I received an unsolicited credit card offer and on the OUTSIDE of the envelope it clearly stated I was pre-approved for a $1.000 credit line. I'm a little disturbed because this offer was clearly generated from pulling my credit report or score and then formulating an offer based upon the banks criteria. Obviously, an unsolicited credit offer is a common, accepted, and legal practice and I have not opted out of any of the credit bureaus. What I find disturbing is that one can easily infer the state of my credit by the offer that has been PUBLICLY DISCLOSED ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE ENVELOPE. IMHO, this is at the very least unethical. I suspect this is also illegal, but I have no idea what specific statute or case law to focus on. Has anyone had any experience with this type of matter? What laws, if any, have been violated by the bank? I will not hesitate to take the bank into court if there is one shred of case law or statute to support my position. TIA, Jeff
Jeff, I think that if you open the envelope, you'll find that you'd need to apply for the credit card. Usually, pre-approved offers simply mean that you are pre-approved to apply for credit. (woo-hoo) It doesn't usually mean that you've been approved or that your credits has been checked. Have you checked your credit report recently to see if there's a new inquiry? ajoariz
and typically, the $1,000.00 line outward stated is a MAX. Even people who they've pre-approved for $50.00 gets a mailing saying they've been pre-approved for up to $1,000.00. ajoariz: A PRM INQ is still an INQ. The FTC in FTC v. Transunion goes into graphic detail about how a PRM INQ can be used to reverse engineer your credit file just like a traditional INQ. Just because they only RECEIVE your name, address, phone number, and other above-the-fold information, doesn't mean that that is all that they have.
What laws have been violated? Probably none. The lender got your name and address as a result of procedures listed in FCRA and made a firm offer of credit pursuant to FCRA. FCRA places no restrictions on what may be put on the outside of the envelope. FDCPA does, and since this is not a FDCPA question the answer will not be found in FDCPA. Look at it this way - they didn't call you a deadbeat on the outside of the envelope, they called you a nice person and told you and the world that you are approved for the credit. No one ever was successfully sued for calling someone else nice names. Just what do you want to sue them for?
My position is that since a specific "pre-approved" credit offer is based upon personal information contained in a credit file (as the lender discloses). The nature of the "pre-approved" offer is governed by the criteria the lending institution applies to the information contained in the credit file. Regardless of how "positive" the offer is (yes, $1K is better than $500 or nothing at all, but it's a lot worse than $10K or $50K, so "positive" here is purely subjective), the fact that the offer itself has been made publicly accessible means that information regarding how the lending institution views my creditworthiness has been made publicly accessible. In turn, there is no rocket science involved in arriving at general conclusions about my credit information. Of course, nothing _specific_ has been disclosed, which is why I'm searching here for some direction. IMHO, this touches upon the mandate of Gramm-Leach-Bliley to protect nonpublic personal information. I went up against American Express on flagrant GLB violations a few years ago and ended up ahead $30K after the dust settled (hint, give them the opportunity to sue you first in superior court so they can't force you into arbitration when you bring a big counterclaim). Also, I presume, this litigation also contributed to them making major improvements to their security proecedures. For this matter, I'm thinking small claims court, but I want to have a reasonable legal basis to bring suit as I do not engage in frivilous litigation.
The FCRA provisions for the promotional pull provide an exception to GLB. Small Claims Court? In most jurisdictions the judges there have so little background in law they cannot comprehend the concept of Statutory Damages. If someone isn't bleeding, no one collects anything. I advise against tah forum. Then again, since FCRA specifically allows for promotional Pulls (which this obviously is) I would not bring this lawsuit anyway.
It's not an issue with the credit bureau. Yes, this was a secure transfer of information between institutions as permitted by law. The issue is what the pulling bank did with the information. IMHO, publishing a credit offer on the outside of an envelope amounts to a reckless public disclosure of private information they were supposed to protect under the GLB Act. Your point about small claims is an excellent one. Here, in Connecticut, we have magistrates and their goal is to churn and burn cases as quickly as possible. Certainly, since this mailing is not an isolated incident, this could easily become a class-action suit. One important thing I forget to mention about GLB. It does not allow for private cause of action, so the law itself, as written, is fairly toothless (the only way the banks would allow a law like this to be passed). However, in Connecticut, we have some of the strongest unfair trade practices laws in the country. The Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) allows a private party to bring suit under the Act if another law (it doesn't matter which) has been violated in such a way that the violation is unfair or deceptive. The criteria for unfairness or deceptiveness is defined by the Act and is well established in case law. It also permits punitive damages and lawyer's fees, so it's a great tool that David can use against Goliath. The Act also allows for a politically motivated Attorney General to bludgeon small independant gas-station owners, but that's another discussion.
Since you have apparently made up your mind, go ahead and sue. God bless you if you win since you would be making new law.
I've done some homework, but I could benefit from the experience of others. I can't say I've "made up my mind", but nothing you've said has dissuaded me from looking into this further. Thanks for your input!
I pick my fights very carefully, and few people on the Consumer Credit Boards have been more litigious than I. I simply don't see a better than 50% chance of you winning and I do see a better than 50% chance of your suit being considered "frivolous" which would open you up to the other side suing you to recover their attorneys fees and costs.
