I don't see why Amex has the need to look at a person's profile for any given reason before giving a decision. They've operated for years without it before social networks were prevalent. So yes, should you get denied, I would look to that as part of the reason, regardless of what they say.
Advances in technology/social media means more platforms to find information for banks to use, better chances of identifying risky customers. Personally, I think it's pretty smart from a business perspective.
I have a FB but just for Fam.. I can never find the wall.. Never twitted, Instant Nothing, Telegramed whatever.. lol. Id rather call my friends and say hi, it seems more personable.. Do you think the worlds gone crazy over all the instant access? Doesnt it make everyone a stalker? I mean do we need to know what everyone is doing every minute of the day?? So weird.. or maybe im old school, we didnt have all this technology when i grew up..if you had a cell phone when i was younger ohhh geeez... lol, be prepared for a backpack to carry the thing around all day. For this reason alone is why i dont like to participate.. Ive heard potential jobs looking people up on Social media, and just plain ole scary tactics, ive got nothing to hide... or do I muahahahaha.. So doesnt surprise they may use that tactic but what if you never update what you really do etc.. and then they deny you?
I could care less really if they looked at mine. I pay my bills.
My company has an .com site and I do all the fraud checks when orders come in....part of what I do to confirm billing/shipping information is search the web including FB, LinkedIn and Spokeo.....I can't tell you how many orders I have cancelled because I have found them to be placed with stolen credit cards...especially Paypal MC....there are definite pros and cons to social media but those cardholders hat have been hit with fraud are very grateful we are taking the extra steps to confirm identity.....just my 2 cents...
Nice, so that is a very interesting spin.. so it could be used for good. Good job! Thanks for protecting for sure!
I looked it up and the law isn't crystal clear on the matter but this what I found and hopefully will shed some light!
Apparently they can look at your social networking sites if they are marked public and use what they see to make a decision on your application. However, most companies have steered away from this as the creditor must be able to provide evidence that the "visit" was for business use only.. So, if a customer service rep gets Suzie Smith on the phone calling into make a phone payment and the rep thinks she sounds cute and goes to her facebook page to check out what she looks like, then the rep can be fired and the company can be sued for harassment.. BUT, if the she calls in for a CLI and the analyst goes to her page then that looks like a more legitimate reason for the company to be on her page since she is calling in for more credit.. So, if the person wanted to they could fight it.. but the company better have pretty good reason to be on her social networking page..
That’s the information that I came away with.. hope this helps!
And what exactly could they use to make a decision, one way or the other?
It is just like any other thing..
Even posting on here myFico if someone with the right vernacular would to google search an inquiry..
e.g. "odds of approval for amex prg.." "recovering for bk"
some threads are top results on search engines.
You can't expect to post something on the internet and it be private. IMHO if you post you put yourself at risk of exposure regardless of whoever. Would it be different if the person who searched you been an employee at Walmart?
Yes. We give these CSRs a hard time because they represent a company that we give billions of dollars every year and we will continue but on the other hand if it was someone else we could care less. It is up to the user to control privacy. My 10cents.
It probably can be a smart move, but it's too fine a line to prove what factors caused the denial. Was it the employment criteria? Their connections? Or maybe it was their resume? Politicial affiliations? Could it just be the way they look, or even their age?
Such a fine line should never be tampered with, and I think that CC companies have no choice but to be reactive rather than proactive when it comes to new accounts. Only then is it justifiable to go surfing the world wide web for information on a delinquent. That platform holds no credibility if they do it to potentials. They already approve some people before they see that they are only student workers living off a one semester grant, yet they aren't patrolling the social skies for their worthiness. And that method has been working for them for decades to a fault (no hard numbers on how many accounts close due to age and occupation of individiual), and yet, it's cheaper than getting a slew of lawsuits in 50 states.