I was surprised at how today's TechTalk summarized an article circulating yesterday regarding what appears to be an ambulance chasing attorney making accusations against LifeLock.

Using a headline that read "For this you paid how much?" BOL seems to be adding to the ignorance and misinformation. And by explaining that the legal action is "because Lifelock didn't deliver as promised" -- an unfounded allegation thus far -- BOL appears to be opening itself up for a lawsuit while bringing its own reputation for accuracy and reliability into question.

BOL's summary sounded too much like the sensationalized headline of the original article, which circulated here at my work too.

The uninformed at my work immediately chimed in as 'experts' moaning with glee that LifeLock must be a hoax or scam itself.

Further reading of the article cited shows that the real problem was not with LifeLock, but with some pay day loan service that did absolutely no credit check when a customer applied for a loan using someone else's social security number. Had a standard credit check been run as normally required, the $500 advance would not have occurred. The real problem was the payday loan company... but acknowledging this boldly in the headline or prominently in the article would not attract readers.

At any rate, this incident has not impacted the customer of LifeLock. The company seems to have done what they say they will do in this situation. A point that is thinly admitted in the article.

The main point I gleened from this article is that lawyers and plaintiffs looking for a fast buck are making unsubstantiated claims -- threatening a class action lawsuit without providing any examples of real losses, failures of service, or any other details.

That is probably why LifeLock itself has acknowledged that they are asking the courts to throw out these cases.

Read LifeLock's detailed response to the allegations at their web site http://www.lifelock.com/todd-davis for information not covered in yesterday's news or in the biased summary from BOL's TechTalk.

And in regards to LifeLock's guarantee and terms of service, everything is spelled out clearly before subscribing. I am a member and read it all before signing on the virtual dotted line. By doing so, nothing that LifeLock does or has done was of any surprise to me. They seem to be following the terms and agreements as disclosed to all subscribers.

I just hope that sensationalized negative press and the ability of people to quickly jump to conclusions does not have too much of a bad impact on a good company that is taking a very unique and pro-active approach to helping curb identity theft.

Also, I think LifeLock should carefully examine the statement by BOL's TechTalk. Shame on you, BOL! I certainly hope you prominently acknowledge the facts from LifeLock's response in the next issue of BOL's TechTalk and print a retraction to your May 23rd summary.

Here is the statement that appears within the LifeLock link in my original posting... Edited for reasons of copyright violations.

There are other discussions about LifeLock here on BOL. Many people believe that they shouldn't charge what they do, since people can do most of what LL does, for free.

IMHO, if a consumer wants to pay to have someone else do this, that is fine. But the ads need to be clear as to what is done, and what is not done. One of LLs ads says they help you prevent ID theft in the first place. If a bank made that claim, they'd be under fire. Much of what LL does with their service is AFTER the fact.

But to each his own.

Hi Andy,

Two quick things.

1. I think it odd that you removed a posting of a press release for "copyright violation".

2. Also, could you explain your thoughts when you wrote that "Much of what LL does with their service is AFTER the fact"?

As a customer, I know that when I signed up LifeLock immediately placed fraud alerts on my files with all three credit bureaus plus ChexSystems on my behalf and generated the annual credit reports for me that I had been too busy to do myself. I know they did what I contracted them to do, since I received communication from all the bureaus involved.

Yes, I could have done these things myself, but I did not get around to it. For $10 a month, I am sure that these items are taken care of and that they are renewed for me when they need to be.

No other service available at that time took this pro-active approach. This is NOT waiting to take action AFTER the fact... that's what all the OTHER monitoring services do.

Sounds like what they did for you could have easily been done in about thirty minutes and saved you the $120, imo.. What else does this company do for the $10/month?

That's a fair analogy. The same one people use when comparing Bank service charges to services provided by a competing bank or credit union.

The problem is, most people do not stay on top of their credit that well. To pay someone to make sure the alerts are placed and renewed as needed does provide peace of mind.

The fact that LifeLock utilizes Chex Systems also makes it a bit more unique. Most consumers have no idea of Chex Systems or how to communicate with them.

How many families monitor the credit reports of their children? LifeLock locks down the use of social security numbers issued to minors to help prevent credit from being issued with that information.

By visiting the "How LifeLock Works" sectoin of their web site at http://www.lifelock.com/1107, you can see some of the other features provided beyond their core offering.

Some of these services are similar to features packaged in credit monitoring services -- the main difference is that LifeLock takes action BEFORE a problem occurs instead of reporting an issue after the customer has become a victim. The service is a preventative tool.

As for the issue mentioned before about credit being issued to someone using a tax number protected by LifeLock, the real responsibility there remains on the issuer of credit. If a bank chose to open an account or line of credit for someone on Chex Systems because they did not do their due diligence, it is not Chex Systems fault... or anyone else's for that matter... except the party that issued the account or line of credit.

Also, I have searched BOL's Bankers Threads for LifeLock and "Life Lock" and do not find any results besides this posting. I am interested in seeing what other discussions have occurred on this system regarding LifeLock, to see other bankers take on the service.

IMO LL has made a FRAUD ALERT on a credit report meaningless. It was meant to protect consumers who "in good faith" believe they are or may be a victim of fraud or identity theft and not as a "preventative tool" for those who don't have the time to monitor their or their children's credit. Where does a true victim turn when others are using their means of protection?

Again, just my opinion and nobody else's.

I agree with LaBankerGal. It will get to the point where a fraud alert is just another "norm" on a credit report and it would be more unusual to not see one.

"What no fraud alert, we better check this one out." Just some friday humor there.

I totally agree with LaBankerGal and Noah. These false fraud alerts will become the over-sensitive car alarm of the credit world. That good faith belief requirement could cause the CRAs to question LifeLock as to why they place so many fraud alerts and perpetually renew them. Then they either must admit that they are using the fraud alerts in a way they are not intended or falsely claim that their client is or may be the victim of identity theft.

I won a bet in my department...the FTC is attempting to band-aid a problem. The big 3 'talk' to each other. The bad thing is there isn't a "big 3" for bank accounts. ChexSystems is messy and inaccurate and should mainly be used to prevent fraud at account opening based on past relationships. I had called that that CEO would have immigrants all over the US using his SSN to open bank accounts. The CEO of LL experienced what the big gaping hole is under the FTC rules...no central reporting area(s) for new accounts opened without credit/loans. Immigrants sometimes just want a bank account, not a loan. Therefore, that is why Mr. Lifelock's SSN appears in 8 other bank accounts around the US. If we had a thorough ID theft, not suspected id theft program, it would address credit AND bank account usage.

The new Red Flag rules require an Identity Theft Prevention program by November 1st that does address both credit and deposit usage.

Yes, the Red Flag rules will certainly help.

And yes, there will probably come a time when a credit report without a fraud alert will seem unusual -- with or without LifeLock. As it's been said, "we've all been compromised, get over it."

If institutions were required to contact each applicant through the contact information within his or her credit report to verify an application, much of today's ID theft fraud would disappear. That's what having a fraud alert on an account mandates -- contacting the applicant not based on information in the application under review which could be totally fraudulent -- but contacting the last known address/phone of what's on the associated credit report.

I am not sure how LifeLock's making sure the fraud alerts are on a report necessitating this additional verification results in anything bad. I certainly don't understand the idea expressed by LaBankerGal that this somehow makes fraud alerts meaningless and somehow negatively impacts victims of fraud.

Can you clarify this for me?

Thanks!

BTW, do the new Red Flag rules require lenders and banks to take the extra step of verification by contacting the customer using the last known phone number/address within the credit report before establishing a relationship? I know address changes are a 'red flag' in general, but I don't recall if actually contacting the person using credit report contact information to verify intent to establish an account is required.

Thanks again.

Lifelock - gee, for $10 a month, you really get a lot of value, lets examine the six things they do for you:

1. They ask the credit bureaus to set free fraud alerts on your behalf. Which you can do yourself.

2. Every 90 days or so they ask the credit bureaus to do it again. Again, easy to do yourself.

3. They request that your name be removed from pre-approved credit card and junk mail lists. One phone call from you and you can do this.

4. They order your free credit reports on your behalf from the major credit bureaus and they are sent directly to you. They do this every year. Actually, the best way to do this is order one yourself from alternate agencies every four months.

5.They let you give them all information about what is in your wallet, card numbers, etc, and they will "help" you contact your creditors if you wallet is stolen. Everyone should already have a list of their own.

6. If your Identity is stolen while you are a member of LifeLock, they are going to do whatever it takes to recover your good name. The $1 million dollar guarantee is only to pay for getting stuff off of your credit report - and will pay for any actual damages after an investigation and only if they agree.

If you do the above things, the chances of it happening are pretty slim.

Sounds like a great deal to me!! Look at all the free stuff you get for $10 a month or should I say things you can do for free yourself??? While the product might be appropriate for those individuals that are just too lazy or busy to do it themselves, marketing it to the masses as a fix-all end-all solution is about on par with the sales of credit life insurance. It is basically a bad deal for 99% of the populous because they just don't know any better.

Of course I find this a little ironic also.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/05/22/lifelock.flap.ap/index.html

Another article on lifelock.

http://redtape.msnbc.com/2008/02/experian-sues-l.html

The idea of a fraud alert is to tell potential creditors or others that something has actually happened in a person's life (like theft of wallet or information) that makes it more likely that the person will actually be a victim of identity theft. What Lifelock is doing is saying the fraud alerts are really ordinary course and there's no real cause for question or concern if someone has a fraud alert - it just means that they were busy enough, scared enough, or naive enough to think that paying $10/month to Lifelock for the "service" is a good move.

Thanks, Rainman. I was away for awhile. By the way, if you all get a chance, read LL's Power of Attorney you are required to sign before they provide service. (It's on their website.) It is TRUELY frightening. Something anyone should be hesitant to sign.

Hi,

It seems like many of the postings here lack substance. Much of what is being offered as replies to my questions do not provide any specifics. The real point of fraud alerts as I see it, is that issuers of credit are required to take an extra step to verify the authenticity of any request. Again, no replies here substantiate that LifeLock somehow weakens the ability of fraud alerts to accomplish this.

It has been some time since I subscribed to the service, and I would have to dig out the paper work to see what horrifying power of attorney document LaBankerGal is referring to, as no link to the referenced document was made in her posting. Are you referring to section 9 of the Terms and Conditions located at http://www.lifelock.com/about-us/about-lifelock/terms-and-conditions on their site? The authorization outlined there seems necessary for LifeLock to legally place these alerts on behalf of their customers. (Something else challenged in some of these postings -- but it seems like everything is spelled out as it needs to be.) The only other thing I saw in a quick query of LifeLock's web site was a reference to a Limited Power of Attorney (also in section 9 of the above link) necessary for enacting the service guarantee. However, this document is not published on their web site and would be provided on an 'as needed' basis.

As for the links listed in recent postings, rlcarey seemed eager to share an article from CNN as if it were new and somehow helpful in building a case against LifeLock. On the contrary, though, the CNN link was only a syndication of the original poorly written article that BOL referenced that started this whole discussion -- nothing 'ironic' there. I do like rlcarey's suggestion of grabbing a credit report every four months instead of all at once. But the idea that doing all the things LifeLock does somehow makes the guarantee invalid since putting these things in place would 'make the likelihood of identity theft pretty slim' is humorous... if a company offered a guarantee on something that wouldn't work, they wouldn't be around long now would they.

WyoRockies submitted a variation of this article from MSNBC, and what I found most interesting within that link, was all the positive user comments that seem to be ignored by critics and many posters here on BOL.

One last thought for now, I apologize for not responding more quickly to this post, but I am quite busy and don't have a lot of time to spend discussing this topic -- oh yeah, that's why I decided to spend the $10 a month in the first place, isn't it.

Josef, are you an employee or stockholder of LifeLock?

He's an employee or contractor - stockholders don't get enough direct benefit to make it worth their while (when they're as busy as Josef is!) to engage in such lengthy defenses of the company.

I am the Identity Theft Specialist for my institution. This company offered to place a referring link on our website. In return, they would offer this "service" at a discounted rate to our customers and also cut the bank a $1 commission for each customer who signed up. (We could also choose to earn $2 and not offer the discount depending on how greedy we wanted to be.)
As a small $700M community bank, I immediately refused. I have stacks of brochures in ID Theft which the bank obtained free from the FTC with all of the needed phone numbers for Social Security, Credit Bureaus, Marketing Opt-Outs, etc.
We serve our customers by advising them to save their money and protect themselves using this information. No, the bank does not offer any outlandish guarentees. I actually had one elderly customer who was hoping her identity would be compromised because then this company would give her the million dollars and she could retire.
I explained that in reality she would have a mess to straighten out, and she herself would not see a dime. Ethically, I do not want the bank, or this company, to profit on the fears of the general public.

Josef, thou does protest too much?