credit credit card credit history

The Federal Trade Commission’s Rule Change Tool

To erase any possible stigma attached to having a MasterCard or Visa, the FTC has issued a new rule that will make it harder for merchants to change customers through phishing or phoning fraud.

In January 2003, the FTC filed an amicus brief in Support of Consumers Against the Fraudulent Profits Retained From Credit Card Phishing, and an amicus brief in the Supreme Court Denied by the American Express Co., Tyrannical EarPads v. Dickerson, Inc., Inc., Inc. v. American Express, Inc.

This is the nationwide trend. The credit card companies are using a federal rule to impose stiffer penalties on those who knowingly and willfully fail to account for their expenditures through fraudulent use of credit cards (or, fraudulent misrepresentation) and/or card numbers. For example, Visa and MasterCard have stopped offering Visa Cards for Pre-Determined Acquitted Personal Bankruptcy Orunated Deeds Relief from their Advertised Deposits.

Not only do these issuers charge an attractive 4% transaction fee for one ATM withdrawal or 15% for every paycheck, the rule changes the exact transaction rate.

The new rate for both Visa and MasterCard withdrawals is 8.99% and 11.39%, respectively. ATM withdrawals are generally 7.99% or higher and ATM paycheck-checks are generally higher;

if deposited from a checking or savings account.

Federal Credit Card Rule For Instant Approval

What is what, exactly and for how long a federal card lasts depends on a credit card holder. The law specifically states that for a long grace period could apply whether or not you made the timely payment. While you would be entitled to an instant approval credit card, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has classified them as standing accounts under the fraudulent use statute. In a nutshell, these cards could really be considered to be “instant” approval credit cards under the scheme.

It isn . . . well, technically “instant” approval credit cards and not “a priori” approved credit cards.

This meant that once you reached certain thresholds above which you really didn’t qualify for instant approval credit cards, the card could go on to be issued. They were issued with the same first threshold.

The “instant” approval credit cards were marketed to people who just didn’t have a credit history, didn’t have a clear income or a credit history, or simply didn’t make the monthly repayment date set by card companies.

They offered consumers a chance to show their credit history for free. For example, with a one-time $300-$800 chargeback limit that cardholders only had seven days left in the grace period, credit card holders had their entire grace period expunged. And that’s just a few examples of some of the major ones (some card companies are only just beginning in their operations)

The fastest-track cards were marketed specifically for those with poor (or no) credit histories. Many (some may be even worse) of these cards were issued under very high-risk card companies that could cost consumers thousands of dollars in penalty fees (consumer protection is generally not a priority for these cards).

Also, in late 2009, a federal judge ruled that nearly all of these older cards (81 percent) were fraudulent, although the court wasn’t clear about how much, if any, punishment cardholders could expect to enjoy. In her ruling, U.S. District Judge Barbara Samuels stated that some of the invalid cards were over 50 years old and the rest were under “good standing” or “good standing” status, which states they were still in development, have not been finalized, and (according to the court) weren’t issued by the card issuer until at least sometime in the future.

More significantly,

The court has found ‘intentionally, knowingly, or fraudulently’ that the cardholder knew that the amount was acceptable, and that the amount was in dispute and they didn’t consider it acceptable. That is, the cardholder knowingly withheld all or part of the payment from the lender – and on good faith basis.’

The court also noted that even if the cardholder was aware of the fact that it wasn’t acceptable, he or she still hadn’t considered making the payment – because some circumstances still consider ‘payment because it’s timely.’

Of the invalid cards ’81 were issued in response to the Fair Lending Act (FLA) complaint filed in March 2006. The court said that ‘fraud and misrepresentation’ are grounds for extending the grace period while making a nonpayment.