Credit Bureau, Inc. of Washington, D.C

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

In tur Marrer or THE CREDIT BUREAU, INC. OF WASHINGTON, D.C., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT Docket C-2113. Complaint, Dec. 7, 1971—Decision, Dee. 7, 1971 Consent order requiring a credit reporting service of Washington, D.C., which includes the operation of a new resident information-reporting service under the franchised name of Welcome Newcomer, to cease securing personal and financial information from new area residents through subterfuge and selling it without their knowledge.

ComMPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act, and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Act, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that The Credit Bureau, Inc. of Washington, D.C., a corporation, and Edward F. Garretson, individually, and as manager of The Credit Bureau, Inc. of Washington, D.C., hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said Act, and it appearing to the Commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereof would be in the public interest, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows:

Paracrapy 1. Respondent The Credit Bureau, Inc. of Washington, D.C. is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Georgia, with its principal 470-883-—73. 59 838 Complaint “in individual cases. As the Commission pointed out in Permanente Cement Co., 65 F.T.C. 410, 494 (1964) :

In the interim between the institution of a Trade Regulation Rule proceeding and the actual promulgation of any Trade Regulation Rules, the Commission, if it is to enforce the statutes within its jurisdiction, may be obliged to rely on the case-by-case adjudicative method. Commencement of a rule-making proceeding is not tantamount to declaring a moratorium on all enforcement activities with respect to transactions consummated before the effective date of the rules.

The deceptive practices found to exist in the instant case clearly call for the imposition of a three-day cooling-off period, and ‘we believe the proposed rule-making in this area in no way impairs the Commission’s authority to order such a remedy to assure the cessation of these practices.