Financial services marketers received a break last month when the U.S. House of Representatives renewed the Fair Credit Reporting Act, extending its pre-emption of state laws.

The bill, HR2622, passed by a 392-30 vote. At deadline, it still had to be passed by the Senate.

Financial services marketers received a meaningful break tonight when the U.S. House of Representatives renewed the Fair Credit Reporting Act, reaffirming its precedence over state laws.

The bill, HR2622, passed by a 392-30 vote, according to wire service reports.

The House rejected an amendment by Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) to exempt a tough opt-in law recently passed in California from the state premption clause, the reports said.

That bill, SB-1, was authored by California State Senator Jackie Speier. Signed into law by Gov. Gray Davis on Aug. 27, it requires that bank obtain a consumer’s permission before sharing information with outside companies, “particularly non-financial ones,” according to Robert Herrell, staff director Speier.

According to Herrell, Speier’s bill added an opt-in where federal law allowed an opt-out, and and opt-out where that had been no opt at all.

But tonight’s passage seems to eliminate that threat to financial services marketers.

Passed after a marathon session in which many amendments were debated, the House bill also contains new provisions on identity theft, and a measure that would provide consumers with a free credit report once a year.

The bill, which eliminates all sunset provisions, must still be considered by the Senate. FCRA was scheduled to expire at the end of this year.

The Bush administration has indicated its willingness to back renewal of uniform credit-reporting standards. On July 30, Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs that “national information sharing standards benefit our economy as a whole…we look forward to working with this committee and the full Senate to move a strong package of reforms into law this year.”

Marketers feared that without renewal of the preemption measure, the restrictions mandated under Speier’s SB-1 could spread across the United States. And Davis pointed in that direction when he signed the bill.

“We all know that when California leads, America follows,” he said. “Today, California is setting a new course for consumers in America.”

But privacy advocates had called on Bush and Congress to let the preemption clause lapse. For example, California consumer advocate Jamie Court argued that President Bush should oppose renewal of the state preemption clause. “Banks and insurers know that without a federal bailout, California’s privacy protections will spread across the nation,” Court said in a statement.

Steve Barlett, CEO of the Financial Services Roundtable, a lobbying group with a membership comprised of 100 top financial services firms, warned earlier this year that failure to renew FCRA and the premption clause would lead to a “train wreck.” (DIRECT Newsline, May 12, 2003).

Without it, cities and counties also would be able to set their own standards, which could lead to the offering of credit block by block, and a chaotic situation in general, Barlett said.