No. While a creditor would be immune from civil penalties for initial violations of section 622(a)(1), it would continue to be subject to civil penalties for violation of Federal Trade Commission or State orders, even if the same conduct would also constitute a violation of section 622(a)(1). The limitation in the amendment only addresses statutory violations, not order violations which are a separate matter. It is critical that the Commission and States be able to vindicate their authority by sanctioning violations of their orders. Therefore, the prohibition on seeking civil penalties is clearly limited to violators of section 622(a)(1) who are not also under Commission or State order.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing civil penalties related to violations of section 622(a)(1) and the authority of the Federal Trade Commission.
Share
More from Richard Bryan
I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my colleague, Senator Reid. As Senator Reid has already described, this amendment would eliminate an unfair and discriminatory tax faced by many retirees in Nevada, and throughout the…
The Senator from Missouri is correct. If I might, Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Missouri, in his absence I noted his steadfast support and his diligence over many, many years in bringing this piece of legislation to the floor…
This is a piece of legislation which is a victory for the American consumers. It fundamentally changes in the most fair way the burden of correcting misinformation that innocently becomes a part of an individual's credit history. As we…
today I join many of my colleagues in cosponsoring one of the most successful and important programs of the Federal Government--Head Start--which has received ringing endorsements by politicians at both ends of the spectrum. The Head Start…





