FTC Extends Enforcement Date of Red Flags Rule to August 1
Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.04.09
On April 30th, in a surprising move, the Federal Trade Commission (the "FTC") extended its deferral of enforcement of the Red Flags Rule until August 1, 2009. This marks the second extension by the FTC. The Red Flags Rule's mandatory enforcement date was originally November 1, 2008. However, the FTC suspended enforcement of the Rule until May 1, 2009. The FTC explained that this second extension is in response to ongoing questions from some sectors - particularly smaller entities that are subject to a low risk of identity theft that "continue to have questions and concerns about the specific obligations they must meet and the burden of complying with the rule."1
The FTC has estimated that there are more than 1.6 million low-risk entities that will be required to comply with the Red Flags Rule.2 The Red Flags Rule requires that "financial institutions" and "creditors" that offer or maintain "covered accounts," develop and implement a program to identify, detect, and respond to identity theft (the "Program"). The FTC intends to publish a guidance to assist low-risk entities in complying with the rule.
If you are interested in learning more about Red Flags Rule policies, training, or sample language, please contact those listed below, or your regular Crowell & Moring contact.
1 FTC Extended Enforcement Policy: Identity Theft Red Flags Rule, 16 CFR 681.1
2 74 Fed. Reg. 18709, 18711 (April 24, 2009).
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
