When I started college in 1996 in california, I began to receive unsolicited, ready-to-use credit cards in the mail with an activation phone number. I'm sure I'm not the only one...right? Well, in my research of the California Civil Codes I came across this: 1747.05. (a) No credit card shall be issued except: (1) In response to an oral or written request or application therefor. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.html/civ_table_of_contents.html I haven't been able to find any posts regarding this. It would seem that if the cards were issued in this illegal manner(aside from them not having a signed application), that the debt might be invalid. These cards have since become un-paid charge-offs. Any input would be appreciated.
Last time I heard if you activate a credit card and use it you are accepting the contract and any debt you incur is valid. I'm sure other forum members will jump in and provide additional feedback for you.
Just looking at the rest of the statue b) A credit card issued in substitution for an accepted credit card may be issued only if the card issuer provides an activation process whereby the cardholder is required to contact the card issuer to activate the credit card prior to the first use of the credit You activated the card by phone
This is exactly why all CC's even the ones you apply for have an activation process, it covers both bases, in the event that the consumer then claims that they didn't apply for the card.
Thanks for responding. Consider this then: 1747.02. (b) "Accepted credit card" means any credit card that the cardholder has requested or applied for and received or has signed, or has used, or has authorized another person to use, for the purpose of obtaining money, property, labor, or services on credit. Any credit card issued in renewal of, or in substitution for, an accepted credit card becomes an accepted credit card when received by the cardholder, whether the credit card is issued by the same or a successor card issuer. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=civ&group=01001-02000&file=1747-1748.7 Seems to me that since I had never had a CC before they started sending me ready-to-go CCs in the mail, I did not have an "accepted CC," and that would mean that they could not send a telephone activated CC according to 1747.05.(a)(1).
Re: Re: unsolicited credit card question... Ankay: You are not reading the statute correctly, these aren't *AND* clauses, but *OR* clauses, in other words, the second *ANY ONE* of these happens, the card becomes an ACCEPTED CREDIT CARD. Even if you didn't request or apply for the card, if you do any of the above underlined activities, you've accepted the card.
Point taken jam, however, in the remainder of the statute that 8004me referred to: "in substitution" means to replace. My point is that they weren't replacing anything. It was a brand new unsolicited CC. I realize that in using it I accepted it, but, 1747.05 would mean it was delivered illegally.
Re: unsolicited credit card questio Your argument is faulty. Look at both sides of this. The real issue is did you activate the card and use it? If the answer is "yes", that action voids your defense. Why? Because you voluntarily had a choice to cut up or return the card, not use it then cry foul. I've seen that weak defense several times in the past. The debtor hangs every time because it smells like intent to defraud. Plenty of hack lawyers out there will take the case just to milk a quick fee from the client. If the card did not have to be activated by you before being used, the flavor of your debate changes significantly. You activate it, you own it.
The text may also cover the case when you accept a card on offered terms, with a clause that a lesser card will be sent if you don't meet their full requirements, but because of their credit check, they send you a different card on lesser terms. They must then require activation of this, or any card they send in response to your acceptance.
