Christine Zinner, senior consumer policy counsel at Americans for Financial Reform, suggested that the financial services industry is “really scraping the bottom of the barrel” with the latest arguments. “Wall Street and predatory lenders will never give up trying to stop the CFPB,” she said in a statement. “An agency devoted to fighting such powerful interests will never be home free.”
Americans for Financial Reform appreciates the opportunity to provide a Statement for the Record for the House Financial Services Committee Hearing on “The Semi-Annual Report of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.” In the thirteen years since its creation, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has and continues to vigorously protect consumers, increase marketplace transparency, and end unfair business practices through impactful rulemakings and enforcement actions.
Last month the Supreme Court delivered a crushing defeat to Wall Street’s challenge to funding of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Undeterred, Wall Street is now trying to distort the Supreme Court’s decision to conjure up a new and utterly nonsensical argument about the legality of the CFPB’s funding. The trial balloon for this argument was launched in an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal by Hal Scott, a retired Harvard Law professor and longtime industry shill whose specialty is neither consumer nor constitutional issues but international finance. Scott’s notion has already been swatted down by several credentialed legal experts of various political stripes.
The proposal by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to eliminate medical debt on credit reports would, if fully implemented, curb harmful practices such as distorted credit reports and abusive debt collection. As part of a broader initiative to improve the credit reporting system, the CFPB has proposed a new rule that would stop credit reporting agencies from including medical debts and collection information on consumer credit reports, and prohibit the information from being considered in underwriting decisions. The CFPB is now seeking public comment on this consumer protection proposal.
When consumers purchase many financial products and services they have no say over specific terms and conditions, only the choice of whether to sign or not. Yet, hidden in the fine print in virtually every contract is another grave price consumers unwittingly pay: the removal of many of their legal rights and protections. If consumers want financial services, the fine print — and the proper regulation thereof — is critically important.
A new centralized public database that catalogs violations of consumer protection laws by nonbank financial companies like payday lenders and debt collectors will aid state and federal enforcement efforts that often operate under the radar and are hard to track. The repeat misconduct registry will help remedy these regulatory blind spots and make it easier for regulatory agencies across the local, state, and federal levels to more easily spot bad actors. Members of the public, investors, creditors, business partners, and consumer advocacy organizations will also be able to more easily track financial firms subject to law enforcement orders due to repeat consumer violations.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., who proposed that the bureau be created and helped set it up, welcomed the decision in a celebratory appearance outside the Supreme Court building… Consumer advocates and financial services industry critics expressed relief about Thursday’s ruling. “This decision removes a major threat to the agency’s work and reaffirms the independence that allows it to continue standing up for the public interest against abusive financial practices,” said Lisa Donner, executive director of Americans for Financial Reform Education Fund.
Americans for Financial Reform joined Sen. Elizabeth Warren and other coalition members on the steps of the Supreme Court Thursday to celebrate the Court’s favorable ruling in CFPB vs. CFSA, a case in which the payday lending lobby, with the support of Wall Street, sought to destroy the funding mechanism of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
The decision by a federal judge in the Fifth Circuit to stay a rule capping credit card late fees is a blow not only to consumers but to the rule of law as right-wing jurists resort to increasingly extreme measures to block sensible regulation. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on March 5 finalized a regulation that caps credit card late fees at $8 in most cases, down from a typical $32. The rule is expected to save consumers about $10 billion each year, an average savings of $220 per year for the more than 45 million people who are charged late fees. The rule only applies to the largest credit card issuers, and was to have taken effect May 14.
The House Financial Services Committee voted to overturn a regulation capping credit card late fees, putting a majority of its members squarely on the side of big banks that have ripped off consumers for years. The new rule, finalized by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on March 5, would reduce the typical late fee on credit cards from $35 to $8, saving consumers $10 billion each year. For the 45 million households that pay late fees, that amounts to an annual savings of $220.