April 12, 2012
When defining what constitutes an account the definition includes a continuing relationship but based on the information provided what exactly constitutes this continuing relationship is not clear. If I were to open an account today put $1000 in it and not touch the account for 10 years is that sufficient to be a continuing relationship by virtue of passing of time? Would I be required to be making regular transactions on the account? Further there is a gap in terms of deposit accounts as they seem to be left to the banks or other bodies to regulate. If we are talking about a credit card does merely possessing the card amount to a continuing relationship or is it a card I have to be transacting on at some regular interval? My issue comes from is the word continuing really necessary? Wouldnt just stating a relationship established by a person with a financial institution or creditor to obtain a product or service for personal, family, household or business purposes. Serve the same purpose? If the continuing language is supposed to add something I am failing to see the utility of what it adds.
While I am in favor or greater protections against identity theft I fail to see the utility of the continuing language being put into the definition of an account. If the concern is merely one of excluding closed inactive or dormant accounts then I would disagree with the language because an account that may be dormant or inactive is still a potential liability for someone facing identity theft, potentially an even greater liability since the account has been left unattended. I would suggest at the very least clarifying the significance of the continuing language used to define account.
Sincerely,
Nathaniel Washburn