United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
Argued May 3, 2002 Decided July 16, 2002
No. 01-5202
Trans Union LLC,
Appellant
v.
Federal Trade Commission, et al.,
Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia
(No. 00cv02087)
Ernest Gellhorn argued the cause for the appellant. Roger
L. Longtin and Stephen L. Agin were on brief. Mary E.
Gately entered an appearance.
John F. Daly, Counsel, Federal Trade Commission, argued
the cause for the appellees. Lawrence DeMille-Wagman and
Michael D. Bergman, Attorneys, Federal Trade Commission;
Jeanette Roach, Counsel, Federal Deposit Insurance Corpo-
ration; Alisa B. Klein and Mark B. Stern, Attorneys, United
States Department of Justice; Rosa M. Koppel, Attorney,
United States Department of Treasury; Thomas J. Segal,
Deputy Chief Counsel, and Elizabeth R. Moore, Counsel,
Office of Thrift Supervision; and Katherine H. Wheatley,
Assistant General Counsel, Board of Governors of Federal
Reserve System, were on brief. Richard M. Ashton, Associ-
ate General Counsel, Board of Governors of Federal Reserve
System; Gregory F. Taylor, Counsel, Federal Deposit Insur-
ance Corporation; and Larry J. Stein, Attorney, United
States Department of Treasury, entered appearances.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, State of California, and
Susan E. Henrichsen, Deputy Attorney General, State of
California, were on brief for the amici curiae in support of
the appellees.
Before: Edwards, Henderson, and Garland, Circuit
Judges.
Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge Henderson.
Karen LeCraft Henderson, Circuit Judge: Trans Union,
LLC, a "credit reporting agency" (CRA) under the Fair
Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. ss 1681 et seq.,1
challenges regulations promulgated by the Federal Trade
Commission (FTC) and other federal agencies2 to implement
__________
1 The FCRA defines a CRA as
any person which, for monetary fees, dues, or on a cooperative
nonprofit basis, regularly engages in whole or in part in the
practice of assembling or evaluating consumer credit informa-
tion or other information on consumers for the purpose of
furnishing consumer reports to third parties, and which uses
any means or facility of interstate commerce for the purpose of
preparing or furnishing consumer reports.
15 U.S.C. s 1681a(f). The parties agree that Trans Union comes
within this definition. See Appellant's Br. at 3; Appellees' Br. at
12.
2 The other federal agencies sued in this action are the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Office of the Comp-
troller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, the Federal
the privacy provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
(GLBA), Pub. L. No. 106-102, 113 Stat. 1338 (1999) (codified
at 12 U.S.C. ss 6801 et seq.). Trans Union contends the
regulations unlawfully restrict a CRA's ability to disclose and
reuse certain consumer information because (1) a CRA is not
a "financial institution" subject to the FTC's rulemaking
authority under the GLBA; (2) the regulations' definition of
the statutory term "personally identifiable financial informa-
tion" (PIFI) is overbroad; (3) the regulations' restrictions on
reuse of information are inconsistent with the GLBA; and (4)
the challenged regulations infringe Trans Union's right of
free speech under the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution. The district court rejected these challenges
and upheld the regulations. For the reasons set out below,
we affirm the district court's decision.
I.
The Congress enacted the GLBA in order "[t]o enhance
competition in the financial services industry," Pub. L. No.
106-102, 113 Stat. at 1338, by "eliminat[ing] many Federal
and State law barriers to affiliations among banks and securi-
ties firms, insurance companies, and other financial service
providers," H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 106-434 at 1 (1999). Title V
of the GLBA contains a number of provisions designed to
protect the privacy of "nonpublic personal information" (NPI)
that consumers provide to financial institutions, see 15 U.S.C.
ss 6801-6809, reflecting "the policy of the Congress that each
financial institution has an affirmative and continuing obli-
gation to respect the privacy of its customers and to protect
the security and confidentiality of those customers' nonpublic
personal information," 15 U.S.C. s 6801(a). The GLBA re-
stricts the ability of a "financial institution" to disclose NPI to
a nonaffiliated third party by requiring (subject to certain
exceptions not pertinent here) that the financial institution
provide the consumer with notice of the institution's disclo-
__________
Deposit Insurance Corporation and the National Credit Union
Administration. This opinion will refer to the appellee agencies,
collectively, as the FTC.
sure policies and the opportunity for the consumer to "opt
out" of disclosure. Id. s 6802(a)-(b), (e). The GLBA fur-
ther mandates that an unaffiliated third party recipient of
NPI "shall not, directly or through an affiliate of such receiv-
ing third party, disclose such information to any other person
that is a nonaffiliated third party of both the financial institu-
tion and such receiving third party, unless such disclosure
would be lawful if made directly to such other person by the
financial institution." Id. s 6802(c).
To implement its disclosure restrictions, the GLBA gives
the FTC and other agencies broad rulemaking authority:
(a) Regulatory authority
(1) Rulemaking
The Federal banking agencies, the National Credit
Union Administration, the Secretary of the Treasury,
the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the
Federal Trade Commission shall each prescribe, after
consultation as appropriate with representatives of
State insurance authorities designated by the National
Association of Insurance Commissioners, such regula-
tions as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of
this subchapter with respect to the financial institu-
tions subject to their jurisdiction under section 6805 of
this title.
15 U.S.C. s 6804(a)(1). Section 6805(a) further provides for
enforcement of both the GLBA and the regulations promul-
gated pursuant thereto "by the Federal functional regulators,
the State insurance authorities, and the Federal Trade Com-
mission with respect to financial institutions and other per-
sons subject to their jurisdiction under applicable law," as
described in section 6805(a). Id. s 6805(a). The first six
paragraphs of section 6805(a) specify under what authority
and by which agencies the GLBA and the regulations are to
be enforced against banks, savings associations, commercial
lending companies, credit unions, securities brokers and deal-
ers, investment companies, investment advisers and insurance
providers. See id. U.S.C. s 6805(a)(1)-(6). The final, catchall
paragraph of section 6805(a) mandates enforcement "[u]nder
the Federal Trade Commission Act by the Federal Trade
Commission for any other financial institution or other person
that is not subject to the jurisdiction of any agency or
authority under paragraphs (1) through (6)." Id.
s 6805(a)(7). CRAs are not among the entities identified in
the first six paragraphs.
On May 24, 2000 the FTC published its Final Rule on
"Privacy of Consumer Financial Information," 65 Fed. Reg.
33,646, setting forth regulations comparable to and consistent
with those promulgated by other federal agencies. See 65
Fed. Reg. at 33,646 n.3.3 On August 30, 2000 Trans Union
filed an action in the district court challenging the FTC's
regulations on the grounds, inter alia, that (1) a CRA is not a
"financial institution" subject to the FTC's rulemaking au-
thority under 15 U.S.C. s 6804(a)(1); (2) the FTC overbroad-
ly defined PIFI; (3) the regulations' restrictions on reuse of
consumer information are inconsistent with the GLBA; and
(4) the regulations violate Trans Union's First Amendment
free speech right. In a memorandum opinion and order filed
April 30, 2001, the district court rejected all of Trans Union's
objections and granted summary judgment in the agencies'
favor. See Individual References Serv. Group, Inc. v. FTC,
145 F. Supp. 2d 6 (D.D.C. 2001). Trans Union filed a notice
of appeal on June 20, 2001 challenging the regulations on the
four grounds enumerated above.
II.
The court reviews the district court's summary judgment
decision de novo and "we may affirm only if 'there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact [and] the moving party
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.' " Gilvin v. Fire,
259 F.3d 749, 756 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (quoting Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986) (quoting Fed. R.
__________
3 We hereafter expressly address only the regulations adopted by
the FTC because it is the agency with jurisdiction over CRAs and
thus with authority to enforce the GLBA and regulations promul-
gated thereunder against appellant Trans Union under 15 U.S.C.
s 6805(a)(6).
Civ. P. 56(c))). We conclude the FTC is entitled to summary
judgment under this standard and therefore affirm the dis-
trict court. We address each of Trans Union's arguments
seriatim.
A. Authority to Regulate CRAs
First, Trans Union asserts the FTC lacks authority to
promulgate regulations governing CRAs because a CRA is
not a "financial institution" subject to the FTC's regulatory
authority under 15 U.S.C. s 6804(a)(1). In reviewing the
FTC's interpretation of the GLBA, we use the familiar Chev-
ron analysis:
If ... " 'Congress has directly spoken to the precise
question at issue,' " we "must give effect to Congress's
'unambiguously expressed intent.' " Secretary of Labor v.
[Fed. Mine Safety & Health Review Comm'n], 111 F.3d
913, 917 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (quoting Chevron USA, Inc. v.
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837,
842, 104 S.C. 2778, 81 LED.2d 694 (1984)). "If 'the
statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific
issue,' we ask whether the agency's position rests on a
'permissible construction of the statute.' " Id. (quoting
Chevron, 467 U.S. at 843, 104 S.C. 2778).
National Multi Housing Council v. EPA, 292 F.3d 232, ___
(D.C. Cir. 2002) (quoting Cyprus Emerald Resources Corp. v.
Fed. Mine Safety & Health Review Comm'n, 195 F.3d 42, 45
(D.C. Cir. 1999)). To the extent that the statutory term
"financial institution" may be ambiguous, we believe the FTC
reasonably construed the term to apply to a CRA.
Section 6809 of title 15 defines "financial institution" as
"any institution the business of which is engaging in financial
activities as described in section 1843(k) of Title 12." Section
1843(k)(4) of title 12 in turn defines "activities that are
financial in nature" to include "[e]ngaging in any activity that
the [Federal Reserve] Board has determined, by order or
regulation that is in effect on November 12, 1999, to be so
closely related to banking or managing or controlling banks
as to be a proper incident thereto (subject to the same terms
and conditions contained in such order or regulation, unless
modified by the Board)." On February 28, 1997, the Federal
Reserve Board promulgated a regulation, still "in effect on
November 12, 1999," which expressly identifies as among
"activities ... so closely related to banking or managing or
controlling banks as to be a proper incident thereto" those
activities that "are usual in connection with making, acquir-
ing, brokering or servicing loans or other extensions of cred-
it," including:
Credit bureau services. Maintaining information related
to the credit history of consumers and providing the
information to a credit grantor who is considering a
borrower's application for credit or who has extended
credit to the borrower.
Bank Holding Companies and Change in Bank Control (Reg-
ulation Y), 62 Fed. Reg. 9290, 9329 (1997) (codified at 12
C.F.R. s 225.28(b)(2)(v)). Because the Federal Reserve
Board's regulation characterizes credit bureau services as "so
closely related to banking or managing or controlling banks
as to be a proper incident thereto," we conclude the FTC
permissibly determined that Trans Union, which provides
such services, see Appellant's Brief at 3, comes within the
GLBA's definition of a "financial institution"4 and is therefore
__________
4 Trans Union also contends the FTC is precluded from regulat-
ing a CRA's disclosure of consumer report information by virtue of
the GLBA's "savings" clause:
[N]othing in this chapter shall be construed to modify, limit, or
supersede the operation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and
no inference shall be drawn on the basis of the provisions of
this chapter regarding whether information is transaction or
experience information under section 1681a of this title.
15 U.S.C. s 6806. Trans Union reasons that because the FCRA
authorizes a CRA to furnish consumer reports, the FTC may not
place restrictions on a CRA's disclosure of credit report informa-
tion. The FCRA, however, expressly limits a CRA's authority to
furnish reports to specific, enumerated types of information, see 15
U.S.C. s 1681a(d), and to specific, enumerated "circumstances and
no other," 15 U.S.C. s 1681b(a). Thus, the savings clause does not
subject to its rulemaking authority under 15 U.S.C.
s 6804(a)(1).
B. Definition of "Personally Identifiable
Financial Information"
Next, Trans Union challenges the FTC's definition of PIFI.
Both the GLBA and the regulations define NPI5 in terms of
PIFI. The GLBA does not define PIFI but the FTC regula-
tions define the term to mean
any information:
(i) A consumer provides to you [the financial institu-
tion] to obtain a financial product or service from you;
(ii) About a consumer resulting from any transaction
involving a financial product or service between you
and a consumer; or
(iii) You otherwise obtain about a consumer in con-
nection with providing a financial product or service to
that consumer.
_________
prevent the FTC from restricting a CRA's disclosure either of
unenumerated types of information or under unenumerated circum-
stances.
5 The GLBA defines NPI as
personally identifiable financial information--
(i) provided by a consumer to a financial institution;
(ii) resulting from any transaction with the consumer or any
service performed for the consumer; or
(iii) otherwise obtained by the financial institution.
15 U.S.C. s 6809(4)(A). The FTC regulations define NPI as
(i) Personally identifiable financial information; and
(ii) Any list, description, or other grouping of consumers (and
publicly available information pertaining to them) that is de-
rived using any personally identifiable financial information
that is not publicly available.
16 C.F.R. s 313.3(n)(1).
16 C.F.R. s 313.3(o)(1)(i)-(iii).6 This broad definition of PIFI
"treat[s] any personally identifiable information as financial if
it was obtained by a financial institution in connection with
providing a financial product or service to a consumer." 65
Fed. Reg. at 33,658. Trans Union challenges the definition
on two grounds, both of which we reject.
First, Trans Union asserts the FTC's definition of PIFI is
ultra vires because the GLBA does not expressly confer
authority to define PIFI as it does the term "publicly avail-
able information." See 15 U.S.C. s 6809(4)(B) (term "non-
public personal information" "does not include publicly avail-
able information, as such term is defined by the regulations
__________
6 The regulation provides the following examples of PIFI:
(A) Information a consumer provides to you on an applica-
tion to obtain a loan, credit card, or other financial product or
service;
(B) Account balance information, payment history, overdraft
history, and credit or debit card purchase information;
(C) The fact that an individual is or has been one of your
customers or has obtained a financial product or service from
you;
(D) Any information about your consumer if it is disclosed in
a manner that indicates that the individual is or has been your
consumer;
(E) Any information that a consumer provides to you or that
you or your agent otherwise obtain in connection with collect-
ing on, or servicing, a credit account;
(F) Any information you collect through an Internet "cookie"
(an information collecting device from a web server); and
(G) Information from a consumer report.
116 C.F.R. 313.3(o)(2)(i). The regulation expressly excludes the
following from the definition of PIFI:
(A) A list of names and addresses of customers of an entity
that is not a financial institution; and
(B) Information that does not identify a consumer, such as
aggregate information or blind data that does not contain
personal identifiers such as account numbers, names, or ad-
dresses.
116 C.F.R. 313.3(o)(2)(ii).
prescribed under section 6804 of this title"). We disagree.
"Where ... Congress enacts an ambiguous provision within a
statute entrusted to the agency's expertise, it has 'implicitly
delegated to the agency the power to fill those gaps.' "
County of Los Angeles v. Shalala, 192 F.3d 1005, 1016 (D.C.
Cir. 1999) (quoting National Fuel Gas Supply Corp. v.
FERC, 811 F.2d 1563, 1569 (D.C. Cir. 1987); citing Chevron,
467 U.S. at 843-44); see also Women Involved in Farm
Economics v. USDA, 876 F.2d 994, 1000-01 (D.C. Cir. 1989)
(noting "the presumptive delegation to agencies of authority
to define ambiguous or imprecise terms we apply under the
Chevron doctrine"), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1019 (1990). Thus,
administrative implementation of a particular statutory
provision qualifies for Chevron deference when it appears
that Congress delegated authority to the agency general-
ly to make rules carrying the force of law, and that the
agency interpretation claiming deference was promulgat-
ed in the exercise of that authority. Delegation of such
authority may be shown in a variety of ways, as by an
agency's power to engage in adjudication or notice-and-
comment rulemaking, or by some other indication of a
comparable congressional intent.
United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218, 226-27 (2001).
The GLBA is silent on the meaning of PIFI and, as is
apparent from the parties' differing positions and from our
discussion of the term's meaning infra, the term itself is not
without ambiguity. Accordingly, we conclude that the FTC is
authorized to define PIFI and that its definition is entitled to
Chevron deference, given the broad rulemaking authority the
GLBA confers on the FTC (and the other agencies) to
"prescribe ... such regulations as may be necessary to carry
out the purposes of [the act] with respect to the financial
institutions subject to their jurisdiction under section 6805 of
this title." 15 U.S.C. s 6804(a)(1).
Trans Union next challenges the FTC's definition of PIFI
insofar as it encompasses information appearing in consumer
credit report headers, such as name, address, telephone num-
ber and social security number, which, Trans Union contends,
is not "financial" information and therefore does not come
within the GLBA's definition of NPI as "personally identifi-
able financial information." 15 U.S.C. s 6809(4)(A) (empha-
sis added). Because, as noted above, the GLBA is silent on
the meaning of PIFI, we review the FTC's interpretation of
the term under Chevron only to determine if it is a permissi-
ble one. We conclude that it is.
Trans Union contends the term "financial" in PIFI must be
given its "plain meaning" and therefore must be applied only
to information that "describes [an individual's] financial condi-
tion." Appellant's Br. at 21. We disagree. The dictionary
defines "financial" expansively to mean "relating to finance
and financiers." Webster's Third New Int'l Dictionary 851
(1993); see also V Oxford English Dictionary 921 (2d ed.1989)
(defining "financial" as "[o]f, pertaining, or relating to finance
or money matters"). Given the breadth of the definition, we
cannot conclude the Congress unambiguously intended the
restrictive "plain meaning" Trans Union espouses. Similarly,
we cannot rule out the FTC's broad interpretation of "finan-
cial" to encompass any information that "is requested by a
financial institution for the purpose of providing a financial
product or service," 65 Fed. Reg. at 33,658, inasmuch as all
such information can be fairly characterized as "relating to
finance and financiers." The FTC explained that its "ap-
proach is consistent with the broad definition of 'financial
institution' used in the statute, which encompasses not only
traditional financial activities (such as banks, mortgage lend-
ers, finance companies), but also a large number of entities
that engage in activities not traditionally considered financial
(such as financial career counselors, insurance companies, and
data processors)." 65 Fed. Reg. at 33,658. While the FTC
could have defined "financial" more narrowly, the meaning it
chose is nevertheless a permissible one. Accordingly, under
Chevron, we defer to the FTC's interpretation.
C. "Reuse" Regulation
Next, Trans Union raises two objections to the "reuse"
restrictions set out in 16 C.F.R. s 313.11 which limit the
manner in which a third party, such as a CRA, may "use"
information it receives from a financial institution, as, for
example, in a credit report request. We reject each chal-
lenge.
First, Trans Union contends the regulation exceeds the
FTC's authority under the GLBA because it prohibits a CRA
from using "aggregated information" about consumers, which
contains no "personally identifiable" information, while 15
U.S.C. s 6802(c) prohibits a third party from reusing only
"nonpublic personal information." We reject this challenge
as not yet ripe.
"To determine whether a controversy is ripe for judicial
review the court must evaluate 'the fitness of the issues for
judicial decision and the hardship to the parties of withhold-
ing court consideration.' " General Elec. Co. v. EPA, 290
F.3d 377, 380 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (quoting Abbott Labs. v.
Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 149 (1967)). Whether the FTC may
lawfully prevent disclosure of aggregated data by CRAs is
plainly not yet fit for judicial decision. The FTC (as well as
the other agencies) has not determined whether or to what
extent aggregation should be considered "use" within the
meaning of 16 C.F.R. s 313.11. See Appellees' Br. at 44 n.26
("None of the agencies has taken any enforcement action or
issued any formal guidance on such issues."); 5/3/2002 Oral
Arg. Tr. at 42 ("[I]t's an open issue at the agencies. I think if
you look at the rule-making record, the statement of basis
and purpose, it's quite clear that when the agencies were
promulgating the use restriction, aggregation was not even
discussed."). Unless and until the FTC determines that use
includes aggregation, and at what level, the issue is not fit for
the court to consider and Trans Union suffers no hardship
from the court's withholding consideration of the issue.
Second, Trans Union contends the reuse regulation improp-
erly prohibits CRAs from reusing account numbers for mar-
keting purposes in violation of section 6802(d) which, Trans
Union contends, expressly exempts CRAs from all restric-
tions on marketing account numbers. We conclude the FTC
reasonably construed section 6802(d) otherwise. Section
6802(d) establishes a flat prohibition on disclosure by a finan-
cial institution of consumer account numbers with no provi-
sion for waiver by the consumer pursuant to the opt-out
provisions in section 6802(b): "A financial institution shall not
disclose, other than to a consumer reporting agency, an
account number or similar form of access number or access
code for a credit card account, deposit account, or transaction
account of a consumer to any nonaffiliated third party for use
in telemarketing, direct mail marketing, or other marketing
through electronic mail to the consumer." 15 U.S.C.
s 6802(d). The FTC has interpreted the language "other
than to a consumer reporting agency" to create a narrow
exception that permits a financial institution to disclose an
account number to a CRA only for the specific marketing
purposes expressly authorized in section 605(c)(1)(B) of the
FCRA, namely "in connection with [a] credit or insurance
transaction that is not initiated by the consumer" if "the
transaction consists of a firm offer of credit or insurance," 15
U.S.C. s 1681b(c)(1)(B). In other words, the FTC maintains,
the Congress inserted the exception into section 6802(d)
solely to prevent a conflict between this section and FCRA
s 605(c)(1)(B) which authorizes such marketing disclosure.
We find the FTC's interpretation is both plausible and consis-
tent with the plain intent of section 6802(d) to more tightly
restrict disclosure of account numbers than of other NPI. If
the exception were read as broadly as Trans Union advo-
cates--to permit unfettered marketing use of an account
number by a CRA--the account number would enjoy less, not
more, protection than other NPI because it could be disclosed
without any opportunity for the consumer to opt out.
D. Free Speech
Finally, Trans Union contends the regulations' restrictions
on disclosure and reuse violate its First Amendment right of
free speech because they prevent Trans Union from dissemi-
nating truthful nonpersonal information. To the extent the
challenge goes to the reuse of aggregated information, we
conclude it is not ripe for the reasons set out supra, p. 12.
With regard to the other challenged restrictions, we conclude
Trans Union's First Amendment arguments are foreclosed by
our opinion in Trans Union Corp. v. FTC (Trans Union I),
245 F.3d 809, reh'g denied, 267 F.3d 1138 (D.C. Cir. 2001),
cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 2386 (June 10, 2002).
First, Trans Union asserts the regulations do not survive
strict scrutiny review. In Trans Union I, however, the court
expressly held that "information about individual consumers
and their credit performance" in Trans Union's marketing
lists is not subject to strict scrutiny because it "is solely of
interest to the company and its business customers and
relates to no matter of public concern." 245 F.3d at 818.
The information Trans Union wishes to disclose here likewise
implicates no public concern and therefore, as in Trans
Union I, "warrant[s] 'reduced constitutional protection.' " Id.
(quoting Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc.,
472 U.S. 749, 762 n.8 (1985)).
Trans Union next argues that even if its contemplated
marketing qualifies only as commercial speech, the regula-
tions do not pass constitutional muster for several reasons.
Trans Union first contends the regulations do not advance a
substantial state interest. See Central Hudson Gas & Elec.
Corp. v. Public Serv. Comm'n, 447 U.S. 557, 566 (1980) ("In
commercial speech cases, ... we ask whether the asserted
governmental interest is substantial."). This argument as
well is precluded by Trans Union I which expressly recog-
nized that the governmental interest in "protecting the priva-
cy of consumer credit information" "is substantial." 245 F.3d
at 819. Trans Union also contends the FTC did not satisfy
its burden of identifying a harm that the regulation alleviates
to a material degree. See Greater New Orleans Broadcast-
ing Assn., Inc. v. United States, 527 U.S. 173, 188 (1999)
(under Central Hudson test, "governmental body seeking to
sustain a restriction on commercial speech must demonstrate
that the harms it recites are real and that its restriction will
in fact alleviate them to a material degree") (quoting Eden-
field v. Fane, 507 U.S. 761, 770-71 (1993)). On rehearing in
Trans Union I, however, the court concluded that "the
government cannot promote its interest (protection of person-
al financial data) except by regulating speech because the
speech itself (dissemination of financial data) causes the very
harm the government seeks to prevent." Trans Union v.
FTC, 267 F.3d 1138, 1143 (D.C. Cir. 2002). The same is true
here. Finally, Trans Union asserts the regulations are over-
broad. See Edenfield, 507 U.S. at 767 ("laws restricting
commercial speech" must "be tailored in a reasonable manner
to serve a substantial state interest in order to survive First
Amendment scrutiny") (citing Board of Trustees of State
University of N.Y. v. Fox, 492 U.S. 469, 480 (1989); Central
Hudson, 447 U.S., at 564). As we noted on rehearing in
Trans Union I, regulations such as these, which "[a]im[ ]
directly at [their] intended target," "ha[ve] neither indirect
nor unintended effects on speech" and "therefore sweep[ ]
only as broadly as necessary to accomplish [their] goal:
protecting the privacy of personal financial information." 267
F.3d at 1142-43. Trans Union has not proposed any specific
means by which "the Government could achieve its interests
in a manner that does not restrict speech, or that restricts
less speech." Thompson v. Western States Med. Ctr., 122
S. Ct. 1497, 1506 (2002). The only alternative Trans Union
suggests--allowing CRAs to use a notice and opt-out mecha-
nism as other financial institutions do--is not significantly
narrower than the regulations' present restrictions under
which a consumer is already provided notice and opportunity
to opt out by the financial institution with which he conducts
the transaction in the first instance. There is no reason to
believe a consumer would be more eager to relinquish his
privacy right to a CRA that subsequently obtains his NPI
than he was to the financial institution with which he initially
dealt.
For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the district court
is
Affirmed.