hilarious.
Chris Richardson's article can be found here - http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2011/02/09/concerning-bings-more-accurate-than-googles-search-results. Enjoy!
Recently, Experian's Hitwise, which allegedly tracks the performance of different search engines including Google and Bing, reported that Bing was more accurate than Google. This sent shockwaves through the internet techie world. But a closer examination reveals that Experian's Hitwise made a pretty big leap to get to this conclusion. Instead of giving you my own thoughts, I'd rather point you to a post by Chris Richardson which I think is spot on - particularly in comparing Experian's methodology to Office Space's "Jump to Conclusion Mat". Hilarious.
Chris Richardson's article can be found here - http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2011/02/09/concerning-bings-more-accurate-than-googles-search-results. Enjoy!
According to one study, volume of identity theft dropped last year ... or did it?
According to Bloomberg News, the cost of identity theft fraud dropped in 2010 by 34% to $37 billion, the lowest since 2003 when Javelin Strategy & Research began tracking such information. Good news, right?
Well, not so fast. Once again, the definition of identity theft that is used to make this calculation is broad, possibly skewing the results. Javelin's definition apparently includes such things as account take over, which in essence is not identity theft but merely the use of someone else's account. In an account take over situation, the criminal does not utilize the name, SSN or other personal identifiers of a victim to open a new account in the victim's name. Instead, the perpetrator merely accesses an already existing account of the victim, making charges with the victim's already existing credit or debit card. The cost caused by this type of fraud is much less than the cost of fixing a true name identity theft fraud.
This distinction is born out by the other data reported on by Bloomberg, namely that average out of pocket costs for all types of victims (both true identity theft and account takeover) rose in 2010 to $631, up from $387 in 2009. Conversely, average out of pocket costs for new account fraud (i.e. what I call true identity theft or true name identity theft) rose from $787 in 2009 to $1,267 in 2010.
This study also underscores another point that I have made to people in the past, namely that you are more at risk from account take over when you use your debit card than when you use your credit card. Debit card users put at risk whatever amount of money that's in their respective checking accounts, while credit card users do not risk their money but instead risk the money of the credit card companies. If you are going to bet, its better to bet with someone else's money, don't you think?
One last point ... I think it is also misleading to think of identity theft or account take over in only the terms of out of pocket loss. In my 11 plus year experience representing identity theft victims, I can tell you that the out of pocket costs associated with identity theft pale in comparison to the true damage caused by the theft of an identity, from the damage to reputation, the cost of time lost dealing with the problem and the sheer mental anguish caused by losing control over one's finances and the sense of betrayal, mistrust and paranoia caused by identity theft.
Here's a link to Bloomberg's full article - http://www.fa-mag.com/fa-news/6819-identity-theft-fraud-falls-34-victims-pay-more.html.
Well, not so fast. Once again, the definition of identity theft that is used to make this calculation is broad, possibly skewing the results. Javelin's definition apparently includes such things as account take over, which in essence is not identity theft but merely the use of someone else's account. In an account take over situation, the criminal does not utilize the name, SSN or other personal identifiers of a victim to open a new account in the victim's name. Instead, the perpetrator merely accesses an already existing account of the victim, making charges with the victim's already existing credit or debit card. The cost caused by this type of fraud is much less than the cost of fixing a true name identity theft fraud.
This distinction is born out by the other data reported on by Bloomberg, namely that average out of pocket costs for all types of victims (both true identity theft and account takeover) rose in 2010 to $631, up from $387 in 2009. Conversely, average out of pocket costs for new account fraud (i.e. what I call true identity theft or true name identity theft) rose from $787 in 2009 to $1,267 in 2010.
This study also underscores another point that I have made to people in the past, namely that you are more at risk from account take over when you use your debit card than when you use your credit card. Debit card users put at risk whatever amount of money that's in their respective checking accounts, while credit card users do not risk their money but instead risk the money of the credit card companies. If you are going to bet, its better to bet with someone else's money, don't you think?
One last point ... I think it is also misleading to think of identity theft or account take over in only the terms of out of pocket loss. In my 11 plus year experience representing identity theft victims, I can tell you that the out of pocket costs associated with identity theft pale in comparison to the true damage caused by the theft of an identity, from the damage to reputation, the cost of time lost dealing with the problem and the sheer mental anguish caused by losing control over one's finances and the sense of betrayal, mistrust and paranoia caused by identity theft.
Here's a link to Bloomberg's full article - http://www.fa-mag.com/fa-news/6819-identity-theft-fraud-falls-34-victims-pay-more.html.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
