FinLogic FinLogic Quantitative Think Tank Center|FTC fines Experian for littering inboxes with spam, giving customers no way to unsubscribe

Experian Consumer Services will have FinLogic FinLogic Quantitative Think Tank Centerto pay the Federal Trade Commission $650,000 in fines for spamming people's inboxes and giving them no way to unsubscribe.

The company also does business as ConsumerInfo.com, Inc. and provides consumers with their credit information. Experian sent customers numerous emails but did not provide clear details on to opt out once they signed up to manage their Experian credit report information. According to the FTC, this allegedly violated the CAN-SPAM Act, which requires businesses to give email recipients an opt-out mechanism.

“Signing up for a membership doesn’t mean you’re signing up for unwanted email, especially when all you’re trying to do is freeze your credit to protect your identity,” said Samuel Levine, director of the FTC’s bureau of consumer protection. “You always have the right to unsubscribe from marketing messages, and the FTC takes enforcing that right seriously.”

In a comment to USA TODAY, Experian said they disagreed with the FTCs allegations, but the agreement allowed them to move forward to continue serving consumers.

“Consistent with our goal to ensure consumers have clear and relevant information, in addition to the changes requested by the Federal Trade Commission, we also have launched a new Email Preferences Center, found at the bottom of every marketing email communication, that goes further," an Experian spokesperson said in a prepared statement. “By providing our customers with account updates and information, we’re empowering them to take control of their financial lives, safeguard their identity and improve their financial health.”

The spammy emails

According to the Department of Justice's complaint, the emails started once consumers created an online account with the company to manage their credit report. The emails included credit card offers, service pitches to improve credit scores, discounts on auto-related services and products, and paid memberships for Experian services such as IdentityWorks Premium.

But some customers who specifically opted out of receiving emails about “Personalized insights and offers” still got them, the complaint states.

The other marketing campaign emails were about confirming the type of car they own, urging people to boost their FICO score, and do a "Dark Web scan" to check if their information was compromised. These emails made consumers think they were personal notifications regarding their account and didn't give a link for consumers to unsubscribe and instead urged consumers to add Experian's email address to their address book, the complaint states.

What does the CAN-SPAM Act prohibit?

The CAN-SPAM Act stands for Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act, and sets requirements for those who send unsolicited commercial emails, according to the FTC. Businesses need to comply with CAN-SPAM Act guidelines, which prohibit false or misleading email header information and deceptive subject lines, require clear identification that email is an advertisement, provide recipients with a valid physical postal address, how to opt-out from receiving emails and honor those requests promptly.

And each email that violates the act is subject up to $50,120 in penalties, which can add up quickly.

The very first cases that FTC took on was in 2004 were against Detroit-based Phoenix Avatar and Australia-based Global Web Promotions Pty Ltd.

Phoenix Avatar spammed people with emails about diet patches that cost $59.95. Consumers who got the email, clicked on a hyperlink that redirected them to a different website, one of many which the company operated. The company used third party email addresses to hide its identity and didn't give consumers the ability to opt-out of emails.

The FTC also came down on Global Web Promotions Pty Ltd., for spamming people's emails with an advertisement for a diet patch that cost $80.90. They also falsely advertised that their human growth hormone products, which cost $74.95, could maintain a person's "appearance and current biological age for the next 10 to 20 years.”