June 10, 1999
Minnesota Attorney General Accuses
U.S. Bancorp of Illegal Sales of Data
By JOSEPH B. CAHILL
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
The Minnesota attorney general accused U.S. Bancorp of illegally selling
information on hundreds of thousands of customers to a telemarketing
partner, just days after the U.S. comptroller of the currency blasted banks
generally for such practices.
The lawsuit, filed in a Minnesota federal court Wednesday, charges U.S.
Bancorp, Minneapolis, with violating the federal Fair Credit Reporting
Act,
as well as state consumer-fraud and deceptive-advertising laws. Attorney
General Michael Hatch contends that the bank broke the federal law when
it provided a range of information on its customers to a telemarketing
firm
and then committed fraud and false advertising when it told customers in
account agreements that it would keep such information confidential.
A spokesman for U.S. Bancorp called the
charges false and said the company would
"vigorously defend" itself.
The case against the nation's 13th-largest bank marks the first time a
major
bank has been charged with such violations in providing customer data to
telemarketing firms, a growing practice in the banking industry. As margins
shrink and growth slows in traditional lending, banks have come to view
their massive customer lists as potential profit centers. Many banks,
including Citigroup's Citibank unit, Bank One Corp. and Wells Fargo &
Co., provide telemarketers access to customer information in exchange for
commissions or other compensation.
But the practice collides with increasing concerns about privacy in the
information age. While banks are permitted to sell customer names and
other basic data to telemarketers, certain information is protected by
federal law. Earlier this week, John D. Hawke, comptroller of the
currency, called the sale of customer data to telemarketers "seamy" and
legally questionable. The controversy is reaching a boil just as Congress
considers financial-reform legislation, raising the possibility that lawmakers
may restrict a practice the industry hasn't aggressively policed on its
own.
Telemarketing ventures, hawking everything from discount-dental plans to
credit insurance, also expose banks to potential liability for the actions
of
marketing firms over whom they have little control. For example, Mr.
Hatch said in an interview that most of the 1,000 U.S. Bancorp customers
surveyed by his office told investigators they hadn't agreed to purchase
the
discount-club memberships and other products that were charged to their
accounts.
"They got slammed," Mr. Hatch said, using a term that describes some
long-distance telephone companies' practice of shifting customers'
accounts without their knowledge. Separate charges relating to the alleged
"slamming" may be added to the complaint or may be filed in a separate
action, he said.
The U.S. Bancorp spokesman said the company records all telemarketing
calls to verify a customer's acceptance of the offer, and routinely refunds
money to people who complain of unauthorized charges.
U.S. Bancorp didn't deny receiving commissions on the sales of products
by its marketing partner, Member Works Inc. That company wasn't
charged in the complaint. The U.S. Bancorp spokesman asserted the bank
didn't actually sell the customer data, but used it together with Member
Works to identify prospects and decide what products to offer them.
The attorney general alleges that the bank broke the Fair Credit Reporting
Act when it sold customer data derived from outside sources, such as
credit bureaus, to telemarketers. The complaint also charges that U.S.
Bancorp let Member Works automatically withdraw funds from checking
accounts without written permission from the customer, as required by
federal banking regulations. The company spokesman contended that the
regulation doesn't apply to the transactions in question.
If proven, the violations carry stiff penalties, $1,000 per customer in
the
case of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Assistant Attorney General David
Ramp said "half a million" customers were affected, suggesting a potential
fine in the hundreds of millions of dollars.