Posted on 05/27/2009 9:59:05 AM PDT by APRPEH
Back in April 2008, APRPEH posted: Lifelock Getting Picked. At that time, Lifelock and its over-exposed CEO Todd Davis was at the beginning of a slew of legal issues. Well finally, the Experian case may have hammered the first nail into the coffin of Lifelock. According to the above story, Lifelock's procedure of proactively placing fraud alerts is an "unfair business practice". U.S. District Judge Andrew Guilford of the Central District of California ruled that:
"Experian clearly incurs costs each time it must process a fraud alert made by LifeLock. These costs include the costs of allocating Experian’s electronic resources and employee time, plus the maintenance costs of Experian’s toll-free telephone number and Web page used to accept fraud alert requests," he said. "Experian also incurs postage and printing costs in mailing disclosure letters to each consumer on whose behalf a fraud alert is requested."more
(Excerpt) Read more at aprpeh.blogspot.com ...
Why doesn’t Experien monopolize on the advertising of lifelock and just offer to do it themselves for half the price...
You would think no one went leanred anything in buisness these days except how to sue
Had no idea basically all they did was renew an alert on your file...crazy.
Experian should be doing all this stuff as part of due-diligence in the first place, at no cost to the people in their database.
Every case of identity fraud ought to open them up to being sued by the consumer whose identity was stolen.
Why is this even a service? Why aren’t creditors required to call a phone number on your credit file to verify it is really you that is opening up a new line of credit.
This should be a requirement not a service!
I agree. Lifelock found a way to come up with a service that people evidently need and will pay for. These credit companies need to wake up and jump all over it, there’s clearly money to be made and we’re still a capitalist society. For the most part.
if you are successful in requesting your alert with one bureau, it will automatically be placed with the other two. thats the irony of the law suit.
I always wondered how lifelock “guaranteed” it’s service, and what it ACTUALLY did... I even considered calling Rush to see if he knew... I suspected that their service wasn’t any more complicated than this, and my interest was peaked when Rush lent his credibility to it by advertising it.
How can lifelock “guarantee” the service of another company?
I’m sure glad I trusted my gut on this one.
Wonder how long it will be before Rush drops them as an advertiser?
Lifelock will spend $1,000,000 trying to clear/clean the fraudulent charges. They guarantee the service because by federal law the ‘big 3’ are required to follow certain steps if they have a ‘fraud alert’ sent to them.
It’s easy to guarantee something by federal law. It’s funny that Lifelock charges people for the service, that is free, and YOU can request them, every 90 days. However, you’re also only supposed to submit a fraud alert if you think you’re a victim.
>>> However, you’re also only supposed to submit a fraud alert if you think you’re a victim.
ouch.... glad I’m not a stockholder then.
Considering all the credit card companies have databases online, I’d suggest that if you think your information ISN’T out there on the internet, you’re naive. Seriously - I get a notice from various companies, and the government (VA, anyone?) telling me my information MAY be out there. That’s reasonable suspicion to me!
I new there was something about Texas that I liked!
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Posted on Tue, May. 26, 2009
Man sentenced to 25 years for identity-theft scheme
By MARTHA DELLER
mdeller@star-telegram.com
FORT WORTH — Sharon G. Patterson thought she had done everything right.
She and her daughter placed their purses in the trunk of her car and then used a remote device to lock it before taking her dog and her granddaughter for a stroll in a southwest Fort Worth park.
When their purses were stolen by a man who unlocked the car with an unscrambling device, the Arlington teacher promptly notified police, banks and credit card companies.
Patterson didn’t know until December 2007 — five months after the theft — that she was among at least 50 victims of an identity theft scheme led by a career criminal.
Only then was she notified that her bank account number was among more than 200 personal-identification items found in an Arlington motel room, along with computer equipment to make fake IDs and checks.
Billy Coats, the 50-year-old felon who rented the motel room, was sentenced to 25 years in prison last week after pleading guilty to fraudulently using or possessing identifying information.
Coats could have received a life sentence under a 2007 law that made his crime a first-degree felony because he possessed more than 50 stolen documents. Under the new law, identity thieves can be charged with different degrees of felonies based on the number of stolen documents.
Prosecutors Sabrina Sabin and Lori Varnell say the new law is long overdue.
“People are tired of identity theft,” Sabin said. “Even if their credit is cleared, they’re constantly looking over their shoulders because they don’t know who else might have their identities. It’s a lifelong battle.”
In October 2007, a month after the new law took effect, Varnell tried a 22-year-old Mansfield man for stealing the identities of more than 1,000 people and using them to obtain at least $334,000 from credit cards and banks.
But Marten Casarez, described by Varnell as one of the most profitable and prolific identity thieves Tarrant County had prosecuted, faced only two years in state jail because his 33-state ID theft ring operated between 2005 and 2006, before the law was enacted.
His possible sentence increased to 20 years because he impersonated law enforcement officers to try to access a law enforcement database. Prosecutors dismissed the fraud charges after state District Judge Mike Thomas sentenced Casarez to 10 years in prison on five other charges.
Coats was arrested three months after the new law took effect. Because of his prior felony convictions, he faced a minimum of 25 years in prison instead of the usual 15-year minimum for first-degree felonies. The maximum is life in prison in both instances.
“You can do a lot of damage with someone’s driver’s license,” Patterson said. “I think 25 years is a good sentence. He deserved it.”
Sabin said Coats was the key player in an ID theft scheme that likely involved numerous accomplices. He was arrested after motel staff called Arlington police on Dec. 11, 2007, to evict him after he got into an altercation with a woman, she said.
The personal-identification information was likely stolen by other participants in the ring, Sabin said. Some of it came from motel registration forms. Others came from stolen or lost items, she said.
Patterson said the photo she was shown of Coats is not the same man who was watching her car as she locked it at the park. With her identification, someone tried to cash an $800 payroll check.
Items were also charged on her credit cards and a Home Depot account opened in her daughter’s name, she said. The charges were voided because the women had filed police reports.
Another of Coats’ victims was Fort Worth insurance agent Gerald Bristow, who nearly wound up with a criminal record after he lost his driver’s license while jogging in Trinity Park.
Bristow said he was alerted that the license was being misused when he received letters from attorneys offering to represent him on his drug charge. Bristow submitted fingerprints to prove he was not the man with seven criminal convictions who used Bristow’s ID to get out of jail on bail. Bristow had to go to court to expunge his “arrest” record.
“I never suffered a monetary loss. It never affected my credit,” he said. “But I don’t think people realize you can have just as severe consequences if someone is arrested as you. I could have had a warrant for my arrest for not showing up in court.”
Coats was not the man who used Bristow’s identification after being arrested.
Sabin said ID theft rings typically involve people who steal the IDs, a document-maker like Coats who uses the stolen IDs to make fake checks and IDs, and runners who cash the checks.
Since Coats refused to name his partners or gave such sketchy information that they couldn’t be found, he was the only one charged, Sabin said.
“I think that shut down this particular operation,” she said.
http://www.star-telegram.com/crime_courts/story/1396865.html
I believe that if you call it in, it only lasts for 90 days, which is why Lifelock automates it for people, placing a new fraud alert every 90 days.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.