FTC Offers Businesses Tips for Dealing with Medical Identity Theft

For Your Information

 The Federal Trade Commission, the nation’s consumer protection agency, has information for health care providers and insurers about how to help patients minimize the risk of medical identity theft and deal with the consequences if they become victims of it.  Here are the highlights of the FTC’s new publication, Medical Identity Theft FAQs for Health Care Providers and Health Plans: 

  • How would people know if they’re victims of medical identity theft?  They could be billed for medical services they didn’t receive, contacted by a debt collector about a medical debt they don’t owe, see medical collection notices on their credit report that they don’t recognize, be told by their health plan that they’ve reached their limit on benefits, or be denied insurance because their medical records show a condition they don’t have.
  • What should health care providers and insurers do if they learn that a patient may be the victim of medical identity theft?  They should conduct an investigation, understand their obligations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, review their data security practices, and provide any necessary notifications that a data breach has occurred.
  • What should health care providers and insurers tell a patient who is the victim of medical identity theft?  They should:
    • advise victims to take advantage of their rights under the HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) Privacy Rule.
    •  encourage victims or potential victims to notify their health plans.
    • tell victims to file a complaint with the FTC at www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov or by phone at 1-877-ID-THEFT (1-877-438-4338); TTY: 1-866-653-4261; and to check out the information at www.ftc.gov/idtheft
    • encourage victims to file a report with local police, and send copies of the report to their health plan’s fraud department, their health care provider(s), and the three nationwide credit reporting companies – Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion.  Information on how to file a police report and reach the credit reporting companies is at www.ftc.gov/idtheft/consumers/defend.html.
    • encourage patients to look for signs of other misuses of their personal information by reviewing their credit reports.  The law requires each of three major nationwide credit reporting companies to give people a free copy of their credit report each year if they ask for it at www.AnnualCreditReport.com or 1-877-322-8228.  If they find inaccurate or fraudulent information, they can visit www.ftc.gov/idtheft to learn how to get it corrected or removed.
  • How can health care providers and insurers help patients deter, detect, and defend against medical identity theft?  They can order copies of the FTC’s consumer brochure, Medical Identity Theft in English or Spanish and make them available to patients.  Bulk copies are available at http://bulkorder.ftc.gov.  Health care providers and insurers can link to it, copy it, or adapt it for their websites or newsletters.

The FTC works to prevent fraudulent, deceptive and unfair business practices in the marketplace and to provide information to help consumers spot, stop, and avoid them.   To file a complaint or get free information on consumer issues, visit ftc.gov or call toll-free, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357); TTY: 1-866-653-4261.  Watch a new video, How to File a Complaint, at ftc.gov/video to learn more.  The FTC enters consumer complaints into the Consumer Sentinel Network, a secure online database and investigative tool used by more than 1,800 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad.

(FYI medical identity theft) 

Contact Information

MEDIA CONTACT:
Office of Public Affairs
202-326-2180

FTC Approves Final Order Settling Charges That Dannon Made Deceptive Claims for Activia Yogurt and DanActive Dairy Drink

Following a public comment period, the Federal Trade Commission finalized the Order settling charges that The Dannon Company, Inc. exaggerated the health benefits of its Activia yogurt and DanActive dairy drink, two popular products that contain beneficial bacteria known as probiotics.

Under the proposed administrative settlement announced in December, Dannon agreed to stop claiming that Activia relieves temporary irregularity, unless the representation is non-misleading and the ad conveys that eating three servings a day is required to obtain the benefit, or unless Dannon has competent and reliable scientific evidence that the benefit can be achieved from eating less than three servings a day.

Dannon also agreed to stop claiming that DanActive or any yogurt, dairy drink, or probiotic food helps people avoid catching colds or the flu, unless the claim is approved by the Food and Drug Administration.  Although companies usually do not need FDA approval of their health claims to comply with the FTC Act, the FTC determined in this case that requiring such approval will give Dannon clearer guidance going forward and help ensure that the company complies with the order.

The Commission vote approving the final Order was 5-0.  (FTC File No. 082-3158; the staff contact is Shira Modell, Bureau of Consumer Protection, 202-326-3116.)

Copies of the documents mentioned in this release are available from the FTC’s website at http://www.ftc.gov and from the FTC’s Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580.  Call toll-free: 1-877-FTC-HELP.

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,800 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics.

Credit Report Resellers Settle FTC Charges; Security Failures Allowed Hackers to Access Consumers’ Personal Information

As part of the Federal Trade Commission’s ongoing campaign to protect consumers’ personal information, three companies whose business is reselling consumers’ credit reports have agreed to settle FTC charges that they did not take reasonable steps to protect consumers’ personal information, failures that allowed computer hackers to access that data. The settlements require the companies to strengthen their data security procedures and submit to audits for 20 years. These are the FTC’s first cases against credit report resellers for their clients’ data security failures.

“These cases should send a strong message that companies giving their clients online access to sensitive consumer information must have reasonable procedures to secure it,” said David Vladeck, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “Had these three companies taken adequate steps to ensure the use of basic computer security measures, they might have foiled the hackers who wound up gaining access to extensive personal information in the consumer reporting system.”

According to administrative complaints issued by the FTC, the three resellers buy credit reports from the three nationwide consumer reporting agencies (Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion) and combine them into special reports they sell to mortgage brokers and others to determine consumers’ eligibility for credit. Due to their lack of information security policies and procedures, the companies allegedly allowed clients without basic security measures, such as firewalls and updated antivirus software, to access their reports. As a result, hackers accessed more than 1,800 credit reports without authorization via the clients’ computer networks. In addition, even after becoming aware of the data breaches, the companies did not make reasonable efforts to protect against future breaches.

The resellers are SettlementOne Credit Corporation and its parent company, Sackett National Holdings Inc.; ACRAnet Inc.; Fajilan and Associates Inc., doing business as Statewide Credit Services; and Robert Fajilan. They are charged with violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to protect their internet portals and thereby furnishing credit reports to hackers who lacked a permissible purpose to have them, failing to maintain reasonable procedures to limit the furnishing of credit reports for such purposes, and furnishing credit reports when they had reasonable grounds for believing the reports would not be used for a permissible purpose. Their failure to protect consumers’ personal information also allegedly violated the FTC Act.

In addition, the resellers allegedly violated the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Safeguards Rule by failing to design and implement information safeguards to control the risks to consumer information; to regularly test or monitor the effectiveness of their controls and procedures; to evaluate and adjust their information security programs in light of known or identified risks; and to have comprehensive information security programs.

The proposed consent orders bar the respondents from violating the Safeguards Rule and require them to:

  • have comprehensive information security programs designed to protect the security, confidentiality, and integrity of consumers’ personal information, including information accessible to clients;
  • obtain independent audits of their security programs, every other year for 20 years;
  • furnish credit reports only to those with a permissible purpose; and
  • maintain reasonable procedures to limit the furnishing of credit reports to those with a permissible purpose.

The orders also contain record-keeping provisions to allow the FTC to monitor compliance.

The Commission vote to issue the three administrative complaints and to accept the consent agreement packages containing the proposed consent orders for public comment was 5-0. Commissioner Julie Brill, joined by Chairman Jon Leibowitz and Commissioners J. Thomas Rosch and Edith Ramirez, issued a statement emphasizing that “in the future we will call for imposition of civil penalties against resellers of consumer reports who do not take adequate measures to fulfill their obligations to protect information contained in consumer reports, as required by the Fair Credit Reporting Act.”

The FTC will publish a description of the consent agreement packages in the Federal Register shortly. The agreements will be subject to public comment for 30 days, beginning today and continuing through March 7, after which the Commission will decide whether to make the proposed consent orders final. Interested parties can submit written comments electronically or in paper form by following the instructions in the Invitation To Comment part of the “Supplementary Information” section. Comments in electronic form should be submitted using these Web links (https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/settlementone,
https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/acranet, https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/statewide) and following the instructions on the web-based form. Comments in paper form should be mailed or delivered to: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H-113 (Annex D), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. The FTC is requesting that any comment filed in paper form near the end of the public comment period be sent by courier or overnight service, if possible, because U.S. postal mail in the Washington area and at the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security precautions.

Click here for information about what consumers can do if their personal information has been compromised, and here for tips for protecting personal information.

NOTE: The Commission issues an administrative complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The complaint is not a finding or ruling that the respondent has actually violated the law. A consent agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the respondent that the law has been violated. When the Commission issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of law with respect to future actions. Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of up to $16,000.

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,800 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics.

(FTC File Nos. 0823208, 0923088, 0923089)
(SettlementOne, ACRAnet, Statewide Credit Services)

FTC Offers Consumer Tips for Valentine’s Day

For consumers who are searching for love or already in a relationship, the Federal Trade Commission, the nation’s consumer protection agency, has information that may be particularly handy around Valentine’s Day.

Looking for love online?
Millions of Americans use online dating and social networking sites to meet people. But scammers also use these sites.  They look for targets of any age and in any location, whom they can convince to send money in the name of love.  The FTC encourages people active on dating sites to use their heads as well as their hearts, and to learn more about how to spot the signs of an online dating scam.

Sending flowers?
Flowers can say “I’m thinking of you” on Valentine’s Day, and your local florist is likely just a phone call away.  Or so you might think.  But some unscrupulous telemarketing firms pose as local florists, charging unsuspecting customers higher fees and taking business away from legitimate local businesses.  Consumers shopping for flowers around February 14 – or any time – should consider the consequences of dealing with a business in an undisclosed location and beware of hidden costs.

Checking Your Financial Compatibility?
Couples should never underestimate the importance of having a compatible approach to managing their finances.  They can test their “fiscal attraction” with this timely quiz.

The FTC works to prevent fraudulent, deceptive and unfair business practices in the marketplace and to provide information to help consumers spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint or get free information on consumer issues, visit ftc.gov or call toll-free, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357); TTY: 1-866-653-4261. Watch a new video, How to File a Complaint, at ftc.gov/video to learn more. The FTC enters consumer complaints into the Consumer Sentinel Network, a secure online database and investigative tool used by more than 1,800 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad.

Immigration Scam Shut Down by FTC

At the request of the Federal Trade Commission, a federal judge has shut down an operation that allegedly posed as the U.S. government, then duped consumers into paying fees ranging from $200 to $2,500 by claiming the fees would cover processing by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. The court froze the defendants’ assets and appointed a receiver to take over the business until the case is resolved. The FTC has asked the court to halt the business practices permanently and order the operation to repay its victims.

The real U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS), a division of the Department of Homeland Security, offers advice and counseling to immigrants in the United States and people seeking to immigrate to the United States. USCIS provides application forms for such benefits as green card renewal, work visas, and applications for asylum. The application forms are free but can cost hundreds or thousands of dollars to process.

According to the FTC, defendants Immigration Center and Immigration Forms and Publications, Inc., set up websites that mimic official government sites, and then used the fake sites to steer immigrants to their deceptive telemarketing operation. The websites depicted American eagles, the U.S. flag, and the Statue of Liberty and had URLs such as www.uscis-ins.us and www.usgovernmenthelpline.com. The sites directed consumers to call a toll-free number that an automated voice answered, “Immigration Center.” Consumers were then transferred to a live person who answered, “USCIS or “U.S. Immigration Center,” and identified him or herself as an “agent,” “immigration officer,” or “caseworker.” The sites also offered counseling and application forms. The counseling was done by telemarketers who did not meet legal requirements to provide immigration services, the FTC said.

Adding to the consumers’ confusion, the FTC alleged, the defendants charged fees for application forms that were the same amount as the government processing fees, leading them to believe the fees covered the cost of USCIS processing. Some consumers who applied for the forms were told to send checks by overnight mail to cover the costs. Others paid with checks or money orders on delivery. Consumers ended up paying for applications that were never processed by the USCIS for failure to pay the official processing fee, or, in some cases, they were charged twice, once by the defendants and once by the government after the defendant forwarded their bank account information to USCIS.

The FTC charged the defendants with violating federal law by misrepresenting:

  • that they were authorized to provide immigration and naturalization services;
  • that they were affiliated with the U.S. government; and
  • that the fees paid by consumers would cover all the costs associated with submitting immigration documents to the USCIS.

In addition, two of the defendants were charged with providing the others with the means and instrumentalities to further the illegal scheme.

The correct website of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service is www.uscis.gov.

The defendants named in the case are Immigration Center; Immigration Forms and Publications, Inc; Charles Doucette, individually and doing business as Telestaffing; Immigration Forms and Services and Immigration Form Processing; Deborah Stilson aka Deborah Malmstrom; Alfred Boyce; Thomas Strawbridge; Robin Meredith; Thomas Lawrence; and Elizabeth Meredith.

The Commission vote authorizing staff to file the complaint was 5-0. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.

The FTC wishes to acknowledge the invaluable assistance in this matter by the Department of Homeland Security; the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Office of the Attorney General of Colorado; Office of the Attorney General of Missouri; Office of the Attorney General of Nevada; the Pettis County, Missouri Sheriff’s Office; the Department of Justice and Executive Office for Immigration Review; and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service.

NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendant has actually violated the law. The case will be decided by the court.

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,800 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics.

Operator of Deceptive “Scareware” Scheme Will Pay More than $8 Million to Settle FTC Charges

An operator of an online “scareware” scheme will pay more than $8 million to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that he used deceptive ads to trick consumers into thinking their computers were infected with malicious software, and then sold them software to “fix” their non-existent problem.

As part of the FTC’s ongoing efforts to protect consumers from online scams, the agency cracked down on the scareware operation, filing a complaint against seven defendants who allegedly operated the scheme in 2008. The agency charged that the defendants did business using the company names Innovative Marketing, Inc. and ByteHosting Internet Services, LLC, operated using a variety of aliases, and maintained offices in various countries.

The defendant whose settlement was announced today will be required to turn over $8 million in ill-gotten gains so it can be used to reimburse victims of the scam and will be barred from the deceptive practices

In December 2008, at the request of the FTC, a U.S. district court ordered a halt to the massive scheme. According to the FTC’s complaint, the defendants falsely claimed that scans had detected viruses, spyware, and illegal pornography on consumers’ computers. The FTC alleged that the defendants conned more than one million consumers into buying their software products such as Winfixer, Drive Cleaner and Antivirus XP to remove the malware the bogus scans had supposedly detected.

The FTC charged that the defendants used elaborate and technologically sophisticated Internet advertisements that they placed with advertising networks and many popular commercial websites. These ads displayed to consumers a “system scan” that invariably detected a host of malicious or otherwise dangerous files and programs on consumers’ computers. The bogus “scans” would then urge consumers to buy the defendants’ software for $40 to $60 to clean off the malware.

Under the proposed settlement order, Marc D’Souza and his father, Maurice D’Souza,
will give up $8.2 million in ill-gotten gains. The FTC alleged that Marc D’Souza was one of the key defendants behind the scam. It charged Maurice D’Souza as a relief defendant who did not participate in the scam, but allegedly profited from it. The order bans Marc D’Souza from any involvement with software that interferes with consumers’ computers. It also bars him from:

  • making deceptive claims in connection with computer security software;
  • using domain names registered with false information; and
  • misrepresenting that he is authorized to act on behalf of third parties.

The FTC wishes to thank the Canadian Competition Bureau for its invaluable assistance in this matter.

The Commission vote to accept the proposed settlement was 5-0. The settlement was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. Two other defendants – one individual and one company – previously settled the charges against them. The FTC obtained default judgments against three other defendants. Litigation will continue against the sole remaining defendant in the case, Kristy Ross.

NOTE: This stipulated final order is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the defendants of a law violation. Stipulated final orders have the force of law when signed by the judge.

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,800 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s website provides free information on a variety of consumer topics.

(FTC File No. X090017)

Court Freezes Assets of Massive Internet Enterprise in Alleged Billing Scheme

At the request of the Federal Trade Commission, a federal court has frozen the assets of corporations and an individual behind a far-reaching Internet enterprise that allegedly made more than $275 million by luring consumers into deceptive “trial” memberships, and bogus government-grant and money-making schemes.

The court froze the assets of 61 corporations (collectively known as “I Works”) and their alleged ringleader, Jeremy Johnson. It placed these defendants’ assets under the control of a court-supervised receiver to help ensure that funds are available for consumer restitution when the case is concluded. In December 2010, the FTC alleged that I Works lured consumers into “trial” memberships for bogus government-grant and money-making schemes, and then repeatedly charged monthly fees for these and other memberships the consumers never ordered.

According to the FTC’s complaint, the operation used websites that pitch various money-making programs or tout the availability of government grants to pay personal expenses. The websites offer “free” information at no risk and ask consumers to provide their credit or debit card numbers to pay a small shipping and handling fee such as $1.99. But when consumers provide their billing information, I Works charges them a hefty one-time fee of up to $129.95 and monthly recurring fees of up to $59.95 for the advertised programs, and other monthly fees for unrelated programs.

The FTC’s complaint alleges that this scheme has caused more than 500,000 consumers to seek chargebacks – reversals of charges to their credit cards or debits to their bank accounts. The high number of chargebacks landed the defendants in VISA’s and MasterCard’s chargeback monitoring programs, resulted in millions of dollars in fines for excessive chargebacks, and prevented the defendants from getting access to the credit card and debit card billing systems using their own names. To keep the scam going, the defendants tricked banks into giving them continued access to these billing systems by creating 51 shell companies with figurehead officers, and by providing the banks with phony “clean” versions of their websites.

According to the FTC, the defendants, which include the 61 corporations, Johnson, and nine other individuals, violated the FTC Act by misrepresenting that government grants are available for paying personal expenses, that consumers are likely to obtain grants by using the defendants’ program, that users of their money-making products will earn substantial income, and that their offers are free or risk-free. The complaint also alleges that they failed to disclose that consumers who pay a nominal shipping and handling fee would be enrolled in expensive plans that charge fees until consumers cancel, and that they charged consumers’ credit cards and debited their bank accounts without their consent.

The FTC further alleges that the defendants’ websites featured deceptive positive reviews and deceptive testimonials that misrepresented the benefits of their grant services. The FTC also alleges that they violated the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E by debiting consumers’ bank accounts without their signed written consent and without providing consumers with a copy of the written authorization.

The defendants are listed here.

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them.  To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357).  The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,800 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad.  The FTC’s website provides free information on a variety of consumer topics.

(FTC File No. 1023015)
(I Works)

FTC Forum in May 2011 Will Examine Ways to Protect Consumers From “Cramming” of Unauthorized Charges on Their Phone Bills

The Federal Trade Commission will host a forum on May 11, 2011, in Washington, DC, examining how the government, businesses, and consumer protection organizations can work together to prevent consumers from being hit with unauthorized third-party charges on their phone bills, a practice known as “cramming.”

The FTC brings law enforcement actions against companies engaged in billing consumers for goods or services they never ordered or wanted.  For example, in September, 2010, at the FTC’s request, a District Court shut down a company engaged in unauthorized cramming of charges for Internet services and required defendants to pay $38 million in restitution. Cramming, however, continues to harm individuals and small businesses. The FTC is holding this forum to determine what more can be done to prevent it.

The forum will be held at the FTC’s satellite building conference center, located at 601 New Jersey Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.  It will be open to the public.

Government agencies, consumer advocates, and industry representatives are invited to participate in the forum to discuss ways to reduce cramming through business practices, law enforcement and possible legislation. Participants will be asked to take up specific ideas such as allowing consumers to request a block on all third-party billing, and requiring third parties to get written approval from consumers before placing charges on their phone bills.

Other issues forum participants will discuss include:

  • how telephone bill cramming harms individual consumers and small businesses;
  • how consumers and competition can benefit from third-party billing on telephone bills for products and services such as voicemail, developing or hosting websites, or other enhanced services;
  • the steps that billing companies and telephone carriers currently take to detect, monitor, and prevent cramming;
  • best practices being used by the industry to reduce cramming, such as improving disclosure of third-party charges to consumers; and
  • the types of goods and services charged on telephone bills, and the difference between landline and wireless billing practices.

The FTC invites interested parties to submit requests to be panelists by sending an e-mail to crammingforum{at}ftc{dot}gov by March 4, 2011.  Requests should include a statement detailing any relevant expertise in working on or studying cramming, especially the topics specified above, and complete contact information.  Panelists selected to participate will be notified by April 8, 2011.

The FTC also invites those interested to submit comments online on any of the topics mentioned above.

FTC Extends Deadline for Comments on Privacy Report Until February 18

For Your Information

The Federal Trade Commission has extended the deadline for the public to submit comments on a preliminary staff report issued on December 1, 2010, “Protecting Consumer Privacy in an Era of Rapid Change: a Proposed Framework for Businesses and Policy Makers.” The Commission extended the original January 31 deadline until February 18 to encourage full participation by all stakeholders.

The preliminary staff report proposes a framework that promotes privacy, transparency, business innovation and consumer choice. In the report, FTC staff set forth a number of questions for public comment (available at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2010/12/101201privacyrptapxa.pdf).

Citing the nature and complexity of the questions and issues raised in the report, a number of organizations requested an extension of the comment deadline.

The Commission vote to extend the deadline was 5 – 0.

A copy of the report is available at http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2010/12/privacyreport.shtm. To file a public comment electronically, please click here and follow the instructions.

(FYI 2.2011.wpd)

Contact Information

MEDIA CONTACT:
Office of Public Affairs
202-326-2180

FTC Staff Questions Rules Proposed by North Carolina Board of Opticians That Would Restrict Retail Sales of Contact Lenses and Eyeglasses

The staff of the Federal Trade Commission sent comments to the North Carolina Board of Opticians explaining that the Board’s proposal to restrict the sale of contact lenses, eyeglasses, and other optical goods in the state is likely to raise costs to consumers unnecessarily. The comments also state that the proposal appears to conflict with the federal Fairness to Contact Lens Consumers Act and the FTC’s Contact Lens and Eyeglass Rules, both of which protect consumers’ ability to get their eye prescriptions promptly and at no charge so they can comparison shop for eyeglasses or contact lenses.

Several provisions of the Proposed Rule raise competitive concerns, the comments state, including sections that would:

  • redefine contact lens and eyeglass prescriptions so that opticians would not have to give consumers the measurements needed to fill their prescriptions;
  • impose new requirements on Internet sellers that do not apply to brick-and-mortar stores; and
  • impose new requirements on some out-of-state sellers that are not imposed on sellers located in North Carolina.

According to the comments by the staff, those provisions are likely to restrict competition among optical goods providers in North Carolina – especially those that sell replacement contact lenses on the Internet. Because of this, the provisions may increase prices and decrease consumer access to these products. Staff suggests that the Board seriously consider whether there are consumer benefits that outweigh the costs likely to be imposed by the new, more restrictive regulations. To date, the comment states, there is no evidence of such a health or safety rationale.

The Commission vote approving the staff comments was 4-0-1, with Commissioner Julie Brill recused. The comments were sent to the North Carolina Board of Opticians on January 13, 2011. Copies of the comment can be found now on the FTC’s website and as a link to this press release. (FTC File No. V110002; the staff contact is Daniel J. Gilman, Office of Policy Planning, 202-326-3136.)

Copies of the documents mentioned in this release are available from the FTC’s website at http://www.ftc.gov and from the FTC’s Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. Call toll-free: 1-877-FTC-HELP.

(FYI 2.2011.wpd)