Scoring is one of the fundamental ways to improve customer management and acquisitions in any business. Companies use scoring to predict what kind of risk they will be working with before granting credit. When those predictions turn out to be wrong and the accounts move into collections, scoring is crucial in determining which actions result in repayment. Many companies handle each past due account in the same manner. They make sure they have updated phone numbers and addresses; then send letters and make phone calls--all of which are important steps. However, treating each account the same is neither an effective nor efficient use of resources. When dealing with a large number of collection accounts and a staff that needs to do more with less, you need a segmentation strategy to determine which accounts are most collectible, and focus your efforts on those accounts. Scoring has been used in collection efforts for many years; however the economy has changed dramatically since recovery scores were developed so it’s time to start considering new recovery scoring technologies. The use of blended data, which combines account-level transactional data and credit data, and advanced analytics, are vital to producing the most predictive recovery results. Leveraging geographic-based summarized data provides another level of segmentation allowing decisions to be made based on such things as local jobless rates or localized wealth pockets where income is higher in certain areas. Today’s most profitable collections operations utilize segmentation strategies that consider the customer’s capacity to pay and probability of recovery. Corresponding treatment strategies are then aligned so that more money is spent on those customers that are more likely and willing to pay, while spending less money on those that are not likely and less willing to pay. Regardless of your company size, the interest in minimizing costs within collections operations and maximizing dollars recovered should be your goal.  Innovations in recovery modeling will undoubtedly help you reach that goal. For additional information on recovery modeling, click here.

By: Staci Baker It seems like every time I turn on the TV there is another natural disaster. Tsunami in Japan, tornadoes and flooding in the Mid-West United States, earthquakes and forest fires – everywhere; and these disasters are happening worldwide. They are not confined to one location. If a disaster were to happen near any of your offices, would you be prepared? Living in Southern California, this is something I think of often. Especially, since we are supposed to have had “the big one” for the past several years now. When developing a preparedness plan for a company, there are several things to take into consideration. Some are obvious, such as how to keep employees safe, developing steps for IT  to take to ensure data is protected , including an identity theft prevention program, and establishing contingency business plans in case a disaster directly hits your business and doors need to remain closed for several days, weeks, or …. But, what about the non-obvious items that should be included in a disaster preparedness plan? When a natural disaster hits, there is an increase in fraud. So much so, that after Hurricane Katrina battered the Gulf, the Hurricane Katrina Fraud Task Force, now known as the National Center for Disaster Fraud, was created. In addition to the items listed above, I recommend including the following. Create a plan that will put fraud alerts in place to minimize fraud.  Fraud alerts are not just to notify your clients when there is fraudulent activity on their accounts. Alerts should also be put in place to let you know when there is fraudulent activity within your own business as well. Depending on the type of disaster, delinquency rates may increase, since borrower funds may be diverted to other needs. Implement a disaster collections strategy, which may include modifying credit terms, managing credit risk, and loan loss provisioning. Although these are only a few things to be considered when developing a disaster preparedness plan, I hope it gets you thinking about what your company needs to do to be prepared. What are some things you have already done, or that are on your to do list to prepare your company for the next big event that may affect you?

It seems as though every day the news headlines trumpet another high-profile data breach.  The most recent marquee breach is courtesy of a Sony PlayStation Network hacker, whose attack on the Sony and Qriocity servers between April 17th and 19th have compromised the personal data and, possibly, stored credit card information of 77 million players.  (Yes, you read that right; 77 million.)  Combine that with other recent cyber-heists affecting millions of unsuspecting consumers or residents, and many organizations have been forced to send out a dizzying array of email notifications to their customer base, many – if not all – of whom are now vulnerable to spear-phishing attacks. With numerous different breaches affecting so many people as of late, millions of consumers are receiving emails from trusted brands noting that customer emails (and perhaps other information) have been compromised, so consumers should be wary of future emails that may appear to be sent from them…like the one they’re reading now. Got that? This begs the question of whether customers are starting to tune out to the onslaught of breach alerts flooding their email in-boxes. Some security gurus believe that notifications aren’t effective and customers become numb to these alerts.  Others are convinced that breach information overload is a good thing, educating people to the dangers lurking in the cybershadows and their vulnerability to identity thieves.  After all, how do you know to watch out for email “bait” if you’re not aware there’s a phishing hook with your name on it? Furthermore, the flip side of over-notification is under-notification.  This is something that Sony is now being accused of in a lawsuit that claims the company waited too long to notify its PlayStation customers of the recent breach, which only exacerbated customer vulnerability to credit card fraud. The irony is that while the dramatic breaches of late have been stealing headlines (as well as data), a 2011 Data Breaches Investigations Report by Verizon indicates that total thefts from data breaches have in fact declined significantly over the past few years.  The total number of records actually compromised from these breaches was a “mere” 4 million in 2010, quite a drop from the 144 million records compromised in 2009, and the 361 million compromised records in 2008.  The bad news?  If you look at actual data breaches versus compromised records, the numbers this year are up; 760 breaches last year, an increase from 141 in 2009. The bottom line: while fraudsters haven’t been able to recently score as much cyber-loot as in times past, this is no time to relax. Just be aware that with the steep increase in breaches comes an equally steep increase in breach notifications, and the associated risk that breach notification fatigue will put your customers to sleep. Learn more about our Data Breach solutions

Unless you’ve been hiding under a rock, you are undoubtedly aware that the 4G ship has sailed into port. The 4G network is a completely different technology as compared to 3G, the network it is replacing. 3G was fast, but 4G will set the world on fire. It’s kind of like the difference between a farm tractor and a Lamborghini. Rather than just being able to check email and (slowly) surf the net (as with 3G), 4G users will be able to watch live television and rip through online content like nobody’s business. So what does this mean for communications companies? Change device, change carrier? The big question for wireless providers is whether or not customers will change carriers as they upgrade to new, 4G-supported devices. The simple answer is, it depends. Customers who are currently under contract will not likely jump ship for the simple fact that it will cost too much. For example, let’s say I want to upgrade five devices. I can probably buy these less expensively by changing carriers (due to attractive introductory offers). However, if I have to cancel three contracts prior to term end to do it, it may cost me upwards of $1,000—probably more than I can save by changing carriers. For customers who are at the end of a contract term, upgrading to 4G presents a golden opportunity to change providers, if that’s something they’ve been considering. Wireless providers will obviously need to contact these customers well before their contracts are up and make them an offer they simply can’t refuse. Other concerns for wireless providers Obviously, key players in the market have invested a significant amount of money to develop the 4G infrastructure, and sooner or later they’re going to want to recoup those costs. Introductory offers will motivate many to upgrade to 4G, but will all these new/upgrade customers be able to pay the higher monthly bills that will likely come with their new 4G devices? While locking in all these new contracts will positively affect sales quotas, it will be more important than ever to assess these customers’ cash flow situations and credit-worthiness, so they don’t end up negatively affecting the bottom line. Concerns for other telecommunications companies One other interesting aspect to consider is this: With a 4G device, consumers can effectively create their own “hot spot.” So the question is, just as many people are dropping their landlines in favor of wireless, will 4G device users decide to drop their Internet providers? How about their cable television service? I intend to revisit this topic in 3-6 months to see whether early 4G adopters are in fact jumping to different carriers and/or dropping other services. What do you think might happen as 4G becomes the new normal? Leave a comment and share your thoughts.

With cell phones overtaking landlines as the new “home phone” for many consumers, things could get tricky for credit card holders and other debtors as well as the creditors who need to reach them. The Federal Communications Commission wants to limit the ability of collectors to use autodialers to call cell phones. But the unintended consequences could make credit more costly as well as harder to get for younger customers. The FCC’s proposed revision At issue is a proposed FCC action to revise the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) of 1991 in an effort to align its regulations with Federal Trade Commission rules. The do-not-call rules already restrict telemarketers from calling cell phones. But the new FCC revisions would cover any call to a cell phone, including legitimate calls to collect a debt, notify a customer of a payment due, or request additional information to complete an application. Confusion about consent Businesses are puzzled at how compliance might work under the new rule. If approved, the proposed rule would no longer permit creditors to call a customer’s cell phone when the cell number was filled in on an application. The proposed rule changes the definition of what constitutes prior consent. Just having a phone number on an application wouldn’t be sufficient. Companies would be required to have written permission, such as “I consent to calling my cell phone when there’s a problem…” When a cell phone is the only phone This raises new issues. For instance, if a consumer needs to be contacted, but the company doesn’t know the cell phone is the only line, the company could still be liable for calling it. What now? The good news is that this issue hasn’t moved anywhere over the last year. The rule was proposed in March of 2010 and comments were accepted up to last May, but nothing has happened since. From a regulatory perspective, the level of industry concern over the FCC’s proposed rule warrants some caution. While some form of revision could still go forward, the modification may not be in line with FTC rules. Are you concerned about the FCC’s proposed cell phone rule? Let us know if you’ve developed contingencies in case it’s approved. We’ll be sure to keep you up to date on any new developments, so watch this space for updates. For further reading on this issue: FCC Cell Phone Rule Would Raise Risk Debt Collectors Seek Right to 'Robocall' Cell Phones

Time certainly does fly — I can’t believe it’s been more than a month since TRMA’s Spring Conference in Las Vegas! Those of us who participated from Experian Decision Analytics had a great time interacting with all the telecommunications risk management professionals who attended, and the feedback we received on our presentations was overwhelmingly positive. Sharing our thoughts We had the occasion to get together recently to compare notes about the conference, and wanted to share a few observations with you: Attendees who participated in Jim Nowell’s SimTel business game were EXTREMELY engaged. (Click here to see photos!) A number of participants told Jim they’d like to have him run the game for their entire team back at the office. Greg Carmean reported that there was a lot of interest focused on credit consortiums, especially concerning who is participating in them within the telecommunications space. Linda Haran noted that attendees were curious about where jobs would be created (largely in the private sector) and where foreclosure activity would be the strongest (CA, AZ, NV and MI as expected, but increases have been observed in TX, WA, IL, GA and CO). Jeff Bernstein found that unemployment remains a concern, though increasing consumer confidence and spending seem to be moving us toward a slow but steady recovery. Collectability scores were also a big topic of interest. Attendees wanted to better understand whether these scores represent a consumer’s ability to pay or their propensity to pay. Finally, regulatory requirements continue to be an area of concern, especially surrounding the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).   Share your thoughts! If you attended TRMA’s Spring Conference, we’d love to hear from you. Please share your thoughts and impressions from the conference by commenting on this blog post. All of us at Experian look forward to seeing you at TRMA’s Summer Conference in San Francisco June 28 - 29, 2011.

DISH Network’s Team Summit scheduled for May 4-6 Team Summit is an annual event hosted by DISH Network for over 3,000 retailers in the digital satellite broadcast industry who are serious about growing their businesses and doing what it takes to succeed. This year’s Team Summit is scheduled for May 4-6 at the Colorado Convention Center in Denver, Colorado. In addition to training, networking, meals, entertainment and more, Team Summit features a trade show that includes over a hundred companies showcasing the latest in technology, services and tools. At Experian, we’re committed to investing in new technologies in order to offer our customers the most effective ways to target, acquire and manage customers. Being a part of Team Summit helps us better understand how we can more effectively respond to the needs of one of the key industries we serve. It also allows us to share what we see as up-and-coming trends and new developments in all areas of customer lifecycle management. Learn more about Team Summit Click here for more details on DISH Network’s Team Summit and be sure to stop by our booth. We look forward to seeing you there, but if you can’t attend (or even if you can), be sure to follow us on Twitter for live summit updates, and check back here for post-summit blog posts.

As more and more consumers recover from the recent economic turmoil, they have a driving need to better understand how their credit situations impact their ability to make purchases and obtain services like wireless, cable television, Internet and more. Here at Experian, we recently launched a pilot program through our National Consumer Assistance Center (NCAC) to gauge consumers’ receptiveness to receiving credit education. A frustrated population The pilot program involved consumers referred to the NCAC by some of our utility clients. Like many cable, wireless and telecom customers, these people were frustrated about having to pay a security deposit to obtain service. Experian offered them a one-on-one educational session over the phone that included: An explanation of the major components of a credit report The distinction and relationship between a credit history and a credit score Definitions of negative elements on a credit history   Positive outcomes The results of the pilot program, as measured through exit surveys, were quite positive: On a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest, those who participated in the program scored the service as a 4.9 in terms of being helpful. 96% of respondents indicated they are “likely” or “very likely” to act on the knowledge they received and/or change how they use credit. Despite still having to pay a deposit, nearly 50% of respondents ultimately felt “positive” or “very positive” about the utility company whose actions led to their being involved in the educational session. Implications for communications companies The benefits of offering consumer credit education are far-reaching. Not only can it help you build stronger relationships with current and potential customers, it can also help your customers improve their own credit-worthiness, and thus increase their eligibility for the products you offer and decrease the need for hefty deposits. Did you know that April is Financial Literacy Month? In support of Financial Literacy Month, Experian is participating in a number of events with the JumpStart Coalition for Financial Literacy and providing education materials and resources to many different organizations that are conducting financial literacy programs around the country. We are also enhancing our consumer education web site and developing a package of credit education and mentoring services that communications companies can offer to their customers. Check back for more information on that development in future posts.

Last week I attended the Merchant Risk Council’s 2011 MRC Annual e-Commerce Payments & Risk Conference.  I presented a session titled “Efficiency and Empowerment in Risk-based Authentication” with a client who has been able to use knowledge based authentication as a sales enabler - Home Shopping Network.  You might be wondering what I mean by this.  It is actually pretty simple:  Home Shopping Network already has a fraud prevention program in place and utilizes risk based authentication to send a percentage of orders to an outsort queue.  By using knowledge based authentication to further verify the true consumer, Home Shopping Network has been able to release an increased portion of those orders for shipping, increasing both revenue and the customer experience.  The paradigm shift was thinking of knowledge based authentication as a sale enabler, rather than just a fraud tool.  It was a great experience, to help share the story of this client’s success.   If you are interested in the Merchant Risk Council:  The Merchant Risk Council (MRC) is a merchant-led trade association focused on electronic commerce risk and payments.  They lead industry networking, education, benchmarking and advocacy programs to make electronic commerce more efficient, safe and profitable. For more information on the Home Shopping Network, visit: http://www.hsn.com

By: Kristan Frend I was recently pleased to see that the state I reside in, Minnesota finished in the bottom third of a state ranking.  Luckily the rankings weren’t about overall health (#6), high school graduation (#3), or SAT scores (#2); instead it was the Federal Trade Commission’s state identity theft complaint ranks.  Minnesota has just 49.2 complaints per 100,000 population, whereas the highest ranked state, Florida, as 114.8 complaints per 100,000 population.   The top three states leading identity theft consumer complaints (per 100,000 population) included Florida, Arizona, and California.   Besides warm sunshine and top-tier golf courses, what do these three states have in common?  According to the February 2011 RealtyTrac U.S. Foreclosure Market Report™, all three rank in the top 5 states for foreclosure, and two of the three (Florida and California) rank #49 and #50 in unemployment rates, according to a March 2011 report released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.    On a national level unemployment rates and identity fraud incidence rates both improved from 2009 to 2010.  From 2009 to 2010, unemployment rates went from 10.0% to 9.4% while according to Javelin’s 2010 Annual Identity Fraud Survey Report, identity fraud incidence rates fell from 4.8% to 3.5%.    While it may be inaccurate to state that economic distress causes higher rates of identity fraud, there does seem to be a natural correlation between economic downswings and fraudulent activity.   As we move further into 2011, it will be interesting to see if identity fraud incidence rates will continue to decrease as unemployment and economic outlook is on the upward swing. 

There’s no question times have been tough for consumers in the last few years due to the higher incidence of unemployment, bankruptcies, home foreclosures and increased credit balances. Unfortunately, these issues have a way of trickling down to communication companies’ collection departments, many of which are scrambling with heavier workloads and fewer resources. The key for cable, wireless, and telecom companies like yours is to prioritize your collection portfolio by first contacting the people most likely to pay. Once you’ve identified these people, your next task is to access and record any changes to their accounts, such as a new phone number or any improvements to their credit profile. But how can you get these updates without having to check their credit reports on a regular basis? Trigger program to the rescue By scrapping the usual manual skip tracing activities and using a “trigger” program, telecom industry collection staff can proactively obtain information as fresh as 24 hours old. Most trigger programs allow you to monitor any type of data, such as phone numbers, addresses, or places of employment. You can even use events, such as a change in the debtor’s financial status, to trigger an alert. This is especially helpful for cases in which your collection team has the right contact information, but the customer does not have the ability to pay. Being the first to contact the debtor when he or she again has money is crucial, because many collectors are likely competing for these funds to pay off debt. Save time, save money Most trigger program providers will monitor your portfolio for free, only charging on a per-trigger basis. Not only does this save valuable collector time, it also avoids the expense of pulling a full credit report on the consumer (and hoping that the information was recently updated). As more and more of your collection accounts become active again, and your customers’ credit improves, a trigger program helps your company be first in line to contact them for repayment. To learn more about how collection account monitoring tools can benefit your company, read our case study about how accounts receivable management firm First Financial Asset Management, Inc. was able to increase its collections by $3.5 million—a return of $72 for every $1 spent on trigger data.

The subject of “bill shock” has been getting an increasing amount of coverage lately. On one side, the FCC and consumer groups are advocating new regulations mandating customer alerts and other information to help customers avoid unexpected monthly charges, or “bill shock.” On the other side, three wireless industry groups, CTIA, the Rural Cellular Association (RCA) and the Rural Telecommunications Group (RTG), have come out in opposition to the FCC’s proposed mandate. The consumer view According to Consumer Reports, bill shock is a common occurrence: One in five survey respondents reported receiving an unexpectedly high bill in the previous year, often for exceeding the plan's voice, text, or data limits… half of them were hit for at least $50, and one in five for more than $100. The industry view In comments to the FCC, the CTIA maintained that new mandates were not only unnecessary but costly, and that carriers already provided sufficient monitoring tools for customers. In addition, the CTIA argued that the FCC did not have the authority to impose such rules and that they would violate First Amendment protections: The FCC should refrain from initiating prescriptive rules that not only would likely cost carriers (and therefore consumers) tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars to put into practice, but that also would raise numerous legal issues, create substantial implementation challenges, and force companies to upgrade to a set of government standards instead of creatively competing in the provision of service to customers. A No-Win Situation? The issue puts carriers in an awkward position. Even if they prevail with the FCC and prevent the proposed mandates, they may still lose in terms of public relations with consumers. Connected Planet Blogger Susana Schwartz got to the heart of the matter with the question of who is ultimately responsible: the customer or the carrier? At what point is it too much responsibility to put on the carriers’ shoulders and at what point should people be held responsible for their choices? Regardless of the answer to such philosophical questions, there are the three key FCC proposals that wireless carriers need to be aware of as the issue moves forward. Three New Potential FCC Mandates   Over-the-Limit Alerts: The FCC’s proposed rules would require customer notification, such as voice or text alerts, when the customer approaches and reaches monthly limits that will result in overage charges.   Out-of-the-Country Alerts: The FCC’s proposed rules would require mobile providers to notify customers when they are about to incur international or other roaming charges that are not covered by their monthly plans, and if they will be charged at higher-than-normal rates.     Easy-to-Find Tools: The FCC’s proposed rules would require clear disclosure of any tools offered by mobile providers to set usage limits or review usage balances. The FCC is also asking for comment on whether all carriers should be required to offer the option of capping usage based on limits set by the consumer.   How will these proposals affect your business? Let us know your concerns. We’ll keep a close watch on this issue as it develops and keep you posted.

This is the third post in our series about bundling. In the previous two posts, I discussed 1) the many benefits of bundling services and 2) how to determine who might be a good candidate for bundled services. When it comes to maximizing upside and mitigating risk, of primary concern is knowing your customer’s payment history and creditworthiness. But once you’ve identified good candidates for bundled services, just what is it you should offer? An offer they can’t refuse As with most marketing practices, there is no exact formula for creating a successful bundled package. Some considerations include: Making sure the package is worth more than the sum of its parts. If it costs the same to buy each of the services separately, your customers might very well go shopping elsewhere for each individual service.   Creating a package that makes it easier to choose from various options. An overly complicated offer is more likely to drive customers away. On the other hand, an offer that simplifies your customer’s life is going to be more attractive.     Ensuring that the customer feels at least one product in the bundle is a “need” item. For example, many consumers require a landline for an alarm system, which makes the landline a “need item” for them. Linking an essential service or product (“need item”) to a luxury product/service (“nice to have”) adds value to the package and makes it more attractive to certain consumers. Because the package includes a need item, these consumers would think twice before skipping a payment.     Providing a few choices rather than a one-size-fits-all offer. Create several packages at different price points that include different options. To determine the most appropriate services to bundle, you need to drill down to find out what products are most appealing in a particular market. For instance, bundling might be more appealing in some higher income point populations as opposed to lower income areas.     Understanding a customer’s cash flow situation and accommodating for a certain degree of bill shock can go a long way toward creating bundled offers that customers actually respond to in a positive way.     Any questions? If you’re thinking about getting into the bundling game — or expanding on your current bundling strategy — you have a lot to consider beyond these three posts. If you have specific questions in the realm of bundling you would like to see addressed, please be sure to comment on this post.

Well, actually, it isn’t. The better question to ask is when to use knowledge based authentication (KBA). I know I have written before about using it as part of a risk based authentication approach to fraud account management, but I am often asked what I mean by that statement. So, I thought it might be a good idea to provide a few more details and give some examples. Basically, what I mean is this: risk segmentation based on binary verification is unwise. Binary verification can occur based on identity elements, or it can occur based on pass/fail performance from out of wallet questions, but the fact remains that the primary decisioning strategy is relying on a condition with two outcomes – verified or not verified, pass or fail – and that is unwise. When we recommend a risk based authentication approach, the view is more broadly based. We advocate using analytics and weighting many factors, including those identity elements and knowledge based authentication performance as part of an overall decision, rather than an as end-all decision. If you take this kind of approach, when might you want to use this kind of approach? The answer to that is just about any time a transaction contains a level of risk, understanding that each organization will have a unique definition and tolerance for “risk”. It could be an origination or account opening scenario, when you do not yet have a relationship with a consumer. It could be in an account management setting, when you have a relationship with the consumer and know their expected behavior (and therefore anything outside of expected behavior is risk). It could be in transactional settings where there is an exchange of money or information belonging to the consumer. All of these are appropriate uses for KBA as part of a risk based approach.

Issues that could have a major impact on how telecommunications, cable and energy companies conduct business will soon be decided, as all 50 state legislatures go into session. It’s not every year that this happens, since some state legislatures only meet biannually.Two Big Issues to Watch: Breach Notification & Employment Screenings1) Breach NotificationNow that 46 states have a breach notification law on the books, lawmakers are looking at whether those standards should be expanded. So far, at least 12 state legislatures are considering proposals.At the heart of all breach notification laws is a set of conditions, or “triggers,” that have to occur before a company is required to send out a breach notification to consumers. For most states, the requirement is based on some level of harm for consumers as a result of the breach. Some states have begun to look at those triggers and conclude that all types of breach, no matter the risk, should be report to consumers. Additionally, included in some pieces of legislation is a requirement to report all breaches, no matter the size, to the state attorney general. The concern of many in the private sector is that attorney general notification opens up new liabilities for companies, as many states will post a list of breaches on a government website, even if there is no harm to a consumer.States are also examining the types of information that should be provided to consumers as a result of a breach. For example, should consumers be notified of information such as the time, location and type of information exposed during a breached. The challenge is that all of this information would be made public, possibly creating additional risk.2) Employment ScreeningsWith a weakened economy, state legislators are looking for ways to help the unemployed find new work. As a result, lawmakers are looking into placing new restrictions on the ability of employers to conduct credit checks on prospective employees. The intention driving the discussion is to help consumers who might be negatively affected by poor credit history out of concern that the information will result in an individual’s ability to be hired.Currently, only four states have statutes that regulate an employer’s use credit history data. This year, at least fourteen states are considering their own restrictions.Why Check a Job Applicant’s Credit?Misconceptions about the content of credit reports used for employment purposes have encouraged the proposals. The result, however, of such legislation would be to remove a valuable tool from employers to evaluate and compare different candidates under consideration for a job.Since employers are held responsible for the actions of their employees, it’s only natural they take steps to protect themselves. Such measures are already regulated by the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Some legislatures may also soon expand those restrictions. The result of using credit is not fewer employees being hired, but hiring the best candidates for the job.What’s Next? Stay TunedAs most state legislatures are composed of part-time lawmakers, many will be in session only through April, but these trends will likely impact discussions at the national level. For instance, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has already held hearings to examine employers’ use of credit checks. And Congress is contemplating a national breach law.We’ll be monitoring future regulatory developments, so check back frequently or subscribe to keep up on these issues and others affecting your industry.