Section 315 of FACTA requires institutions that utilize consumer reports (“users”) to develop and follow certain procedures when notified of an address discrepancy  by a national CRA (Equifax, Experian and TransUnion). Under FACTA, national CRAs are required to issue a “notice of address discrepancy” when an address provided by a user requesting a consumer report “substantially differs” from the address the CRA has on file for that consumer. The Address Discrepancy Rule then requires users of consumer reports to develop and implement written policies and procedures to respond to receipt of a discrepancy notice. There are two components to the policies required by the Rule: the first relates to the user’s evaluation of the address discrepancy; the second relates to the user’s potential obligation to report the consumer’s address to the CRA.

Users must establish reasonable policies to enable the user to form a reasonable belief as to whether the consumer report received actually relates to the customer in question. Users must evaluate the address discrepancy regardless of whether a new account with the customer will be opened. Policies and procedures designed to confirm whether a consumer report relates to the consumer about whom the report was requested include:

o         Comparing information in the consumer report with information that the user

o         obtains and uses to verify the consumer’s identity pursuant to Customer Identification Program rules,

o         maintains in its own records, such as applications or change of address requests, or

o         obtains from third parties;

o         Verifying the information provided by the CRA with the consumer by requesting a copy of the applicant’s driver’s license or other proof of current address; and

o         Other reasonable means.

In the event that a user reasonably confirms, through the policies and procedures established, that the report received belongs to the user’s customer, the user may be obligated to report the consumer’s address to the CRA that provided the notice of discrepancy. Such obligation arises if the user establishes a continuing business relationship with the customer and regularly furnishes information, regardless of the type or comprehensiveness, to that particular CRA.

           

While the Address Discrepancy Rule is designed to identify instances where a user has not received the correct consumer report for the customer inquired upon, a notice of address discrepancy may signal identity theft. Notices of address discrepancy therefore may implicate the Red Flags Rules for users that are financial institutions or creditors.

           

Also included in the Rule are special provisions regarding change-of-address notices for debit and credit card issuers. If a card issuer receives a change-of-address notice, and within 30 days, receives a request for an additional or replacement card, the card issuer must verify the address before issuing the card. The card issuer may validate the address either when receiving the change-of-address notice or shortly after receiving the request for a card. To validate the address, the issuer must either notify the cardholder at the last known address and provide the cardholder with a means of reporting any incorrect address change, or otherwise asses the validity of the change of address in accordance with its written policies and procedures established to comply with the Rule. 

           

For the complete text of the “Address Discrepancy Rule”, please see http://www.ftc.gov/os/fedreg/2007/november/071109redflags.pdf. Also check out our prior discussions of the Red Flags and Address Discrepancy Rules.

Proskauer summer associate Rebecca Guttman contributed to this post.

Photo of Jennifer L. Roche Jennifer L. Roche

Jennifer Roche is an experienced litigator in both federal and state court, at both the trial and appellate court levels. Jennifer has significant pretrial discovery, deposition and motion practice experience.  She represents public and private clients across a range of industries in complex…

Jennifer Roche is an experienced litigator in both federal and state court, at both the trial and appellate court levels. Jennifer has significant pretrial discovery, deposition and motion practice experience.  She represents public and private clients across a range of industries in complex litigation, including matters such as antitrust claims, contract disputes, products liability, fraud, unfair competition and business torts.

Jennifer also represents clients in internal investigations and regulatory investigations initiated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and other government agencies. In addition, she advises private equity and private credit clients in connection with target company and borrower litigation exposure.

Jennifer maintains an active pro bono practice focusing on Constitutional rights and issues relating to education and veterans.

Before entering the practice of law, Jennifer worked for several years as a consultant in the health care industry, advising clients in the selection and implementation of health care technology solutions.