This analysis sounds correct to me. A credit "freeze" is governed by law and clearly outlines who is responsible if credit information is provided to agencies w

This analysis sounds correct to me. A credit "freeze" is governed by law and clearly outlines who is responsible if credit information is provided to agencies while the account is "frozen": the credit agency. It is not an agreement between the account holder and the credit agency; it's a protection dictated by the law. Lastly, since it is not a contractual agreement, you may sue the credit agency if the freeze is violated. While it's not clear on Equifax's website, I would strongly suspect that any violation of a "lock" is subject to arbitration. Consumer Reports provides a sum-up of what they believe the differences actually are. I would say the very fact that Equifax is being so hazy on the differences is proof enough that the "freeze" is the way to go. https://www.consumerreports.org/credit-bureaus/why-credit-freeze-is-better-than-credit-lock/ https://www.consumerreports.org/credit-bureaus/why-credit-fr... This bit from the article strikes me as odd. They wonder if the credit agency will market more aggressively to people who opt for the credit lock, something that freezes do not allow. From the article: "However, Consumers Union doesn’t recommend paying for credit monitoring. “What it does, consumers can usually do for free,” Tetreault says. Plus, with a credit freeze you won’t be targeted by ads. “These services may allow the credit reporting agency to market to consumers more aggressively for products that they may not need and/or shouldn’t pay for,” Tetreault says.