Archive for the ‘government news’ Category

Jan. 1, 2011 Deadline for credit processing reporting to IRS looms

Wednesday, December 15th, 2010

Starting January 1, 2011, merchant acquiring entities and third party settlement organizations must file an information return to the IRS. In other words, if you accept credit or debit cards, your processor  will be filing a 1099-K based on information on file as of 1/1/2010. The processor will report gross transaction totals by individual merchant account.

WHAT MERCHANTS NEED TO KNOW:

Both the TIN and the business name must match. If your credit card processor has different information than what you file on your Business Tax Return, you’re in trouble. In a sampling of 250,000 business data files submitted to IRS by a processor for match verification, 50% failed. It is the merchants responsibility to ensure a match, not the processors.

If the name or TIN do not match your business is subject to backup withholding.

If you owe back taxes your business is subject to backup withholding.

Your tax return must include the 1099 information, or again, you’ll have trouble.

The backup withholding comes from your gross receipts. That means the IRS will get the money directly out of your sales and they WILL NOT BE DEPOSITED TO YOUR BANK. Their portion goes direct from the processor to the US TREASURY.

This is the current information on backup withholding for businesses.

Backup Withholding (BWH Rate Table)
28.0%……Payments after December 31, 2002 until sunset December 31, 2010.

I’m not an accountant or a lawyer. If 50% failed a sampling test this year, and these were not small businesses, how many do you think are going to fail when this goes live? What do you think the back-log will be to the IRS when you file an amendment, request a hearing etc? In the interim, what are you going to do if 28% of payments are withheld?

Pull out your Business Tax Return and match it to your merchant application. Are they the same? Be pro-active, don’t wait.

This is just one of several legislative initiatives with a potentially big impact on your business.

Red Flag Program Clarification Act of 2010 final bill

Thursday, December 9th, 2010

Text of the final Red Flag Program Clarification Act of 2010 bill sent to President Obama for signature. The purpose is to amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act with respect to the applicability of identity theft guidelines, primarily to reduce the burden on small businesses.

H.R.6420
Latest Title: Red Flag Program Clarification Act of 2010
Sponsor: Rep Adler, John H. [NJ-3] (introduced 11/17/2010)      Cosponsors (2)
Related Bills: S.3987
Latest Major Action: 11/17/2010 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.

To amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act with respect to the applicability of identity theft guidelines to creditors.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the `Red Flag Program Clarification Act of 2010′.

SEC. 2. SCOPE OF CERTAIN CREDITOR REQUIREMENTS.

    (a) Amendment to FCRA- Section 615(e) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681m(e)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    • `(4) DEFINITIONS- As used in this subsection, the term `creditor’–
      • `(A) means a creditor, as defined in section 702 of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (15 U.S.C. 1691a), that regularly and in the ordinary course of business–
        • `(i) obtains or uses consumer reports, directly or indirectly, in connection with a credit transaction;
        • `(ii) furnishes information to consumer reporting agencies, as described in section 623, in connection with a credit transaction; or
        • `(iii) advances funds to or on behalf of a person, based on an obligation of the person to repay the funds or repayable from specific property pledged by or on behalf of the person;
      • `(B) does not include a creditor described in subparagraph (A)(iii) that advances funds on behalf of a person for expenses incidental to a service provided by the creditor to that person; and
      • `(C) includes any other type of creditor, as defined in that section 702, as the agency described in paragraph (1) having authority over that creditor may determine appropriate by rule promulgated by that agency, based on a determination that such creditor offers or maintains accounts that are subject to a reasonably foreseeable risk of identity theft.’.
    (b) Effective Date- The amendment made by this section shall become effective on the date of enactment of this Act.

Senate Passes Bill Banning Deceptive Online Sales Practices

Wednesday, December 8th, 2010

Ever been automatically enrolled in a program that bills your card every month? Legislation is progressing to stop this online tactic.

December 1, 2010 Klobuchar pushes to eliminate underhanded tactics that charge consumers for unwanted services.

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar announced today that the Senate passed a bill protecting online consumers from predatory sales tactics that charge customers for services they were unaware they had purchased. Klobuchar is an original cosponsor of the bill, the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act, which was introduced after a Commerce Committee investigation revealed that some companies aggressively sought to enroll online consumers in costly services without their consent.

“As a former prosecutor, I’ve always believed that our laws must keep pace with advances in technology,” Klobuchar said. “Companies should compete in the free market based on the quality of their products and services – not on how well they can swindle unsuspecting consumers online. This bill boosts e-commerce by rooting out ‘bad actors’ and creating a level playing field online.”

Following introduction of the bill, several companies began to eliminate these practices in response to the efforts of Klobuchar and her Senate colleagues.  The bill would continue to protect future online shoppers by:

• Prohibiting companies from using misleading post-transaction advertisements by requiring them to clearly disclose the terms of the offers to consumers and to obtain consumers’ billing information, including full credit or debit card numbers, directly from the consumers.

• Prohibiting Internet retailers and other commercial websites from transferring a consumer’s billing information, including credit and debit card numbers, to post-transaction third-party sellers.

• Requiring companies that use “negative options” on the Internet to meet certain minimum disclosure and enrollment requirements, so consumers will not end up paying recurring fees for goods and services they did not intend to purchase.

Klobuchar serves on the Commerce Committee, which has authority over most Internet issues. The bill is also sponsored by Senators Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Mark Pryor (D-AK), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), and George LeMieux (R-FL).

see prior articles Restore Online Shoppers Confidence Act.

Thune-Begich Legislation Clarifying Red Flags Rule Passes House

Tuesday, December 7th, 2010

After passing both chambers of Congress, Red Flags Rule bill headed to president’s desk for signature before January 1, 2011.

December 7th, 2010 – WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Sens. John Thune (R-S.D.) and Mark Begich (D-Alaska), today praised the House of Representative’s swift passage of their bipartisan bill, the Red Flag Program Clarification Act of 2010, which clarifies a burdensome regulation by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) that would otherwise require small businesses to undertake costly and unnecessary measures to prevent identity theft. The Thune-Begich bill passed the full House of Representatives today by voice vote. The Thune-Begich bill passed the full Senate by Unanimous Consent on November 30, 2010 and will now move to President Obama’s desk to be signed into law.

“I commend my colleagues in the House of Representatives for wasting no time in passing the Thune-Begich legislation clarifying the Red Flags Rule to protect our nation’s small businesses from unnecessary and burdensome federal regulation,” said Thune. “Instead of worrying about being punished under the FTC rule that was set to take effect on January 1st, small businesses can now breathe a sigh of relief.”

“Businesses in Alaska will be better served with this approach. The bill targets the very heart of identity theft, the use of consumer credit reports instead of lumping all small businesses as having the same risk of identity theft,” Begich said. “This bill was carefully crafted, and I am proud to work with my colleagues on this issue.”

The FTC issued the Red Flags regulations under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transition Act of 2003, which requires the establishment of guidelines for financial institutions and creditors regarding identity theft. If implemented on January 1, 2011, as planned, the FTC’s overreaching definition of a creditor would place a significant burden on our nation’s small businesses. Recognizing this, the FTC has delayed implementation of the rule multiple times to allow for Congressional clarification.

###

This bill already passed the Senate in November.

Thune-Begich Legislation Clarifying Red Flags Rule Passes Senate

November 30th, 2010 – Washington, DC – U.S. Sens. John Thune (R-S.D.) and Mark Begich (D-Alaska), today praised the passage of their bipartisan bill, the Red Flag Program Clarification Act of 2010, which clarifies a burdensome regulation by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) that would otherwise require small businesses to undertake costly and unnecessary measures to prevent identity theft. The Thune-Begich bill passed the full Senate by Unanimous Consent and will now move to the House of Representatives for consideration.

“Small businesses in South Dakota and across our country are the engines of job growth for America,” said Thune. “Forcing them to comply with misdirected and costly federal regulations included in the FTC Red Flags Rule will hurt their ability to create jobs and continue growing our economy. I’m pleased that the Senate has passed this important piece of legislation to ensure that small businesses aren’t unnecessarily impacted by these regulations and I look to the House of Representatives to pass this bill without delay.”

“It is very important to consider the needs of small businesses, such as medical providers, when implementing consumer protections,” Begich said. “Our goal is to streamline requirements for businesses to ensure the proper implementation without onerous costs. I thank my colleagues for supporting this bill.”

The FTC issued the Red Flags regulation under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transition Act of 2003, which requires the establishment of guidelines for financial institutions and creditors regarding identity theft. If implemented on January 1, 2011, as planned, the FTC’s overreaching definition of a creditor would place a significant burden on our nation’s small businesses. Recognizing this, the FTC has delayed implementation of the rule multiple times to allow for Congressional clarification.

###

Throughout the internet, sites are touting this as Congress Exempts Physicians From Identity Theft ‘Red Flags’ Rule. Clearly this is not a physicians only rule.

Visa, MasterCard minimum transaction limit changes

Thursday, July 29th, 2010

Visa and MasterCard merchant card acceptance policies state that merchants cannot set a minimum for accepting credit cards on a transaction. If you accept the card, you must accept for all transactions. This has not stopped businesses, especially restaurants and quick stop stores from posting signs with $10 minimum charge. The repercussion for merchants can be fines and removal of card acceptance privileges. Additionally there are state laws that address this issue and conflict with the card association regulations.

Why do merchants want to set a minimum fee? The problem is the high cost of credit and debit card processing relative to their profit margins. For example, a typical sale costs the merchant a percentage rate and a per item fee. If 2% plus $.20 per item, that’s the equivalent of 4% fee for accepting a card for payment.

The 2010 Durbin amendment specifically addresses this issue in this section:

  • Setting of maximum/minimum transaction thresholds for use of a credit card
The Senate-passed amendment provided that card networks could not prevent merchants from setting a minimum or maximum dollar amount for payment by credit card.
The compromise provides that such a minimum may not exceed $10, with authority given to the Fed to increase that dollar amount. The compromise also limits the ability to set maximums for payment by credit card to the Federal government and colleges and universities. The compromise further clarifies the Senate language and establishes that a minimum payment not exceed $10 matching laws currently on the books in a number of states.

It’s important to note that the Durbin Amendment is still a work in progress that will give the Federal Reserve new powers. Not everyone thinks this is a great idea, as we published in the article

Financial Industry responds Durbin amendment on interchange

Durbin Amendment on interchange fees update

Monday, July 12th, 2010
Durbin, Key House Conferees Reach Agreement on Interchange Fees
Monday, June 21, 2010

[WASHINGTON, D.C.] Assistant Senate Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-IL) today announced that an agreement has been reached with key conferees on the Wall Street reform bill regarding his amendment regulating interchange fees. The agreement makes minor, clarifying changes to the language which passed the Senate 64-33, and responds to concerns raised by state governments regarding their use of prepaid and debit cards distribution of government benefits.

I’m pleased that we were able to reach an agreement which makes modifications which strengthen consumer protections and bring competition to a market where there is none,” Durbin said. “We addressed specific concerns of states serving the unemployed and firms serving the unbanked. This was a good faith effort with House conferees to face legitimate issues and resolve them fairly without surrendering our goals of bringing fairness to interchange fees and common sense regulation to the credit card industry. I applaud the leadership of Chairmen Frank and Dodd in reaching this milestone agreement.”

Under the agreement, the new language will be offered by the House to the Senate during the conference negotiations on the Wall Street reform package as early as tomorrow. It is expected to be debated and eventually accepted by the conference committee, subject to ratification by the Committee Chairmen, and become the final language regarding interchange fees. The conference committee hopes to finish its work on the bill this week and the House and Senate are expected to pass the final legislation before July 4th.

Summary of the modifications to the Durbin interchange amendment:

  • Government administered cards
The Senate-passed amendment would regulate the interchange fees associated with debit or prepaid cards issued by large banks on behalf of government-administered payment programs (e.g., unemployment insurance, TANF, child support).
The compromise exempts federal, state and local government program debit and prepaid cards from interchange regulation, provided that after a two-year grace period the prepaid cardholding beneficiaries are not charged any overdraft fees or fees for the first monthly in-network ATM withdrawal.
The Senate-passed amendment defined interchange transaction fees to include debit card fees that are established by a payment card network (e.g., Visa and MasterCard) and that accrue to either the card-issuing bank or to the network itself.
The compromise provides that the Fed cannot regulate network fees (i.e., the fees that Visa and MasterCard charge and that accrue to themselves) except to ensure that the fees are not used to circumvent interchange fee regulation. These changes are a different way of accomplishing the same goal of protecting consumers from loopholes which would allow banks to raise fees to cover any loss in interchange revenue.
  • Reloadable prepaid cards
The Senate-passed amendment would regulate the interchange fees associated with reloadable prepaid debit cards, which are in common use by consumers who lack bank accounts.
The compromise exempts these cards from interchange regulation, provided that after a two-year grace period the issuing bank must not charge cardholders any overdraft fees or fees for the first monthly in-network ATM withdrawal. The compromise is an attempt to protect the unbanked from being driven to payday lenders and other non-bank entities for their financial needs. It further ensures that fees won’t be charged on those who can least afford them.
  • Fraud prevention costs
The Senate-passed amendment did not permit consideration of fraud prevention costs in the calculation of reasonable and proportional interchange rates.
The compromise provides that the Fed can adjust the interchange fee rate received by a particular card-issuing bank if the bank demonstrates that the adjustment is reasonably necessary to cover fraud prevention costs incurred by the bank. In order to qualify for this adjustment, the bank would have to comply with standards established by the Fed that would demonstrate that the bank is taking effective steps to reduce fraud, and the bank would also have to show that the adjustment it seeks is limited to those reasonably necessary fraud prevention costs. This compromise provides competition where there is currently none. Banks will be incentivized to efficiently and effectively prevent fraud while competing to provide the best protection for the lowest cost. These changes will make the market more efficient and allow for savings to be passed on to consumers.
  • Discounting between card networks
The Senate-passed amendment provided that card networks could no longer prevent merchants from offering customers a discount to use one card network vs. another (e.g., a discount to use Visa vs. MasterCard), and that this discount would apply in both the credit card and debit card contexts.
This provision has been removed from the amendment.  In its place, the compromise includes a provision directing the Fed to issue rules preventing card networks from requiring that their debit cards can only be used on one debit card network (thereby ensuring that merchants will have the choice of at least two networks upon which to run debit transactions). This provision also provides additional competition to a previously non-competitive part of the market. It allows merchants to choose the debit network with the lowest cost the opposite of the current system where merchants are forced to use a specific network with fixed prices.
  • Discounting between forms of payment
The Senate-passed amendment provided that card networks cannot prevent merchants from offering a discount for one form of payment vs. another (cash vs. check vs. credit vs. debit). The compromise clarifies that these discounts cannot be offered if the discounts differentiate between card issuers or card networks.
The compromise further clarifies that the discount must be offered to all prospective buyers and disclosed clearly and conspicuously to the extent required by federal and applicable state law, though a network would not be permitted to penalize a merchant for a discount that is provided in compliance with federal and state law. This change simply clarifies the language in the Senate bill which allowed merchants the ability to offer discounts for one form of payment over another.
  • Setting of maximum/minimum transaction thresholds for use of a credit card
The Senate-passed amendment provided that card networks could not prevent merchants from setting a minimum or maximum dollar amount for payment by credit card.
The compromise provides that such a minimum may not exceed $10, with authority given to the Fed to increase that dollar amount. The compromise also limits the ability to set maximums for payment by credit card to the Federal government and colleges and universities. The compromise further clarifies the Senate language and establishes that a minimum payment not exceed $10, matching laws currently on the books in a number of states.
  • Non-discrimination between cards issued by different banks
The Senate-passed amendment did not change the existing prohibition in the operating rules of Visa and MasterCard against card issuer discrimination.
The compromise amendment contains a rule of construction affirmatively stating that nothing shall be construed to authorize any person to discriminate between debit cards or between credit cards on the basis of the issuer who issued the card.  This language further clarifies the Senate passed language regarding non-discrimination between card issuers.
  • Authority of the Federal Reserve Board vs. the Consumer Financial Protection Agency/Bureau
The Senate-passed amendment provided for regulatory authority under the amendment to migrate to the Consumer Financial Protection Agency/Bureau after the CFPA/B is established.
The compromise provides that regulatory authority under the amendment shall remain with the Fed.
  • Non-applicability to USDA nutrition assistance program EBT cards
The Senate-passed amendment was silent on the applicability of the amendment to USDA’s nutrition assistance programs in which interchange fees are not charged for electronic benefit transfer (EBT) transactions.
The compromise makes clear that nothing in the amendment shall apply to these nutrition assistance programs.

Durbin worked closely on these changes with House and Senate conferees including: Chairmen Dodd and Frank, Rep. Meeks, Rep. Maloney, Rep. Gutierrez and Rep. Welch.

Reference original blog post

Senate Approves Debit-Card Swipe-Fee Limits in Bill

Follow the Durbin Amendment in Congress Bill Summary & Status 111th Congress (2009 – 2010)
S.AMDT.3989

Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act affects recurring billing

Tuesday, July 6th, 2010

S. 3386: Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act targets two ecommerce problems. One problem is sending consumer card data to third parties after the sale, for the purpose of an additional sale from another company, typically for a recurring billing item. The second issue addresses opting out of recurring billing purchases made online. This article addresses the second part.

Excerpt from Text of S. 3386: Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act

(c) Limitations on Use of Negative Option Feature in Internet-Based Sales Transactions- It shall be unlawful for any person to charge or attempt to charge any consumer for any goods or services sold in a transaction effected on the Internet through a negative option feature, unless–

(1) before obtaining the purchaser’s initial agreement to participate in the negative option plan, the seller has clearly and conspicuously disclosed all material terms of the transaction, including–

(A) the name of the entity offering the goods or services;

(B) a description of the goods or services being offered;

(C) the cost of such goods or services;

(D) notice of when billing will begin and at what intervals the charges will occur; and

(E) the length of any trial period, including a statement that the consumer’s account will be charged unless the consumer takes affirmative action and the steps the consumer must take to the avoid the charge;

(2) the seller has obtained the express informed consent described in subsection (a)(2) from the purchaser before charging or attempting to charge the purchaser’s credit card, debit card, bank account, or other financial account on a recurring basis;

(3) the seller enables the purchaser to stop recurring charges from being made to the purchaser’s credit card, debit card, bank account, or other financial account through a simple process that is available via–

(A) the Internet; and

(B) telephone; and

(4) not less than 10 days prior to the initiation of each charge to a purchaser’s credit card, debit card, bank account, or other financial account, the seller has sent the purchaser an e-mail (at an e-mail account provided by the consumer) that clearly and conspicuously discloses–

(A) that a charge will be made to the consumer’s credit card, debit card, bank account, or other financial account;

(B) the amount of the charge and a description of the goods and services for which the consumer will be charged; and

(C) instructions for stopping recurring charges in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (3).

END EXCERPT

In my opinion, some form of this legislation is likely to be approved and merchants should prepare for it.

Here’s an example of a common business recurring billing charge:

Thank you for your payment. Here is your receipt as requested for YOURDOMAIN.com.

Please note that a payment made by credit card will show as paid to  ISP HOST COMPANY on your credit card statement.
Billing Address

YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS
Payment Information
Total Payment Amount: $8.57

Payment Method: MasterCard – CC#5XXXXXXXXXXX1234
Payment Date: 6/10/2010 Paid Through: 7/10/2010.
Plan Fee – 6/10/2010 to 7/10/2010 – $7.95
Domain [mydomain.com]
Account Billing can be accessed from www.ispdummyhost.com
Click on “Billing Admin” from the “Customer Admin/Billing” menu.

If you have any questions regarding this receipt or have billing questions in general, please send an email to service@ispdummyhostingcompany.com.

ISP HOST COMPANY

1234 holiday lane.
Anywhere USA AZ 12345
1-888*123-1234

If legislation is approved:

The biller will need to notify the customer 10 days in advance instead of just sending a receipt for the purchase. This means TWO emails will need to be generated. One before the sale and one after with the receipt.

Additionally, some language changes may be needed to be perfectly clear:

BILLING CYCLE: MONTHLY
BILLING DATE: 10th of month
CANCELLATION: To cancel your service, please login to your account or call 888*888*8888.
Account Billing can be accessed from www.isphost.com
Click on “Billing Admin” from the “Customer Admin/Billing” menu.

If you have any questions regarding this receipt or have billing questions in general, please send an email to customerservice@isphostingcompany.com.

Article reference:

Rockefeller Introduces Bill to Ban Misleading Internet Sales Practices Uncovered By E-Commerce Investigation

Restore Online Shoppers Confidence Act

Rockefeller Introduces Bill to Ban Misleading Internet Sales Practices Uncovered By E-Commerce Investigation

Wednesday, May 19th, 2010

WASHINGTON, DC  Senator John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV, Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, today introduced legislation, the Restore Online Shoppers Confidence Act, to end the deceptive online sales tactics which have been the subject of a year-long Commerce Committee investigation.

Chairman Rockefeller’s bill comes on the heels of a new Commerce Committee staff report the second of two reports which shows how Affinion, Vertrue, and Webloyalty  the companies that used aggressive sales tactics to enroll online consumers in services without their consent developed policies designed to prevent online consumers from getting their money back when they called to question the mystery charges on their credit and debit cards.

Tricking consumers into buying goods and services they do not want is completely unacceptable. It’s not ethical, it’s not right, and it is not the way business should be done in America. Our investigation uncovered these misleading practices and, as a result, these companies have been forced to change their ways. That’s good for the millions of Americans who shop online, and it’s the kind of work I will continue to do as Chairman of the Commerce Committee. The bill I’m introducing today will ban these deceptive online sales practices once and for all,” Chairman Rockefeller said.

The first staff report, released in November 2009, revealed how Affinion, Vertue, and Webloyalty used a set of online sales tactics to charge millions of consumers for membership clubs and services the consumers did not want and were unaware they had purchased. The report found that these companies bilked millions of Americans out of more than one billion dollars by partnering with hundreds of legitimate websites that were willing to share their customers billing information, including credit and debit card numbers, for financial gain. More information can be found here.

The new Commerce Committee staff report shows what happened when consumers called Affinion, Vertrue, and Webloyalty to get their money back for the services they were unknowingly charged for. Findings of the new report include:

  • Refund Mitigation: In a practice known as refund mitigation, the three companies created scripts and policies intended to minimize the amount of money they would have to return to consumers who had inadvertently enrolled in the clubs. For consumers who insisted on refunds, the companies employed a variety of tactics to keep the refund amounts as small as possible, including requiring customers to obtain refunds by completing written affidavits.
  • Magic Words: Each company instructed their call center representatives not to issue refunds to consumers, unless the consumers mentioned certain key words like attorney general, Better Business Bureau, or bank representative. These policies were designed to satisfy those consumers who were most likely to create additional customer noise problems and reputational damage for the companies. Consumers who did not mention the magic words did not receive full refunds.
  • Multiple Memberships: Because they could encounter the aggressive sales tactics of Affinion, Vertrue, and Webloyalty while shopping on hundreds of different websites, online shoppers were frequently enrolled inadvertently in multiple membership clubs offered by the same company. Consequently, many customers who called Affinion, Vertrue, and Webloyalty to cancel one membership and request a refund were actually enrolled in more than one of the companies clubs. Webloyalty and Vertrue trained their agents not to inform consumers about these additional memberships.
  • Failure to Follow Credit Card Rules: Affinion, Vertrue, and Webloyalty violated MasterCard and Visa’s rules for credit card and debit card transactions and American Express placed the companies in monitoring programs for merchants with high rates of disputed charges from cardholders (known as chargebacks). Between 2006 and 2008, the three largest credit card companies processed 1.4 million chargeback requests and over 10 million refunds, totaling hundreds of millions of dollars, from cardholders disputing charges from Affinion, Vertrue, and Webloyalty. Despite these rule violations and the high volume of consumer complaints, the three companies enjoyed uninterrupted access to the payment systems operated by Visa, MasterCard, and American Express until late 2009. Once Chairman Rockefeller notified the credit card companies of the aggressive online sales tactics in December 2009, the companies quickly took action to ensure that Affinion, Vertrue, Webloyalty, and their e-commerce partners were in compliance with their rules for merchants and that their cardholders were no longer subject to the misleading data pass process.

Chairman Rockefeller’s bill will help put an end to the deceptive online sales tactics uncovered by the Commerce Committee’s landmark E-commerce investigation. The bill is sponsored by Senators Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) and George LeMieux (R-Fla.). Chairman Rockefeller’s bill will protect online shoppers by:

  • Prohibiting companies like Affinion, Vertrue, and Webloyalty from using misleading post-transaction advertisements by requiring them to clearly disclose the terms of the offers to consumers, and to obtain consumers billing information, including full credit or debit card numbers, directly from the consumers.
  • Prohibiting Internet retailers and other commercial websites (“initial merchants) from transferring a consumer’s billing information, including credit and debit card numbers, to post-transaction third party sellers, like Affinion, Vertrue, and Webloyalty.
  • Requiring companies that use negative options on the Internet to meet certain minimum disclosure and enrollment requirements, so consumers will not end up paying recurring fees for goods and services they did not intend to purchase.

###