The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (the “Bureau”) has issued an interim final rule tied to passage of S. 2155.  While the new law amends the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) to include new requirements on credit bureaus tied to security freezes and fraud alerts, relevant to background screeners and employers using a background screening company for pre-employment background checks is the fact that the interim final rule includes an updated version of the model FCRA summary of rights document.

Effective September 21, 2018, new section 605A(i) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), added by the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (S. 2155 or the “Act”), requires that a new notice of rights be included whenever a consumer is required to receive a summary of rights required by FCRA section 609.

Some of you have already begun your efforts to come into compliance with the notice requirement under the Act since the effective date is next week.  According to the Bureau, “to mitigate the impact of these changes on users of the existing model forms, the interim final rule also provides that the Bureau will regard the use of the model forms published in Appendices I and K on November 14, 2012, to constitute compliance with the FCRA provisions requiring such forms, so long as a separate page that contains the additional required information is provided in the same transmittal.”

In addition to adding the new required notice under the Act, the revised model FCRA summary of rights document also includes revised language related to the duration period of fraud alerts as well as updated contact information for the listed enforcement agencies.

The updated model form, A Summary of Your Rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, is found on pages 28-31 of the interim final rule.

If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at montserrat.miller@agg.com.

Here’s a sneak peek at this week’s Compliance News Flash from AGG:

  • The California Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act, which is relevant to California employers and their background screening process.
  • Still in California, a new law on its way to the Governor for signature will require software updates for certain consumer reporting agencies.
  • Employers note for purposes of the Form I-9 that the federal government has again auto-extended the work authorization period for Salvadorans and Haitians under the Temporary Protected Status program.
  • Another write-up about the new notice requirement under the Fair Credit Reporting Act related to security freezes.

Click here to read it.

Check out the latest Compliance News Flash with blurbs about:

  • The Justice Department’s recent settlement with the country’s largest egg producer related to violations of the anti-discrimination laws during the employment eligibility verification process.
  • A new requirement on consumer reporting agencies to provide specific language to a consumer requesting a file disclosure under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
  • California legal protections for employees who seek to change their name and/or social security number after they legalize their immigration status.
  • Processors and Privacy Shield.
  • Brazil’s new data protection law.

Click here to read the Compliance News Flash.

Check out this week’s edition of the Compliance News Flash which includes blurbs about:

  • The increase in ICE workplace investigations, including around the Form I-9 and issuance of Notices of Inspection.
  • California’s Consumer Privacy Act and application to your company.
  • The future of the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield pact for cross-border transfers of personal data.
  • NAPBS annual survey on employment background checks.

Click here to read the News Flash.

On June 28, 2018, the California governor signed AB 375, the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (“the CCPA” or “Act”), intended to protect the private data of consumers and effectively pushing down some of the toughest consumer privacy protections in the country. The CCPA contains sweeping new consumer privacy requirements and has significant implications for entities doing business in California. Although the new requirements do not go into effect until January 1, 2020, businesses should begin to prepare now to ensure that they will be in compliance with the new state law.

Click here to read the alert my colleague Brad and I prepared.

Read the latest Compliance News Flash by clicking here.  Topics covered in the News Flash include:

  • Ongoing workplace investigations by Homeland Security regarding employers’ workforce;
  • The U.S. Supreme Court;
  • Tips for pre-employment screening of new hires and employees; and
  • Discrimination settlements related to the employment eligibility verification form (aka the Form I-9).

Any compliance related questions?  Please contact me at montserrat.miller@agg.com.

Have a safe and happy 4th of July!

Check out the latest compliance updates in the Compliance News Flash, which includes quick updates on:

  • The Connor v. First Student case in California and the constitutionality of ICRAA and CCRAA, applicable to employment and tenancy screening.
  • The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, now the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection and new leadership.
  • Massachusetts and Ban the Box enforcement actions.
  • An upcoming webinar by my colleagues Kevin Coy and Brad Kelley called The Cybersecurity Landscape: Regulatory Issues for CRAs on June 27, 2018.
  • The Hireright and GIS merger.

Happy Reading!

Recently I was interviewed by Brian Cardile, an editor at the Daily Journal, a legal newspaper in California, and host of a weekly podcast covering appellate law cases and issues.

The topic was Connor v. First Student, a case pending before the California Supreme Court which is vitally important to employers, landlords and background screening vendors in how background checks are conducted in California. Below is the introduction to the podcast:

Void for Overlap?

California appellate courts have split on the question of whether overlap between two consumer protection statutes renders one of them impermissibly vauge; the California Supreme Court will soon decide the matter.  We’ll hear a range of views from Hunter Pyle (Hunter Pyle Law), Catha Worthman (Feinberg Jackson Worthman & Wasow), Ted Mermin (Public Good Law Center; Berkeley Ctr. for Consumer Law and Economic Justice), and Montserrat Miller (Arnall Golden Gregory LLP).

Click here to listen to the podcast (June 15, 2018), which is on iTunes and found by searching for “Weekly Appellate Report.”

Check out this week’s Compliance News Flash with quick reads about:

  • Background screening operations in Canada and capturing consent.
  • Colorado’s new law safeguarding personal data.
  • Homeland Security and increased workplace investigations.
  • GDPR (need I say anything more for those working on this?).
  • Termination of Temporary Protected Status and work authorization.

Any questions please contact me at montserrat.miller@agg.com.