TransUnion is making its customers listen to XXXX minutes of advertisements for paid credit-monitoring services before TransUnion will place a fraud alert on the customer 's file. The way TransUnion describes these paid services is unfair and abusive because consumers have to listen to the advertisement and decline it XXXX before TransUnion will complete the request to place a fraud alert on file. The way the advertisement is presented and the timing of the presentation make it seem like a required part of the process of placing a fraud alert on file. 

Background is as follows. On XXXX/XXXX/15 I called TransUnion to place a fraud alert on my credit file. ( I had just learned my social security number had been stolen and someone was using it. ) I went through TransUnion 's prompts on initiating the fraud alert. 

Then, before TransUnion 's automated system said the fraud alert was placed, it played an advertisement for paid credit-monitoring services provided by TransUnion. This ad was about XXXX seconds long and followed by a choice to press " XXXX '' and order the service or press " XXXX '' and decline the service. I pressed " XXXX. '' TransUnion immediately played a XXXX advertisement for the same service, this time XXXX seconds in length and using much more alarming language, again encouraging me to pay for the service. Again I was presented with the choice to press " XXXX '' to order the service or " XXXX '' decline it. I pressed " XXXX. " Only after I declined the service XXXX did TransUnion 's automated system state that my request to place a fraud alert on file was successful. 

TransUnion should not be able to require victims of identity theft to listen to TransUnion 's paid advertisements as the price for placing a fraud alert on their own files. But that is exactly what TransUnion is doing right now.