Years ago Experian hit me with a sneaky fee for some credit-monitoring service I’d apparently been auto-enrolled in after checking my score. It was a substantial amount of money at the time. When I complained & asked for a refund for this auto-enroll service, Experian immediately offered me a discounted rate.
I filed a complaint with the CFPB. I have no idea what happened behind the scenes, but Experian backed down and refunded every penny.
I’m not an expert in financial regulation but that was the first time in a while where I felt like a federal agency was actually protecting ordinary people rather than hassling them.
Over past couple years the CFPB’s leadership seems packed with hyperpartisan apparatchiks intent on dismantling the very agency they’re in theory going to run.
This debanking matter may well fall within the CFPB’s purview. But the agency today seeing today bears little resemblance to the muscular consumer watchdog it was created to be.
Acting Director Mark Paoletta strikes me as precisely the kind of Washington operator lawyer you’d want nowhere near an agency whose entire purpose is to protect consumers from powerful financial institutions.
CFPB is interesting. Banks largely hate it and this administration had a major input in defanging it, which makes this action more interesting. FWIW, while rank and file employees effectively enforcing BSA laws are broadly tend to be somewhat neutral ( and you do want disinterested parties ), I agree with your hesitation on the current state of federal agencies.
CFPB has been decent, and I’m glad they are still doing some work. My understanding is that their scope has been reduced, and it looks like the new focus is on things that are still legitimate problems but which are somehow more “right-coded” (like debanking). What I wouldn’t give for a truly nonpartisan agency that tackles issues across the board.
They ignored the debanking issue for a long time, likely because it was somehow framed as a partisan issue, despite it affecting people across the political landscape. The issue falls squarely within their mandate, so it’s ridiculous that it took so long to address it.
Years ago Experian hit me with a sneaky fee for some credit-monitoring service I’d apparently been auto-enrolled in after checking my score. It was a substantial amount of money at the time. When I complained & asked for a refund for this auto-enroll service, Experian immediately offered me a discounted rate.
I filed a complaint with the CFPB. I have no idea what happened behind the scenes, but Experian backed down and refunded every penny.
I’m not an expert in financial regulation but that was the first time in a while where I felt like a federal agency was actually protecting ordinary people rather than hassling them.
Over past couple years the CFPB’s leadership seems packed with hyperpartisan apparatchiks intent on dismantling the very agency they’re in theory going to run.
This debanking matter may well fall within the CFPB’s purview. But the agency today seeing today bears little resemblance to the muscular consumer watchdog it was created to be.
Acting Director Mark Paoletta strikes me as precisely the kind of Washington operator lawyer you’d want nowhere near an agency whose entire purpose is to protect consumers from powerful financial institutions.
CFPB is interesting. Banks largely hate it and this administration had a major input in defanging it, which makes this action more interesting. FWIW, while rank and file employees effectively enforcing BSA laws are broadly tend to be somewhat neutral ( and you do want disinterested parties ), I agree with your hesitation on the current state of federal agencies.
CFPB has been decent, and I’m glad they are still doing some work. My understanding is that their scope has been reduced, and it looks like the new focus is on things that are still legitimate problems but which are somehow more “right-coded” (like debanking). What I wouldn’t give for a truly nonpartisan agency that tackles issues across the board.
I mean, that's what old CFPB was.
They ignored the debanking issue for a long time, likely because it was somehow framed as a partisan issue, despite it affecting people across the political landscape. The issue falls squarely within their mandate, so it’s ridiculous that it took so long to address it.
CFPB is inherently political, like all government agencies. Of course it ignored the debanking issue. CFPB was just serving its current masters.
Paywalled, but I wonder if its really retaliation for this:
"Trump bank accounts were closed due to concerns over possible money laundering, Capital One says"
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-bank-accounts-we...
AI;dr