PRESCOTT LOVERN, SR. CATCHES CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU (CFPB) ET AL INTENTIONALLY DAMAGING CONSUMERS

APRIL 21, 2017

PRESCOTT LOVERN, SR. CATCHES CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU (CFPB), OFFICE OF THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY (OCC), FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION (FDIC), FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD (FRB), AND FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION (FTC) (CFPB, OCC, FDIC, FRB & FTC collectively “Banking Regulators”), SCAMMING CONSUMERS AGAIN TO PROTECT BANKS, INJURING CONSUMERS. ONCE AGAIN, UNDER TRUTH-IN-LENDING (TILA), ILLEGALLY AMENDING THE CREDIT CARD ACCOUNTABILITY RESPONSIBILITY AND DISCLOSURE ACT OF 2009 (Credit Card Act), CIRCUMVENTING CONGRESS AND THE FEDERAL STATUTE DESIGNED TO MAKE CREDIT CARD AGREEMENTS READILY AVAILABLE AND TRANSPARENT.

SEC. 204. [15 U.S. Code § 1632(d)(1)] of the Credit Card Act – INTERNET POSTING OF CREDIT CARD AGREEMENTS:

(a) IN GENERAL. — Section 122 of the Truth and Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1632) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

‘‘(d) ADDITIONAL ELECTRONIC DISCLOSURES. —

‘‘(1) POSTING AGREEMENTS. — Each creditor shall establish and maintain an Internet site on which the creditor shall post the written agreement between the creditor and the consumer for each credit card account under an open-end consumer credit plan” [underline added]. This does not mean a sample contract, but the actual card agreement between the issuer and the cardholder. The key words being “each credit card account”.

15 U.S. Code § 1632(d)(5) says “The Board, in consultation with the other Federal banking agencies [Definition - 12 U.S. Code § 1813(q)] and the Federal Trade Commission, may promulgate regulations to implement this subsection, including specifying the format for posting the agreements on the Internet sites of creditors and establishing exceptions to paragraphs (1) and (2), in any case in which the administrative burden outweighs the benefit of increased transparency, such as where a credit card plan has a de minimis number of consumer account holders.” [underline added for emphasis].

The Banking Regulators, ultra vires [without legal authority], illegally changed the legislative intent of (d)(1) by passing a Regulation in 12 CFR that allows credit card issuers to only post online sample credit card agreements that do not tell the cardholder the terms, fees and conditions of the cardholder’s actual card agreement (Agreement), as Congress intended. There is nothing burdensome for the issuer to have a website that has “each” of its Cardholder’s Agreements available online, as the issuers already have “each” Agreement in electronic form.

When the cardholder has to request their Agreement the issuer [e.g. Discover & Wells Fargo] has 30 days to mail it and this is a huge problem for these reasons. This allows the issuer to change, or make the terms, fees and conditions, anything they want, circumventing 15 U.S.C. § 1637(i)(4) and Regulation Z, which means the cardholder gets no Notice for any changes because it appears the mailed Agreement is the original Agreement [not subject to the 45 day Notice], and those unknown changes can support illegal fees & charges existing on the card. Companies like Wells Fargo & Discover who have a history of stealing money from their customers can use this lack of transparency scheme (Online Posting Scam) to rob their customers without fear of being caught, or so they thought.

Credit Card Act regulations require Card issuers to send the appropriate Bank Regulators the sample card agreement, which compromises the intent of transparency under the Credit Card Act. This is a premeditated scheme similar to bait & switch that thrives on the issuer’s ability to change the Agreement at any time. The cardholder is subject to theft any time, on any given day. 

Consistent with the language of 15 U.S.C. § 1637(i)(4) and Regulation Z, the legislative history of the  Credit Card Act makes clear that the purpose of the 45-day notice requirement is to provide the cardholder the opportunity to cancel his or her account before the significant change is to take effect. Indeed, a May 4, 2009 report from the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs specified that a purpose of the Act was to “require[] issuers to provide 45 days advance notice of interest rate increases, and grant[] cardholders the right to cancel the card and pay it off under the old terms.” S. Rep. 111-16, at 7 (2009). Issuers can change the interest rate at any time using cardholder’s credit as justification. 

The Online Posting Scam is anything but increased transparency for the cardholder, as Congress intended in the Credit Card Act, and, the Regulation in question violates 15 U.S. Code § 1632(d)(1) regarding posting online, and its legislative intent.

Certain credit card issuers and Banking Regulators are complicit in, but not limited to, “cramming,” grand larceny, federal felonies, violations of TILA, RICO, etc. This not the first time Richard Cordray [CFPB] has been caught illegally re-writing a federal statute.

Millions of Consumers are being financially raped.

Stay tuned.

Comments are closed.