I suggest you read the excellent coverage of that issue at the blog of legal times. Literally the FTC’s reading was so broad that they said anyone who had a delay between doing the work and getting paid was “extending credit.” which covers… just about everyone. As the D.C. District Judge said, knocking this interpretation down, a simple plumber who works for two days on a job and asks for his payment when the work is done, would have been considered a creditor under these laws and thus required to do things like create a plan to deal with identity theft.

And further, and this is obvious when you read judge walton’s opinion, this was in conflict with previous caselaw interpreting the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. FACTA literally took the exact same definiton of creditor as under this previous civil rights law. i don’t mean they just made the language identical. They literally defined terms like “credit” and “creditor” solely by reference to those prior laws. And there were a string of cases under ECOA that narrowed the interpretation of those terms, like credit and creditor, to what you normally think of when you think of those terms. But the FTC tried to reject those previous interpretations and come up with a new, ridiculously broad, interpretation.

My point is, it is incorrect to say this is a victory for favored lobbyists. The FTC was out of control, going way off the reservation, and Congress was simply reasserting a little sanity into this.

I have made this joke before, but i will make it again, but with some seriousness. You guys should consider a side blog, called “overregulated.” Especially in the last two years it is breathtaking how the regulatory state thinks it can do whatever the hell it wants.