PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Nov 17, 2010
Red Flag Program Clarification Act of 2010 - Amends the Fair Credit Reporting Act, with respect to federal agency (red flag) guidelines regarding identity theft and the users of consumer reports, to define creditor to mean one that regularly and in the ordinary course of business: (1) obtains or uses consumer reports, directly or indirectly, in connection with a credit transaction; (2) furnishes information to certain consumer reporting agencies in connection with a credit transaction; or (3) advances funds to or on behalf of a person, based on the person's obligation to repay the funds or on repayment from specific property pledged by or on the person's behalf.
Includes in the definition any other type of creditor as the federal agency (banking agency, National Credit Union Administration, or the Federal Trade Commission [FTC]) having authority over that creditor may determine appropriate, if the creditor offers or maintains accounts subject to a reasonably foreseeable risk of identity theft.
Excludes from the definition of creditor, however, any creditor that advances funds on behalf of a person for expenses incidental to a service the creditor provides to that person.
People & committees
Rep. Adler, John H. [D-NJ-3] · D–NJ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.6420 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.6420 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.6420 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.6420 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.