|Dan Lanciani wrote: |> snipped-for-privacy@wizinfo.com (Dave Garland) wrote: |> |Credit bureaus sell |> |information about you... Make them liable for damages if you are harmed in |> |any way by their sale of untrue information. |> |> While I certainly have no objection to such a rule, it does nothing |> to help the "identify theft" problem where the credit bureau provides |> true information about the victim... | |The "theft" problem is more properly a problem of negligence in |properly identifying someone when issuing them credit.
Yes, of course. And given the current structure the simplest solution is credit inquiry locks.
|So the perp claims he's you, runs up big bills, and doesn't pay them. | |That's really not much of a problem for you, until the credit bureau |starts telling people it was you who ran up the bills, thus affecting |your credit.
It's a problem for you when the people who think you borrowed money from them try to recover. They often have lawyers who know how to use the court system to get judgements.
|If they were liable for the truthfulness of the |information, you'd have recourse.
You would not have recourse for the harm caused by the debt which is now in your name.
|(They could, of course, contract |with businesses who report to them, that those business would |reimburse them for any claims due to the falsehood of the reports.) |Say, for your losses because you could not get telephone service.
In between arguing with the creditors who think you owe them money you can argue with the credit bureaus' lawyers about the actual losses caused by your inability to get telephone service. And of course, both are going to demand that you prove that it was not in fact you who did run up the bills. I'd rather just prevent the problem in the first place. Consumer "recourse" is vastly overrated.
Dan Lanciani ddl@danlan.*com