Does the FTC Act of 2006 require utility companies to verify an account holder&#39;s identity? The gas company wanted me to give them my SSN to start service. Naturally, I refused. I was told that they were required by law to verify my identity, and offered me the alternative of submitting a notarized form. I asked which law specifically mandated this identity verification, and I was told that it was the Federal Trade Commission Act of 2006. I have searched through the text of the act, and I can't find anything that references identity verification requirements, or utility companies. Is this actually a legal requirement, as a consequence of the FTC Act or otherwise?
The first issue is to understand that opening up an account with a utility to provide natural gas services is considered an extension of credit. This matters because the FTC requires, under the fair credit reporting act and its general power to issue regulations targeted at preventing fraud, that people who open up new credit accounts to verify the identity of the applicant in an effort to prevent identity theft by fake applicants in some cases. Potential creditors must use “reasonable policies and procedures” to verify the identity of an applicant before issuing credit in the consumer's name. This regulatory stance is supported by Fair Credit Reporting Act § 605A(h)(1)(B) a.k.a. 15 U.S.C. § 1681c-1 (h)(1)(B). The pertinent part of the statute states: (B) Limitation on users (i) In general No prospective user of a consumer report that includes an initial fraud alert or an active duty alert in accordance with this section may establish a new credit plan or extension of credit, other than under an open-end credit plan (as defined in section 1602(i) 1 of this title), in the name of the consumer, or issue an additional card on an existing credit account requested by a consumer, or grant any increase in credit limit on an existing credit account requested by a consumer, unless the user utilizes reasonable policies and procedures to form a reasonable belief that the user knows the identity of the person making the request. (ii) Verification If a consumer requesting the alert has specified a telephone number to be used for identity verification purposes, before authorizing any new credit plan or extension described in clause (i) in the name of such consumer, a user of such consumer report shall contact the consumer using that telephone number or take reasonable steps to verify the consumer’s identity and confirm that the application for a new credit plan is not the result of identity theft. The FTC in issuing its regulations and the utility company, as a matter of policy and expediency, have decided that it the utility company must do credit checks on all prospective customers and will speed up the application process for people who have "fraud alerts" or "active duty alerts" on their credit reports by requiring verification from everyone instead of finding out that they can't get a credit report for a particular customer without verification and then having to go back to the customer to get it.
South Carolina Code §27-33-50: Financial responsibility of tenant for utilities. (A) Unless otherwise agreed in writing, a tenant has sole financial responsibility for gas, electric, water, sewerage, or garbage services provided to the premises the tenant leases, and a landlord is not liable for a tenant's account. (B) An entity or utility providing gas, electric, water, sewerage, or garbage services must not: (1) require a landlord to execute an agreement to be responsible for all charges billed to premises leased by a tenant; or (2) discontinue or refuse to provide services to the premises the tenant leases based on the fact that the landlord refused to execute an agreement to be responsible for all the charges billed to the tenant leasing that premises. (C) This provision does not apply to a landlord whose property is a multi-unit building consisting of four or more residential units served by a master meter or single connection.
This is commonplace in many jurisdictions across many profession, trades and businesses The authorisation of the register and the amount of any fee (which can be zero) is spelled out in the legislation. As is who is authorised to collect it and maintain the register: sometimes it’s a government authority, sometimes it’s a professional association. Sometimes the title is protected and sometimes it isn’t. Off the cuff, the following is an incomplete list for australia. Some of these are Federally regulated and some are State based. Some of the State based ones are nationally recognised, meaning if you register in one state you are registered in all, and some aren’t. Some states require registration that other states don’t. Architect Engineer Doctor Nurse Physiotherapist Nutritionist Veterinarian Solicitor Barrister Anyone working with children Plumber Drainer Gasfitter Roofer Electrician Waterproofer Builder Real Estate Agent Used Car Dealer Bus driver Truck driver Taxi/ride-share driver Train driver Ship’s master Second-hand goods dealer Security guard Bartender Forklift operator Crane operator Builder’s hoist operator
No, in germany there is no universal requirement as to form (Formfreiheit). This includes associating a signature with a name in block letters. In principle you can enforce a contract in court even if the written contract does not identify the contracting parties by spelled out name, but by signature only. It stands to reason there is no benefit in omitting the full names. The legislature implemented elevated form requirements for certain legal transactions by mandating the use of a notary. Here, again, there is no requirement as to put a plain text name next to your signature. The link between signature and person is established via the notary’s documentation. You could put an alias “Donald Duck” next to your signature, the notarial deed will indicate that in fact Kalle Richter signed the document. As far as I am aware all european-union legal transactions will need to go through their official channels. It is simply not possible, for example, to establish a European Economic Interest Grouping on a scrap of paper. Thus there is no issue and in turn no regulation. One thing is for sure, the european-union does not impose a “minimum framework” on its member states. I recollect there are some directives regarding electronic signatures, but that is a different story now.
It is generally legal for a business to ask, but it is not legal for a business to insist that you provide it as a condition of providing goods and services unless a law requires that the SIN be provided. As explained by the relevant Canadian government website: While there is no law barring businesses from asking for the SIN where there is no legal requirement to do so, they do need to make people aware that collection of a SIN is optional and not a condition of service. The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) sets out ground rules for how private sector organizations may handle personal information — including the SIN — in the course of commercial activities. Under the law, organizations cannot require you to consent to the collection, use or disclosure of your personal information unless it is required for a specific and legitimate purpose. This means that, unless an organization can show that your SIN is required by law, you cannot be denied a product or service on the grounds of your refusal to provide your SIN. Of course, the rub is, that an employer is legally required to have your updated SIN for tax purposes, so the employer is allowed to demand, rather than merely request that you provide it. In particular: 7.3 In addition to the circumstances set out in section 7, for the purpose of clause 4.3 of Schedule 1, and despite the note that accompanies that clause, a federal work, undertaking or business may collect, use and disclose personal information without the consent of the individual if (a) the collection, use or disclosure is necessary to establish, manage or terminate an employment relationship between the federal work, undertaking or business and the individual; and (b) the federal work, undertaking or business has informed the individual that the personal information will be or may be collected, used or disclosed for those purposes. A business is required to do this consistent with Schedule 1 to the Act which provides in the most pertinent part: 4.7 Principle 7 — Safeguards Personal information shall be protected by security safeguards appropriate to the sensitivity of the information. 4.7.1 The security safeguards shall protect personal information against loss or theft, as well as unauthorized access, disclosure, copying, use, or modification. Organizations shall protect personal information regardless of the format in which it is held. 4.7.2 The nature of the safeguards will vary depending on the sensitivity of the information that has been collected, the amount, distribution, and format of the information, and the method of storage. More sensitive information should be safeguarded by a higher level of protection. The concept of sensitivity is discussed in Clause 4.3.4. 4.7.3 The methods of protection should include (a) physical measures, for example, locked filing cabinets and restricted access to offices; (b) organizational measures, for example, security clearances and limiting access on a “need-to-know” basis; and (c) technological measures, for example, the use of passwords and encryption. 4.7.4 Organizations shall make their employees aware of the importance of maintaining the confidentiality of personal information. 4.7.5 Care shall be used in the disposal or destruction of personal information, to prevent unauthorized parties from gaining access to the information (see Clause 4.5.3). There is really no specific provision allowing you to refuse to provide information via email, but the Safeguards provision does state that appropriate care does need to be taken to avoid disclosure, and you are disputing that their email collection is adequate. Also, while employers are required to collect SIN data from employees, there is nothing that expressly requires them to collect it via email. If you wanted to compromise, one option would be to save the SIN in a password protected word processing document (usually available in the save as window in an obscure little corner), and then you could attach the password protected document to the email and communicate the password itself to the recipient orally via telephone with you calling their number to prevent any phishing scam. It's a bit clunky, but it gets the job done. Also, please recognize that while a SIN number is important to keep confidential to the extent possible, it is hardly the most sensitive personal information in existence. Lots of people have a need to know it for legitimate purposes and it probably wouldn't be hard at all for someone to get it illegitimately by making a request for your credit record or a tax return transcript under false pretenses.
There is a class action lawsuit, Joshua Saylor v. RealPage, Inc., where it is alleged that Defendant fails to take reasonable steps to ensure that its reports do not inaccurately identify people as sex offenders. Defendant routinely fails to consult either the United States Department of Justice’s National Sex Offender Website or the online state sex offender searchable databases before falsely labeling consumers, including Plaintiff, as sex offenders. Based on Defendant’s pattern and practice of related violations, Plaintiff asserts FCRA and NJ FCRA claims on behalf of himself and the Classes A settlement was proposed; they indicate that if you &quot;do nothing&quot; then you would get about $300, but the amount depends on circumstances. There's no way to know why you received a check at all: perhaps you rented a residence and were &quot;screened&quot; by the offending company.
There is a law requiring it (in Washington). Per RCW 29a.08.720, &quot;current lists of registered voters are public records and must be made available for public inspection and copying under such reasonable rules and regulations as the county auditor or secretary of state may prescribe&quot;. As in all states, there is a law that requires disclosure of &quot;public records&quot;, which is in this case limited to first and last name, age, county and zip code (there is no official party affiliation, and phone number or street address are excluded from public records). Ohio law is a bit different, so you can get a street address (in the Ohio section, it also includes putative data from other internet sources, which are often just guesses – it thinks my son lived in Texas). It does not include California, because voter lists are not mandatorily-disclosed public records in California. Under half of the states' records are available.
Neither law has precedence - manufacturers have to obey both. The FD&amp;C says that they don't need to list ingredients which are trade secrets; the CFR says they must. If they list the trade secrets they do not break either law. If they don't, they break the CFR. Conclusion: they must list the trade secret ingredients. If the FD&amp;C said it was forbidden to list trade secret ingredients, but the CFR required it, manufacturers would still have to obey both laws - which would mean they couldn't sell anything where one of the ingredients was a trade secret.