I've got a question related to the definition of access device in Reg E. We've got customers currently signed up for our internet banking product, but we require a separate sign-up and fee for bill payment service. No separate login/password is required for the bill payment service, we just log it onto the customer's profile when they sign up and they then have access to that service. We now want to mass enroll a number of our internet bank users that are not currently signed up for bill pay into that service for a free 90-day trial. Would that mass-enrollment be considered an unsolicited access device issuance under §205.5(b)?

I would say yes. You would be turning on access that is completed with a code. If you had a different signon you would be OK.

If my bank called me and said, "Andy, you don't have an ATM card. But we know you have a MC. We arranged with them to have your card work in our ATMs beginning right now, no other code is needed", I would put that in the same category (spirit and intent) as issuing a new access device.

Just an opinion.

Andy, I am not sure I see this as issuance of a new access device. The existing e-banking service already gives the customer the ability to transfer funds. The difference here are the entities to whom funds can be transferred. That is not a new access device to me.

Jim, are you going to automatically going to charge people after the 90-day trial period expires?

I don't think you're issuing another access device. You're adding another service that can be accessed with a device that's already issued. No issuance problems there, and no liability problems, I believe, if you are making appropriate disclosures about the new service and its fees (after trial period), etc.

Arguably, you are giving someone access to funds via a new means. I can see it from both sides but see more liability by opening this with an existing code.

If I as a user allowed someone else (an accountant perhaps) to handle my banking because they couldn't move money out of my accounts and I was protected from theft, then suddenly you gave them access to my money, you bet if I had a loss you'd be hearing from me. I dodn't give them access to my funds, you did.

Quote:

---

are you going to automatically going to charge people after the 90-day trial period expires?

---

They will be told in accessing the service that there will be a charge after 90 days. But if they don't use the service within that 90 days, they will not be charged and will drop to an inactive status for bill payment, which would require them to contact a CSR to reactivate.

How can you call this a "free trial" if there's no way to escape a charge once you have tried the service? (Maybe there's an option for your customers to cancel without charge prior to the end of the 90 days?)

Quote:

---

Maybe there's an option for your customers to cancel without charge prior to the end of the 90 days

---

There is.

I like the way you are handling the customers that don't use the service during the trial period.