Big Brother is Coming for Your Tomatoes

While the U.S.A. has its share of problems, there are a whole lot of reasons that I'm grateful to be living in America rather that most anywhere else.

Doggone but there are lots of reasons to be thankful to be an American.  

For example, I'm thankful I live in America (ain't it grand?!). I'm thankful for my kids, wife, brothers and sisters, and my dog, Ziggy (isn't he the cutest?).

I'm thankful for clean, running water, an air conditioner that works in the summer heat and (for that matter) electricity that flows freely (or controlled by the government so that it's cold in the winter and hot in the summer). For paved roads and supermarkets that are full of food and other stuff readily available for purchase (instead of just for looking at - like what you might see in most communist countries like North Korea and parts of China).

What I'm not particularly thankful for is government regulation that reaches beyond what it should be.

I bring this up because the other day I was listening to an internet pundit talk about how people's personal backyard gardens are a violation (or can be a violation) of the federal Commerce Clause because it interferes with interstate commerce by reducing the amount of produce they would normally purchase were they not to have a personal garden.

So, before we get too far into this, what exactly is the Commerce Clause?

The Commerce Clause (found in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution) gives Congress the power to regulate trade with foreign nations, Native American tribes, and between states. Its main purpose is to prevent individual states from passing laws that restrict trade and to create a unified, national economy.

Because the Constitution doesn't strictly define the word "commerce," the exact limit of federal power is heavily debated. While Congress is supposed to regulate cross-state trade, it has occasionally used this power to regulate seemingly local activities that have a widespread national impact. 

For example, the interpretation of what Congress can regulate has expanded significantly over the years. Congress has used the Commerce Clause to:

• Set national workplace and safety standards.
• Ban discrimination in public places and businesses.
• Regulate environmental protections and product quality.

While there is no federal law prohibiting backyard gardens, under some circumstances, Congress could regulate activities associated with personal gardening under the Commerce Clause if those activities substantially affected interstate commerce.

And government kinda did this in 1942 when the SCOTUS handed down its decision in Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942).  

Why Wickard is so important is that it endorsed a broad interpretation of Congress's power to regulate economic activity that, in the aggregate, affects interstate commerce.

In 1942, Farmer Filburn grew wheat.  He was so good at it that he grew more grew more wheat than permitted under the federal quotas established by the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938.  The problem was that under the the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, the federal government regulated how much wheat farmer's could produce.

Filburn argued that the excess wheat was intended only for use on his own farm and never entered the marketplace, so Congress lacked authority to regulate it.  The SCOTUS  reasoned, however, that although Filburn's own wheat production was local and seemingly trivial, if other farmers were to make the same choice, it would collectively reduce demand in the national wheat market. 

Ultimately, the SCOTUS said that because the aggregate effect of such conduct could substantially influence interstate commerce, Congress could regulate even purely local production. 

So, could the same logic apply to backyard tomatoes?

Legally...Yes.

Practically...almost certainly not.  NOTE: that's "almost" as in it hasn't happened, yet.

Suppose you grow:

• tomatoes
• lettuce
• onions
• peppers

instead of buying them, using Wickard's reasoning, you have removed yourself from the market.

If everyone did it, national demand for tomatoes, lettuce, onions and peppers would decrease. Therefore Congress could, theoretically, regulate your private backyard garden.

Note: that doesn't mean Congress has done so.  It means Congress could and has constitutional authority to regulate private backyard gardens if it so chooses and there is NOTHING you can do about it.

Let's look at another case, shall we: Gonzales v. Raisch, 545 U.S. 1 (2005).  Gonzales addressed whether Congress could prohibit the local cultivation and use of medical marijuana that complied with state law. 

By 2005, California had legalized growing marijuana for personal medical use.

Angel Raich and Diane Monson argued that the marijuana they used or cultivated solely within California for medical purposes should not be subject to the federal Controlled Substances Act because it never entered interstate commerce.

In a 6–3 opinion written by John Paul Stevens, the Court held that Congress in fact had authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate even purely local, noncommercial cultivation.  Consequently, mere possession of said marijuana would be part of a broader regulatory scheme governing the interstate drug market.  

So, are backyard gardens unconstitutional?  Presently, there is no federal law saying: "You may not grow vegetables in your backyard."  Congress simply hasn't regulated ordinary backyard vegetable gardens. 

But, when could a backyard garden violate federal law?  Several possibilities exist.  For example: 

1. Protected plants

Growing certain plants could violate federal statutes.

Examples:

• Marijuana:  Marijuana cultivation is primarily regulated through the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), codified at 21 U.S.C. §§ 801–971.
• Coca:  Coca is a shrub in the genus Erythroxylum coca native to the Andes of South America. Cultivation of Coca is regulated under the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. §§ 801–971).
• Opium poppies:  Like marijuana and coca, opium poppies are regulated primarily through the Controlled Substances Act. 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).

2. Invasive species

The Plant Protection Act (Title 7 of the United States Code, Chapter 104 (7 U.S.C. §§ 7701–7786) authorizes regulation of certain plant pests, noxious weeds, and quarantined plants.

Examples include:

• Transporting infected plant: (i.e. moving citrus trees that are infected with citrus greening disease (HLB) across a federal quarantine boundary.
• Prohibited species (like Kudzu, Giant Salvinia, Witchweed, or Hydrilla).
• Invasive weeds (like Cogongrass, Mile-a-Minute Weed, Purple Loosestrife, Giant Hogweed, or Japanese Knotweed). 

3. Federal land

Depending on which federal agency manages the land and what conduct is involved, growing crops on federal land without authorization can violate federal law.  

For example, a person who clears a patch of national forest and plants a vegetable garden without a permit could violate regulations prohibiting unauthorized occupancy or use of National Forest System lands under:

Organic Administration Act of 1897

National Forest Management Act of 1976

Regulations in 36 C.F.R. Part 261

So, suppose you were hiking in a national forest and thought:  "I'll plant six tomato plants here and come back in August."  Even though tomatoes are perfectly legal, you could still be violating federal regulations because:

• You are making unauthorized use of federal land,
• Altering federal property, and
• Depending on the circumstances, installing improvements (such as fencing or irrigation) could also be a violation of federal law.

Unauthorized farming, irrigation, fencing, or cultivation on BLM land can result in administrative, civil, or criminal enforcement under:

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA)

Regulations in 43 C.F.R.

National parks are managed primarily for conservation and public enjoyment.  Planting crops, disturbing vegetation, or altering the landscape generally requires authorization under:

National Park Service regulations in 36 C.F.R. Part 2 

4. Environmental laws

Certain gardening activities can implicate: the Clean Water Act

The Clean Water Act is primarily concerned with protecting "waters of the United States" (often called WOTUS). One of the most litigated questions in environmental law is what counts as a protected water or wetland.

Example 1: Filling a Wetland to Expand a Garden

Suppose you own ten acres in Idaho. Behind your house is a low, marshy area that stays wet most of the year. You think:  "This would make a perfect pumpkin patch."

So you:

• bring in twenty dump trucks of dirt,
• bury the marsh,
• install drainage pipes,
• till the new soil,
• plant pumpkins.

What you may not realize is that the marsh is a federally protected wetland connected to a nearby creek.

The federal government could argue that you discharged "fill material" into protected waters without a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, potentially violating the Clean Water Act.

Notice: The violation isn't growing pumpkins. The violation is filling the wetland without authorization. 

Example 2: Diverting a Stream

Suppose a small stream crosses your property. To irrigate your vegetable garden you:

• Build a small earthen dam,
• Dig a new channel,
• Permanently divert the stream.

Depending on the circumstances and current law, that alteration may require federal or state authorization because you've modified a protected watercourse.  Again, the tomatoes are perfectly legal. Changing the stream is the issue.

Example 3: Dumping Soil into a Creek

Suppose you're leveling your backyard for raised beds. Instead of hauling away the extra soil, you push it into the creek behind your house. That soil can be considered "fill material."

The government isn't regulating gardening. It's regulating pollution and filling waterways.

5. Federal agricultural programs

If a farmer accepts federal subsidies, there are often restrictions regarding:

• Acreage
• Crop type
• Conservation requirements

Violations may result in loss of benefits. For example: Corn farmer and the “base acreage + conservation compliance” system:

Say a farmer in Iowa enrolls in a USDA program under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (as amended by later Farm Bills, including the modern “Farm Bill” framework).

Farmer then receives federal subsidies based on historical production of corn and soybeans (“base acreage”), plus participation in conservation programs. 

Step 1: Acreage restriction (base acreage rule)

The farmer is told: “Your subsidy is based on 500 acres of historically planted corn.”

So even if the farmer owns 800 acres total:

• Only 500 acres qualify for payments
• The rest is not subsidized under that program

What this does in practice is that the farmer cannot simply expand subsidized production endlessly and collect more payments. The program locks in eligibility based on historical acreage.

Step 2: Crop-type restrictions (program eligibility)

Say the farmer wants to switch from corn to something else: “I think I’ll plant all hemp or pumpkins this year instead of corn.”

Depending on the specific program:

• If the land is enrolled in a commodity program, planting certain crops may eliminate eligibility for payments on that acreage
• Some programs require maintaining eligible “program crops” or reporting changes that affect payments

Separately, specialty crop programs may require:

• Specific crop categories
• Compliance with USDA definitions of “covered commodities”

So the subsidy is tied to what is planted, not just ownership of land. 

Step 3: Conservation requirements (“compliance condition”)

This is the most important legal hook.

The farmer agrees to comply with conservation rules tied to receiving subsidies under statutes like the Farm Bill conservation compliance provisions.

Example restriction: The farmer has a sloped field that tends to erode into a nearby stream.

USDA requires:

• Maintaining a buffer strip of grass near waterways, or
• Using contour plowing / no-till practices, or
• Not draining certain wetlands (“sodbuster” / “swampbuster” rules) 

Step 4: What happens if the farmer ignores it?

Suppose the farmer decides:  “I’m going to plow everything right up to the creek so I can plant more corn.”

And also drains a small wetland to expand acreage.  Consequences can include:

• Loss of federal subsidies
• Repayment of previously received funds
• Disqualification from future USDA programs

In some cases, violations of conservation compliance provisions can also trigger additional administrative penalties. 

The key statutory idea here is that:

These restrictions are not “criminal gardening laws.”  They are contract-like conditions attached to federal money.  When the farmer accepts subsidies under the Farm Bill framework, they are effectively agreeing: “I will follow USDA rules on land use, crops, and conservation in exchange for payments.”

So, where do state and local regulations come into play?  This is where most restrictions/problems actually arise.

1. HOA Rules

HOA rules can become a problem for backyard gardens because they don’t regulate whether you can garden in a general sense.  Rather, they regulate how your property must look and be used, and those rules are enforceable through contract law (your HOA agreement) plus fines, liens, and even foreclosure in extreme cases.

Here are a few common, more concrete ways it HOA rules play out: 

a. Front-yard vegetable garden bans

A homeowner replaces grass in the front yard with raised vegetable beds (tomatoes, peppers, lettuce).

The HOA rules require:

• “Maintained turf grass in visible yard areas,” or
• “Landscaping must be ornamental”

Result:

• The HOA can demand removal of the garden
• Impose daily fines until compliance
• In some states, place a lien on the property for unpaid fines

Even though nothing is illegal under state or federal law, it violates a private land-use covenant. 

b. “Visibility” and aesthetic rules

A backyard garden may be allowed, but:

• Fences above a certain height are prohibited
• Compost bins must be screened from view
• Rain barrels or irrigation systems must be hidden
• Hoop houses or greenhouses may require prior approval

Example:  A homeowner installs a small greenhouse to extend the growing season. The HOA rejects it because it is not an “approved structure” or doesn’t match neighborhood aesthetics. 

c. Restrictions on structures and raised beds

Some HOAs regulate:

• Maximum height of raised beds
• Materials (no corrugated metal or untreated wood)
• Placement (must be behind a sightline fence)
• Prohibition on “agricultural structures”

Example: A homeowner builds 3-foot-high cedar raised beds for a wheelchair-accessible garden. The HOA claims they exceed permitted “landscaping height limits.” 

d. “Nuisance” enforcement (odor, pests, appearance)

Even if gardening is allowed, HOAs often have broad nuisance clauses. Example issues:

• Compost attracts rodents or insects
• Garden becomes overgrown or “weedy” by HOA standards
• Chicken manure or compost odors
• Visible dead plants or unharvested plots

The HOA can label it a “nuisance condition” and require remediation. 

e. Water use and irrigation restrictions

Some HOAs impose rules on:

• Visible drip irrigation lines
• Watering schedules (especially in drought areas)
• Runoff into common areas or neighbors’ property

Example: A drip irrigation system leaks onto a sidewalk and stains it. The HOA requires modification or fines the owner. 

The bottom line is that a backyard garden usually becomes an HOA issue not because it’s “agricultural,” but because it may conflict with:

• aesthetic standards
• uniform landscaping requirements
• architectural control rules
• nuisance provisions
• approval requirements for structures

So the tension is that federal law generally doesn’t care if you grow tomatoes. HOAs often care a great deal about what your yard looks like while you do it.

2. Municipal ordinances

Municipal ordinances can affect backyard gardening because cities regulate land use, property maintenance, and “public welfare” under their police powers. Unlike federal law (which rarely touches home gardening), city codes can directly govern what you can grow, where you can grow it, and what conditions your yard must meet.

• height of vegetation
• weeds
• composting
• setbacks
• irrigation
• nuisance conditions

Here are some typical ways this shows up: 

a. Los Angeles, California

Los Angeles generally allows backyard gardens, but regulation comes through zoning, nuisance, and landscape ordinances under the Los Angeles Municipal Code.  Common barriers include:

• Front yard landscaping requirements in many zones (especially for visible residential frontage)
• Restrictions on converting significant portions of front yards to non-landscaped uses
• “Public nuisance” provisions if a garden becomes overgrown, attracts pests, or creates runoff issues
• Rules affecting accessory structures (greenhouses, tall fencing, sheds used for gardening)

Practical effect: A homeowner can grow vegetables in a backyard, but converting a front yard into a full edible garden can trigger code enforcement if it conflicts with required “landscaped appearance” standards in certain zones. 

b. Spokane, Washington

Spokane’s municipal code includes property maintenance and zoning rules that can indirectly restrict gardening. Common issues include:

• Vegetation height limits in some residential contexts (weed/unsightly growth rules)
• “Nuisance vegetation” enforcement if a garden is perceived as unmaintained or overgrown
• Restrictions on accessory structures without permits (greenhouses, hoop houses)
• Rules about drainage and runoff into sidewalks or neighboring property

Practical effect: A productive garden is fine, but if it becomes visually “unmaintained” under code definitions, it may be cited as a nuisance. 

c. Fort Worth, Texas

Fort Worth regulates property conditions through its code compliance ordinances and zoning rules. Common barriers include:

• “Weed and vegetation” ordinances requiring property maintenance standards
• Limits on accumulation of brush, compost piles, or organic debris
• Restrictions on accessory structures without permits
• Enforcement against “unsanitary conditions” (often tied to pest attraction or standing water)

Practical effect: A compost-heavy or densely planted garden can be cited if inspectors classify it as a sanitation or maintenance issue rather than an agricultural use. 

d. Charleston, South Carolina

Charleston is more preservation and aesthetics-focused due to historic districts and design review rules. Common barriers include:

• Strict rules in historic districts regarding visible yard changes
• Requirements that front yards maintain certain “landscaped” character
• Restrictions on structures visible from the street (raised beds, greenhouses, fencing)
• Design review approval for exterior modifications in protected areas

Practical effect: Even modest front-yard vegetable gardens can face review if they alter the historic visual character of the neighborhood. 

Across all cities, the barriers usually fall into five categories:

1. Aesthetic regulations (must look “maintained” or “landscaped”)
2. Nuisance laws (odor, pests, overgrowth, water runoff)
3. Zoning restrictions (what uses are allowed in residential districts)
4. Building/permit rules (greenhouses, fences, irrigation systems)
5. Historic or design review overlays (appearance controls in certain neighborhoods) 

The key takeaway here is that Municipal law doesn’t typically say: “You may not grow food in your yard.” Instead, it regulates by having regulations that say: “Your property must meet certain appearance, safety, zoning, and maintenance standards.”

And those standards can indirectly limit how large, visible, or structured a backyard garden can be - even when gardening itself is perfectly lawful.

3. Water Restrictions

Water restrictions usually don’t ban backyard gardens directly, but they can make them legally or practically impossible to maintain by limiting when, how, and how much you can irrigate.  A number of cities around the country have specific regulations in place that can hamper a person's ability to even grow a backyard garden.  For example:

a. Mesa, Arizona (Stage 2 drought restrictions)

Mesa has had formal drought response rules limiting outdoor irrigation.  Residents are restricted to:

• 2 outdoor watering days per week
• No watering during mid-day (typically 10 a.m.–5 p.m.)
• Enforcement through fines for violations

How might this affects a backyard garden: A vegetable garden may legally exist, but:

• You cannot water it daily in summer heat
• You must conform to assigned watering days
• Midday irrigation (when plants most need cooling) is prohibited

Practical result:  A small garden can survive; a high-water garden (corn, squash, raised beds in heat) may become difficult or impossible to maintain. 

b. Spanish Fork, Utah (pressurized irrigation + conservation rules)

Spanish Fork uses a metered pressurized irrigation system, meaning outdoor water use is separately measured and billed. Key features include:

• Water use is metered and tier-priced (heavy use costs more)
• City encourages efficient irrigation systems (drip, smart controllers)
• Water waste (runoff, overspray) is prohibited under city code enforcement frameworks

How might this affects backyard gardens:

• You can water daily, but it becomes financially punitive at higher usage tiers
• Inefficient garden watering (sprinklers, evaporation loss) raises costs quickly
• Waste violations (runoff into sidewalks/storm drains) can trigger enforcement

Practical result: Gardens are not banned, but price signals + waste rules strongly discourage water-heavy gardening styles. 

c. Lincoln, Nebraska (voluntary + drought-stage watering rules)

Lincoln typically uses a tiered drought plan (voluntary → mandatory restrictions depending on conditions).  A typical structure includes:

• Assigned watering days based on address or odd/even systems during drought stages
• Time-of-day restrictions (often discouraging midday watering)
• Requests to reduce outdoor watering substantially during shortages

How this affects backyard gardens:

• In normal conditions: gardens are unrestricted
• During drought stages:
  • Watering may be limited to specific days
  • Watering may be restricted to early morning/evening only
  • Heavy irrigation may be discouraged or limited

Practical result: Vegetable gardens are usually tolerated, but during drought declarations they are treated the same as lawns; not given special exemption protection. 

d. Boston, Massachusetts (MWRA / local drought advisory system)

Boston relies on regional water management advisories (Massachusetts Water Resources Authority + state drought declarations).

Typical measures during drought alerts include:

• Requests or requirements to limit outdoor watering to certain days/times
• Prohibitions on daytime irrigation during drought emergencies
• Encouragement to reduce nonessential outdoor water use (lawns, landscaping, gardens)

How this affects backyard gardens:

• In normal conditions: no meaningful restriction
• During drought emergencies:
  • Watering windows may be limited (morning/evening only)
  • Outdoor irrigation may be restricted entirely on certain days
  • “Non-essential outdoor water use” can include ornamental gardens

Practical result: Food gardens are not exempt; they may be treated the same as landscaping during severe drought stages. 

e. Tulsa, Oklahoma (Water & Sewer Department drought stages)

Tulsa uses a structured drought response plan with escalating stages. Typical restrictions during drought stages include:

• Limits on lawn/garden watering days per week
• Time restrictions (no midday watering)
• Mandatory reduction targets for outdoor water use
• Possible bans on certain outdoor watering activities during severe drought

How this affects backyard gardens:

• Vegetable gardens are not separately protected
• Restrictions apply broadly to “outdoor irrigation”
• Higher drought stages can reduce watering frequency to once or twice per week

Practical result: A backyard garden is legally allowed, but watering schedules may not match plant needs, especially in hot summers. 

So, even though each city is different, the legal structure is very consistent:

 

1. Cities do NOT ban gardens.  They regulate timing, frequency, method, and volume.

2. Gardens are treated like lawns. Most ordinances define restrictions as: “outdoor watering” or “landscape irrigation”

They rarely distinguish: vegetables vs grass vs ornamentals

3. The real legal mechanism is drought stage authority.  Restrictions are triggered by:

• Municipal drought declarations
• Water supply shortages
• State emergency conservation plans 

So, cities don't come out and say: “You may not have a backyard garden.”  It is: “You may have one, but your ability to irrigate it may be limited by scheduled days, time-of-day bans, or usage pricing during drought conditions.”

So the “barrier” is almost always water availability rules applied broadly to outdoor irrigation, not any law specifically targeting gardening itself.

So, could/would Congress actually ever ban home gardens?

Constitutionally?  Probably, yes under current Commerce Clause precedent. If Congress could demonstrate a sufficient effect on interstate commerce under Wickard and Raich, then restrictions to backyard gardens are entirely possibly.

Economically?  Most likely, not as it would be extraordinarily expensive because the cost of nationwide enforcement would far outweigh any effect those gardens have on interstate commerce.  But then remember those instances where, during the Covid scare, when police went block by block ordering back into their homes?  So, maybe.

Politically?  Almost certainly, impossible and in an election year, not a chance.  Of course, there are those few radical progressives that might actually try and pull something, well, radical but telling a retiree that they can't have their backyard tomatoes would be like taking candy from a baby.

And you can just imagine what that would look like. 

 

 

 

A Public Service Announcement

For the most part, I don't mind surprises.

Some surprises are fun.  Like surprise birthday parties or or gift exchanges at Christmas time.

Other surprises are not so fun.  Like the debit card I got the other day.  I hadn't applied for it - it just appeared in my mailbox.  

Then there was the small print.  A whole 12 page booklet of small print.  

The one section that caught my attention (the 8th time I read through) said:

Financial companies choose how they share your personal information.  Federal law gives consumers the right to limit some but not all sharing.  The types of personal information we collect and share includes: Social Security number and account balances, payment history and account transactions, transaction history and purchase history.  When you are no longer our customer, we continue to share your information.

It was that last line that really got me.  Well that and the notice that if I didn't opt-out of their debit card within 30 days of receipt (of a debit card I never wanted in the first place), that I would forever thereafter have my personal data shared with whomever they wanted.

I opted-out post haste!

Oh, and I didn't tell you the best part.  If I held on to this debit card, each time I used said debit card, I would be charged $2.  

Reloaded the card:                      $4

ATM withdrawal Fee:                   $2

An over-the-counter withdrawal:  $4 (or 2.75% whichever is more)

A check request:                          $15

Foreign Transaction surcharge:     4.0% 

Money Transfer Service Fee:      $3 per transaction

Debit card transfer Fee:               $3

Inactivity Fees (after 60 days):     $6/month

Yeah, this is quite the racket. 

The thing is, there are lots (that's "lots" as in A WHOLE BUNCH) of financial companies that send out these debit cards in hopes that you, the unsuspecting public will either ignore them (thereby opting-in to their scheme) or start using these debit cards.

I mentioned this to a neighbor the other day and he told me he gets lots of these things.  He never thought to read the fine print or opt-out.  Instead he always just shredded the cards and thought nothing of it.

Well, he thought nothing of it until I told him about that one section where they share his personal information with their partners forever and ever because he didn't opt-out of future promotions.

Maybe you've had a similar thing happen to you.  Maybe you got one of these and wanted to opt-out of future promotions.  Do you know what to do?

Following are a few things you can do to stop the promotions and/or get off these marketing lists:

1. Stop credit-related marketing lists

Use the official credit-bureau opt-out service run by OptOutPrescreen.com.

This removes you from lists used by banks for credit cards, insurance offers, many prepaid card offers, loan offers

This is how to do it:

• Website: https://www.optoutprescreen.com

• Phone: 1-888-5-OPT-OUT (1-888-567-8688)

You can choose:

• 5-year electronic opt-out (fastest)

• Permanent opt-out (requires printing and mailing a short form)

This works because it stops the marketing lists generated by the big credit bureaus:

• Equifax

• Experian

• TransUnion

• Innovis

2. Stop general advertising mail

Use the consumer opt-out list from the Direct Marketing Association.  Their service is called DMAchoice and their website is located at: https://www.dmachoice.org

This reduces catalog mail, marketing offers, random financial promotions, and many address-broker lists though there is a $2 processing fee for 10 years of protection (Which is a racket but you get what you pay for).

3. LexisNexis marketing profile

One of the biggest consumer data brokers is LexisNexis Risk Solutions.  Banks and insurance companies often use it to verify identity, buy targeted mailing lists, and/or check marketing demographics.

How to opt-out / suppress marketing use.  First, go to their website at https://consumer.risk.lexisnexis.com

Then complete these 2 steps:

1. Request your consumer disclosure report

2. Request suppression of marketing data

It takes all of about 5 minutes and they must comply under federal consumer laws.

4. CoreLogic consumer file

Another giant broker used heavily by lenders is CoreLogic.

They track things like home ownership, property value, mortgage info, and demographic profiles.

Banks often buy mailing lists like “homeowners aged 35-60 with stable income.”

How to Opt-out:

Visit https://www.corelogic.com/privacy and look for “Your Privacy Choices / Opt-Out.”

5. Data Axle (formerly Infogroup)

A massive marketing list provider is Data Axle.

They supply lists used for:

• credit offers

• insurance marketing

• prepaid debit card promotions

• catalogs

Opt-out: Visit their website at https://www.data-axle.com/ privacy/ and look for "Do Not Sell my Personal Information."

6. Credit-bureau marketing opt-out

The service run by the credit bureaus is OptOutPrescreen.com.

Good news!  Your Social Security Number ("SSN") is optional, (i.e. not required to use this service) and you can opt out using only your name, address, and date of birth.

The SSN field is just used to reduce mistaken identity if two people have similar names.  If you’re uncomfortable, just leave it blank.

7. Direct marketing lists

The Direct Marketing Association opt-out service (DMAchoice) does not ask for SSN at all.

With their website located at https://www.dmachoice.org/, they only require name, mailing address, and email (optional).

A safer strategy for identity-theft victims

Given your history, the single most effective protection is placing a credit freeze with the credit bureaus:

• Equifax

• Experian

• TransUnion

A credit freeze prevents new credit accounts from being opened, is free, does not affect your credit score, and can be temporarily lifted when you actually apply for credit.

Many identity-theft victims leave a freeze permanently in place.  I've had to do this twice and it works great.  It's not really permanent as you have to renew ever 10 years - but that's 10 years of not having to stress about your credit being jacked with.

Note, though, that a freeze with only one bureau isn’t enough.  Lenders can check any credit bureau.  If only one is frozen, a lender might still pull a report from another bureau and approve credit (because if they're not approving credit applications, they're not making money).

 

So, and ideally, you should freeze all three major bureaus:

• Equifax

• Experian

• TransUnion

Freezing all three typically takes about 10 minutes total online.

Once frozen, you will not get any no new credit cards applications, no loans requests, no store financing issues, and no fraudulent applications approved.  You simply temporarily lift the freeze when you actually need credit.

One thing about Experian.  It has been my experience (and, apparently, thousands of other people as well) that Experian is a pain to work with to freeze your credit.

Consequently, if you ever want to submit a freeze to Experian (without the hassle), following are two easier approaches than using their website:

1️⃣ Freeze by phone
Call Experian’s security freeze line:  1-888-397-3742

Tell the automated system you want to place a security freeze. The phone route is often simpler than the online system.

2️⃣ Freeze by mail (low-tech but effective)

You can mail a request with:

• Name

• Address

• Date of birth

• Copy of ID

• Copy of a utility bill

and send this information to:

Experian Security Freeze
P.O. Box 9554
Allen, TX 75013

They must process it under federal law.

Two other protections identity-theft victims often add

1️⃣ Fraud Alert (extra lender verification)
You can place a 1-year renewable fraud alert so lenders must take extra steps to verify identity before approving credit.

2️⃣ IRS Identity Protection PIN
Identity thieves sometimes shift to tax refund fraud once credit fraud stops.

The IRS offers an Identity Protection PIN (IP PIN) through the Internal Revenue Service.  This prevents anyone from filing a tax return in your name without your PIN.

Bonus trick (very effective):

When you get marketing mail:

1. Look for the tiny line that says something like
   “We obtained your name from a third-party data provider.”

2. Call or email the privacy contact and say:

“Please place me on your internal do-not-solicit list and remove my information from any marketing databases.”

Companies are legally required to honor internal opt-outs.

After doing these two opt-outs most people notice:

• far fewer credit card offers

• fewer “prepaid debit card” promotions 

• less insurance junk mail

It usually takes 30–60 days for the reduction to show up.

Having had my identity hit a number of time, I know that tips like these can really help rank and file consumer(s) feel less stressed and more protected.

So, when next you get something in the mail and you think it's a scam or think someone is just out to steal away your hard earned cash or your identity, realize that, yes, it is a scam and someone is just out to steal away your hard earned cash or that someone is out to steal your identity.

So, go with your gut and do everything you can think of to protect yourself.