A federal judge has delayed making a decision until next month on whether to ban Tempe-based LifeLock Inc. from setting fraud alerts for consumers with the three credit bureaus.

Judge Andrew Guilford in a court filing Wednesday cited new facts regarding LifeLock's arrangement with credit bureau TransUnion for the delay.

LifeLock, which claims 1.5 million customers, charges $10 per month for identity protection services that include setting free fraud alerts every 90 days with TransUnion and competing credit bureaus, Experian and Equifax. It has a parternership with TransUnion to streamline the process.

The fraud alerts practice spurred a lawsuit Experian filed against LifeLock in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in 2008 claiming it has been harmed by the Tempe company's actions.

Guilford already ruled the practice violates California's Unfair Competition Law and goes against a public policy established by the Fair Credit Reporting Act that says only consumers, not third-party companies such as LifeLock, have the right to set the alerts.

He was expected to rule this week on a motion for a permanent injunction Experian filed against LifeLock.

Instead, Guilford wrote he was inclined to issue an injunction but wanted more time to address new information about LifeLock's relationship with TransUnion. He set a hearing for Oct. 5.

LifeLock this week said it plans to roll out a new ID protection product in the coming weeks to replace its fraud-alerts.

It has argued that an injunction banning third-party firms from setting alerts would harm consumers by limiting their ability to protect themselves.

"However, we will abide by the judge's order and have already taken steps in light of his recent ruling to announce the implementation of our new identity protection system," Clarissa Cerda, general counsel for LifeLock, said in a statement.

Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, consumers can set the alerts for free by contacting the credit bureaus.