The 4-part investigative article published by The Columbus Post reports that one of the biggest problems found in consumer complaints to the FTC is with mixed files, where someone else’s information is appearing in your reports.
Of the 1,252 people who told the FTC that their files had been mixed with other consumers’, 30 percent also complained that the credit-reporting agencies failed to correct the mistakes after being asked. The others did not indicate whether they had sought to have the information corrected.
You can read the rest of the article at this link: TheColumbusDispatchonCreditRpts.
The Columbus Dispatch has just published a great 4-part article investigating consumer complaints on credit reporting errors and its impacts. Here is a link: TheColumbusDispatchOnCreditRpts
The Columbus Dispatch reports, following an extensive investigation into consumer complaints at the FTC over a 2.5 year period, that almost 3/4th of the complaints involved consumer reporting agencies mixing someone’s relative’s credit data into their file. Of nearly 1,300 complaints with the FTC, 563 reported the information being mixed with that of their mother, father, sister, brother, son, daughter or grandparent. The next highest category is data mixed from a stranger, reporting at 213.
You can view the results at this link: TheColumbusDispatchMixedFileStatistics.
President Obama issued his Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights on Feb. 23, 2012, addressing a standard for collection and use of consumer personal information, declaring it “a framework for protecting privacy and promoting innovation in the global digital economy.” You can view the White Paper here: Consumer Data Privacy in a Networked Word, White House Feb. 2012.
This bill of rights does not have the force of law, though the administration has the intent of encouraging it to be passed in future legislation.
President Obama states in the introductory letter that this white paper is a blueprint for privacy in the information age and encourages all companies to abide by it now, voluntarily.
I am pleased to present this new Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights as a blueprint for privacy in the information age. These rights give consumers clear guidance on what they should expect from those who handle their personal information, and set expectations for companies that use personal data. I call on these companies to begin immediately working with privacy advocates, consumer protection enforcement agencies, and others to implement these principles in enforceable codes of conduct. My Administration will work to advance these principles and work with Congress to put them into law. With this Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights, we offer to the world a dynamic model of how to offer strong privacy protection and enable ongoing innovation in new information technologies.
Currently, there is no law in place to regulate the collection or use of our personal information on the internet. The intent of the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights is to create added protections to the collection and use of our personal data by the various internet companies that are already collecting this information and using it in ways we are not aware. This bill of rights would require disclosures and the ability to opt in or out of certain collection and use of our personal data in a uniform manner.
In Cottonwood Financial Ltd v. Estes, Wisconsin Court of Appeals, Case No. 2009AP760, decided Dec. 20, 2011, the court enforced an arbitration agreement against a consumer despite the ban on class action proceedings contained within the agreement. The Wisconsin court followed the holding of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. __, 131 S.Ct. 1740 (2011), which it summarized as holding that “a state law that ‘classif[ied] most collective-arbitration waivers in consumer contracts as unconscionable[,]” and thus unenforceable, was preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).’” Although the pre-Concepcion decision out of the same court of appeals found the agreement unenforceable, Concepcion caused this court to reverse its earlier decision and now uphold the agreement in its most recent opinion.
The bottom-line of this decision is that forced arbitration agreements that preclude consumers from bringing their claims in court, before a jury, regardless of whether its is brought as a class action or an individual claim, can be forced into privately held, confidential arbitration proceedings without the ability to raise the claims on behalf of all similarly harmed consumers. This will tend to preclude small dollar claims from ever being enforced to the benefit of unscrupulous businesses.
As of December 9, 2011, new changes in Wisconsin law provide greater protection to employees that report suspected child abuse. 2011 Wisconsin Act 81 enlarged both the scope of employees protected and the nature of adverse employment actions that employers are prohibited to take against an employee in Wisconsin for reporting.
Wisconsin law at Wis. Stat. 48.981 governs the reporting of suspected child abuse. The identity of the reporter is kept confidential.
The law makes reporting mandatory for employees in certain occupations such as physicians, nurses, dentists, social workers, school employees including teachers and administrators, school counselors, child care workers, EMTs, police and other law enforcement officers, among others. Any of these employees that have “reasonable cause to suspect that a child seen by the person in the course of professional duties has been abused or neglected or who has reason to believe that a child seen by the person in the course of professional duties has been threatened with abuse or neglect and that abuse or neglect of the child will occur shall … report as provided in sub. (3).” There are exceptions noted at sub. (2m). Failing to report when it is mandatory can subject the person to a fine of up to $1,000 or imprisonment for up to 6 months or both.
All other employees may report suspected child abuse, but doing so in not mandatory. Permissive reporting still provides the same protections as mandatory reporters.
An employee reporting suspected abuse who has a good faith belief of abuse is immune from liability for making such a report if the investigation does not find abuse occurred. There are a few exceptions, for example, the perpetrator cannot self report and still be immune.
The protection provided to an employee that reports suspected child abuse is under Section 48.981(2)(e). This section prohibits an employer from discharging an employee from employment for making either a mandatory or permissive report. Act 81 amends this section to now include the additional protections from “discipline or otherwise discriminated against in regard to employment, or threatened with any such treatment for doing so.” It appears to essentially prohibit any adverse employment action in retaliation for making mandatory or permissive reports of suspected child abuse.
As of June 29, 2009, the Wisconsin Family and Medical Leave Act (WFMLA) includes protecting employees that need leave for a domestic partner. The WFMLA is at sec. 103.10 of the Wisconsin Statutes. This law provides additional protections not found in the Federal FMLA.
Wisconsin has a provision for domestic partners to register to qualify for other benefits, but this is not required for WFMLA coverage.
The law provides, among other protections, up to two weeks of leave for an employee to care for the domestic partner’s serious health condition, but not for a child of the domestic partner. To be covered, the employee must work for a pubic employer or a private employer that employs 50 or more permanent employees. Also, the employee must have been employed for 52 consecutive weeks or more and have worked at least 1,000 hours in the preceding 52 week period.
Failure to provide the requested leave is a violation of the WFMLA, as is failure to restore an employee to his or her position or an equivalent one following WFMLA leave.
Violations of the WFMLA are enforced by the Wisconsin Equal Rights Division by filing a complaint within 30 days of the violation or when the employee reasonably learns of the violation, whichever is later.
Disclaimer. The information in this and all other posts on this website are not meant as legal advice, but as informative, educational material of a general nature. Legal advice depends on the particular facts and circumstances, and can only be given upon a discussion of the facts and circumstances between an attorney and client. Do note rely on this information when making legal decisions, and you should consider seeking the advice of a competent attorney licensed to practice law in your jurisdiction.
Senators Blumenthal (D-Ct) and Al Franken (D-MN), who are sponsors of the Arbitration Fairness Act, have introduced a bill to the U.S. Senate to prohibit mandatory arbitration clauses in cell phone contracts.
Mandatory arbitration clauses force you to bring claims in arbitration, rather than in court. These clauses are generally anti-consumer because it keeps information about claims hidden from the public as well as the outcome of claims. The clauses also take away your right to have your dispute decided by a jury of your peers in open court. Many arbitration panels are viewed as biased, in favor of industry, as industry is in arbitration with these panels repeatedly while the consumer is before them maybe once in a lifetime, among other reasons.
More information on this bill is at:
On October 6, 2011, the U.S. Senate Banking Committee approved Richard Cordray to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the new agency created to watch out for consumer protections in the financial industry. The vote was straight party line, with Republican senators opposing his nomination and Democrats supporting it.
The nomination now moves to a vote on the Senate floor.
The American Bar Association published in its GP Solo Magazine an article authored by Evan Hendricks on credit reports, credit checks and credit scores. Mr. Hendricks is an expert on credit reporting and the credit reporting industry as recognized in federal and state courts around the country. The article is available online at www.americanbar.org/publications/gp_solo/2011/july_august/credit_reports_checks_scores.html.
In the article, Mr. Hendricks discusses what a credit score is “a number that reflects your credit worthiness at a given point in time.” Higher credit scores is meant to reflect a better risk for the lender, so people with higher scores get loans at more favorable rates. Mr. Hendricks further explains the scoring models used by several agencies and ranges assigned to consumers that put them in certain risk categories.