Date: 6/1/2010
FTC Pushes Back Identity Theft Rules Deadline
By:
The Federal Trade Commission has once again pushed back its enforcement deadline for an identity theft-related regulation called the Red Flags Rule. The rule requires financial institutions and other organizations that extend consumer credit to develop and implement policies for detecting and preventing identity theft. Before this latest deadline change, the FTC was to have started enforcing the rule on June 1. Under the new deadline, it will start doing so only after Jan. 1, 2011.
FTC pushes back identity theft rules deadline -- for fifth timeBy Jaikumar Vijayan
June 1, 2010 06:21 PM ET
Computerworld - The Federal Trade Commission has once again pushed back its enforcement deadline for an identity theft-related regulation called the Red Flags Rule. The rule requires financial institutions and other organizations that extend consumer credit to develop and implement policies for detecting and preventing identity theft. Before this latest deadline change, the FTC was to have started enforcing the rule on June 1. Under the new deadline, it will start doing so only after Jan. 1, 2011. The FTC noted in a statement ( Click here for statement ) that the delay was prompted by requests from "several members of Congress" who are working on limiting the scope of the Red Flags Rule.
In the statement, the FTC said it hopes that Congress would work quickly on addressing certain "unintended consequences" of the legislation. The FTC has previously delayed enforcement of the rule on four occasions, the most recent being in October 2009, when it pushed the deadline back from Nov. 1 to June 1 of this year. Today's extension comes just days after the American Medical Association (AMA), along with the American Osteopathic Association (AOA) and the Medical Society of the District of Columbia (MSDC), filed a lawsuit ( Read lawsuit filing here ) against the FTC, demanding that physicians be excluded from the requirements of the Red Flags Rule.
The lawsuit alleged that the Red Flags Rule was meant primarily for the banking sector, but was written so broadly that it unintentionally covers physicians as well.
The suit follows almost two years of efforts by the AMA and the other two organizations to get the FTC to exclude physicians from the law. In January this year, the AMA, the AOA and two other groups formally petitioned the FTC to exempt physicians from the rule.
The recent lawsuit was filed after the FTC rejected the request. "For two years, the AMA has made the case to the FTC that physicians are not creditors like banks and lenders, and the misguided red flags rule should not apply to them," a statement announcing the lawsuit noted.
The FTC's decision to apply the rule to physicians regardless of such complaints is 'arbitrary, capricious and contrary to the law', the lawsuit alleged.
The Red Flags Rule was developed as part of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) and went into effect in January 2008. The original compliance deadline for the rules was November 2008, but it was pushed back repeatedly largely as a result of concerns in Congress about the applicability of the rules to organizations other than financial institutions.
The FTC has argued that unless Congress tweaks the rule, it applies equally to any entity that extends credit to consumers in any form, including a physician, for example, when waiting for an insurance company to make payments for services rendered.
According to the FTC, entities that are covered under the Red Flags Rule include finance companies, auto dealers, mortgage brokers, health providers and telecommunications companies.
It's a position that has been challenged before. Last October, a federal court in Washington ruled that the regulations could not be applied to lawyers and other legal professionals as the FTC had argued it did. The ruling was in response to a lawsuit brought by the American Bar Association against the FTC.
The AMA lawsuit argues that physicians who do not require or collect immediate payment from patients cannot be considered to be creditors under Red Flags rules. It also noted that requiring physicians to collect and investigate each patient's identity would impose too high of an administrative burden on them and erode part of the patient-physician trust relationship.