American Credit Bureau, Inc

Text (OCR of the scan at left; may contain errors)

IN THE MATTER OF AMERICAN CREDIT BUREAU, INC., ET AL.

Docket C-2608. Interlocutory Order, Feb. 8, 1978 Petition to vacate or modify. consent order denied on grounds that respondents’ allegations were insufficient because of public interest or changed conditions of law.

ORDER DENYING PETITION TO VACATE OR Mopiry CONSENT ORDER Respondents, by petition filed pursuant to Rule 3.72(b)(2) on November 17, 1977, request that the Commission vacate or modify the consent order to cease and desist entered herein on December 4, 1974 (84 F.T.C. 1582), on the ground that changed conditions of law require such action.

The specific change of law underlying respondents’ petition is the enactment of Pub. Law 95-109, the “Fair Debt Collection Practices Act,” 15 U.S.C. 1601, et seg. (1977). The Act becomes effective on March 20, 1978.

Respondents allege that the Act regulates the same practices as are covered by the order, that the order differs substantially in terms from the Act, and that since the Act imposes severe penalties for violation, it would be in the public interest to vacate the order. . Respondents further contend that certain sections of the Act are less restrictive than comparable sections of the order, that respondents would be competitively disadvantaged if they were subject to the order while their competitors were subject to the Act, and that, in the alternative, the order should be modified to bring it into conformity with the Act. The Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection has filed an answer in opposition to respondents’ petition. The Commission, having carefully considered the petition and answer thereto, is of the opinion that (1) it would be premature and contrary to the public interest to grant respondents’ request inasmuch as the Commission is currently conducting an investigation to determine whether or not respondents are in compliance with the cease and desist order, (2) the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act as a whole is more restrictive than the cease and desist order, and that those few instances in which the order may be more restrictive are necessary and proper as remedies fashioned by the Commission to redress abusive practices engaged in by respondents in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act. There is nothing in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to prohibit the imposition of similar Interlocutory Order 91 F.T.C.

remedies in future cases brought under that Act if the circumstances so warrant, and (8) it would be premature to reopen the proceeding to modify or set aside the order since the Act has not yet taken effect. Accordingly, the Commission having concluded that the allegations in respondents’ petition are not sufficient to require that the order to cease and desist be modified or set aside because of the public interest or because of changed conditions of law: It is ordered, That respondents’ petition be, and it hereby is, denied.

FORD MOTOR CO. . 128 123 Interlocutory Order