Consumer Protection

Subterms

    Latest story

    163 Shares59 Views

    Buying a Home? Without the CFPB, You Need to Be Your Own Watchdog.

    by

    The C.F.P.B. had kept a close eye on mortgage lenders. But with the bureau hobbled, consumers should take several steps, starting with shopping for the best mortgage rates.House prices are stubbornly high, and mortgage rates remain substantially above their prepandemic level. Now, with the spring home buying season looming, shoppers have a new worry: A major federal consumer watchdog has been hobbled.Without the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the agency responsible for overseeing most aspects of the home buying process, consumer advocates say home buyers need to be their own watchdogs.“Now, when you buy a house, you are much more vulnerable to being misled,” said Sharon Cornelissen, housing director with the Consumer Federation of America. “It’s important to be on guard, because guardrails are being taken away.”Buying a home is the biggest financial decision most Americans will make in their lives. The typical home price is about $397,000, according to the National Association of Realtors, but prices are far higher in some parts of the country. In several California counties, for instance, the median price at the end of last year was over $1.5 million, with monthly mortgage payments over $8,000.What role has the consumer bureau played in home buying?The consumer bureau was created after the financial and housing crisis in 2007-8 to streamline oversight of lenders and financial companies serving consumers. Over the years, the bureau has moved to ease the mortgage shopping process by offering simplified forms and educational tools, and has taken action against an array of banks and lenders. In 2022, for instance, the bureau ordered Wells Fargo to pay $3.7 billion for mishandling a variety of customer accounts, including improperly denying thousands of requests for mortgage loan modifications that in some cases led borrowers to lose their homes to “wrongful” foreclosures.On Jan. 17, in the final days of the Biden administration, the bureau reached a settlement with Draper and Kramer Mortgage Corporation for discouraging borrowers from applying for loans to buy homes in majority Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in Chicago and Boston. In an email, the lender’s lawyers said Draper and Kramer “considers the matter closed and denies” the bureau’s claims, but chose to settle in part to avoid “protracted legal costs.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 125 Shares62 Views

      in Elections

      How Consumers Can Protect Themselves With the CFPB on Pause

      by

      Rules on bank and credit card fees, medical debt and payment apps are in limbo. One thing you can do is carefully check your financial statements, one expert says.With the government seemingly stepping back from regulatory duties, consumers may have to act as their own financial watchdogs.The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the independent federal agency created after the 2008 financial crisis to shield people from fraud and abuse by lenders and financial firms, has been muzzled, at least temporarily.“Everything is on pause right now,” said Delicia Hand, senior director of digital marketplace with Consumer Reports. “So it’s back on consumers to be extra diligent.” Ms. Hand previously spent nearly a decade in a variety of roles at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, including overseeing complaints and consumer education, before departing in 2022.In early February, the Trump administration ordered the consumer bureau to mostly cease operations. It closed its Washington headquarters, fired some employees and put most of the rest of the staff on administrative leave, and opted not to seek funding for its activities. Several lawsuits are challenging the administration’s actions. On Feb. 14, a federal judge in Washington ordered the bureau to halt firing workers and not to delete data, pending a hearing scheduled for Monday.The administration, however, has already dialed back enforcement — dropping, for instance, a suit accusing an online lender of promoting free loans that actually carried high interest rates. On Thursday, the bureau dismissed a lawsuit that it had brought in January accusing Capital One of cheating customers out of some $2 billion in interest.It’s a stark change for an agency that had been energetic in adopting rules and filing lawsuits aimed at aiding consumers. Under the Biden administration, the bureau moved to reduce or eliminate various fees charged by banks and other financial firms and to remove unpaid medical debt from credit reports, and it fined a major credit reporting bureau for misleading consumers about credit freezes.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares193 Views

      in Elections

      California Bill Would Force Insurers to Pay Full Coverage Without Requiring Itemization

      by

      A proposed new law would release homeowners from the onerous process of listing every object lost in a destroyed home.California’s insurance commissioner joined with state legislators on Friday to propose a new law that would force insurers to pay homeowners 100 percent of the coverage for belongings inside destroyed homes, releasing them from the mentally taxing process of listing every object they lost — a requirement of many insurers, and one that consumer advocates say only compounds the trauma.If passed, the legislation would make California the only state in the country requiring 100 percent insurance payouts without such itemization. Similar legislation in Oregon and Colorado following catastrophic fires in those states require insurers to pay 70 and 65 percent of the coverage limit, without an inventory, according to Emily Rogan, a senior program officer for United Policyholders, which supports the rights of consumers.The bill applies only to homes that were destroyed in a disaster and calls on insurance companies to pay a homeowner’s total contents coverage without forcing them to provide an inventory, according to the bill’s sponsor, California Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara, and the bill’s author, State Senator Ben Allen.“The idea here is, we say, ‘Look, this is the insurance plan that you own. You have a total loss, and we’re not going to require you to draw up this itemized list in this moment of incredible pain and vulnerability,’” said Mr. Allen, whose district includes the Pacific Palisades burn zone.Forcing homeowners to account for every last item in their former house is “inhumane,” said Mr. Lara, adding that he was inspired to name the bill “Eliminate ‘The List’” after The New York Times published an article detailing the experience of a homeowner in Altadena, Calif., as she attempted to itemize every T-shirt burned in the flames. “It’s hard to describe the agony in people’s faces,” he said.The proposed law comes a week after Mr. Lara issued a bulletin imploring insurance companies to voluntarily pay 100 percent of the contents coverage for homes destroyed in the recent fires. That notice did not have the force of law, and the commissioner said that “it’s clear that we need to go further,” based both on the Times’s reporting and on the feedback his office has received from distressed homeowners.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      California Asks Insurers to Spare Wildfire Victims ‘the List’

      by

      The state’s regulator wants insurance carriers to pay full policy limits without requiring victims to itemize every object in their destroyed homes.California’s top insurance regulator urged insurance carriers on Thursday to pay policyholders the full amount of the belongings in their coverage without requiring them to itemize every object lost — an undertaking that has burdened thousands of residents whose homes were destroyed by wildfires last month.In a notice that said policyholders are “overwhelmed,” Ricardo Lara, California’s insurance commissioner, gave insurance companies a deadline of Feb. 28 to inform the state agency on whether they would comply.Consumer advocates have long criticized the demand by many insurance carriers that homeowners to make detailed lists if they hope to get their full coverage amount.The stress is compounded in places like California’s burn zone, where many families are scrambling to find new places to live and new schools for their children. The monumental task of remembering all items inside a home that no longer exists is adding unbearable strain, said Michael Soller, the deputy insurance commissioner, in an interview.Mr. Soller said he and his colleagues continue to hear from homeowners about “the agony of having to go through the process of filling out an inventory after you just lost everything.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Samsung Recalls 1 Million Stoves That Started 250 Fires and Killed Pets

      by

      Thirty models of Samsung stoves were part of the recall over fires started by accidental contact.A recall has been issued for more than one million Samsung stoves after hundreds of reports of them being turned on accidentally, leading to fires that injured dozens and killed at least seven pets, the Consumer Product Safety Commission said in a statement on Thursday.Customers who own one of the 30 recalled models of Samsung electric ranges that the company has been selling since 2013 will be able to get a free set of knob locks or covers to minimize the risk of ignition by accidental contact with humans or pets, the company said in a statement announcing its voluntary recall on Thursday.More than 1.1 million electric ranges were included in the recall. The ranges were involved in about 250 fires, which led to about 40 injuries. Eight of the injuries needed medical attention, and there were 18 instances of “extensive property damage,” the commission’s statement said.When asked exactly how many pets died, and why it took 11 years since the company started selling the flawed ranges before the recall was issued, a spokeswoman for the commission declined to comment, referring to Samsung and the commission’s website for questions.Christopher Langlois, a spokesman for Samsung, said consumers should be mindful of the risks of accidental contact with range knobs for any stove. They should keep their stove tops clean and clear, keep children and pets away, and make sure that stoves are turned off after cooking, the company said in a statement.Samsung is asking people who have aone of its ranges to contact the company to see if they are eligible for the free, self-install knob locks or covers that reduce the possibility of accidental ignition.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Consumer Watchdog’s Funding

      by

      A decision against the agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, could have cast doubt on all of its regulations and enforcement actions.The Supreme Court rejected a challenge on Thursday to the way the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is funded, one that could have hobbled the bureau and advanced a central goal of the conservative legal movement: limiting the power of independent agencies.The vote was 7 to 2, with Justice Clarence Thomas writing the majority opinion.Had the bureau lost, the court’s ruling might have cast doubt on every regulation and enforcement action it had taken in its 13 years of existence, including ones concerning mortgages, credit cards, consumer loans and banking.The central question in the case was whether the way Congress chose to fund the bureau had violated the appropriations clause of the Constitution, which says that “no money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law.”Justice Thomas said the mechanism was constitutional.“Under the appropriations clause,” he wrote, “an appropriation is simply a law that authorizes expenditures from a specified source of public money for designated purposes. The statute that provides the bureau’s funding meets these requirements. We therefore conclude that the bureau’s funding mechanism does not violate the appropriations clause.”Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., joined by Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, dissented.The bureau, created after the financial crisis as part of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act, is funded by the Federal Reserve System, in an amount determined by the bureau so long as the sum does not exceed 12 percent of the system’s operating expenses. In the 2022 fiscal year, the agency requested and received $641.5 million of the $734 million available.A unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, ruled in 2022 that the bureau’s funding method ran afoul of the appropriations clause.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Transportation Dept. and State Attorneys General Will Look Into Airline Complaints

      by

      Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg announced a new partnership with more than a dozen state attorneys general that aims to improve protections for air travelers.Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg on Tuesday announced a new partnership with more than a dozen state attorneys general to investigate consumer complaints against airlines.The partnership sets up a process for state attorney general’s offices to review complaints from travelers and then pass the baton to the federal Transportation Department, which could take enforcement action against airlines.“The support that’s being offered by state attorney general’s offices means that our capacity to protect airline passengers is expanding,” Mr. Buttigieg said at Denver International Airport, where he appeared with Colorado’s attorney general, Phil Weiser, a Democrat who is among those joining the partnership.The federal-state initiative is Mr. Buttigieg’s latest step aimed at improving protections for air travelers and ensuring that airlines are held accountable when they err. The Transportation Department has issued more than $164 million in penalties against airlines during his tenure, according to the agency. Mr. Buttigieg has also pressed airlines to seat children with their parents for free and to improve the services they offer to travelers who experience lengthy delays or cancellations.The Transportation Department said attorneys general from 15 states — California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Wisconsin — had signed agreements to be part of the partnership.The attorneys general from the District of Columbia, the Northern Mariana Islands and the U.S. Virgin Islands also have joined, the department said, bringing the total number involved to 18. Of those, 16 are Democrats and two are Republicans.Under federal law, states are generally barred from enforcing their own consumer protection laws against airlines. State attorneys general have pushed for federal legislation that would empower them to take action against airlines, just as they can against companies in other industries.The new partnership does not grant them that power. Instead, their offices would investigate complaints from travelers, and if they determine that federal consumer protection rules may have been violated, they could refer the matter to the Transportation Department under a fast-track process. The federal agency would then review the complaint and could take enforcement action.“The ideal world would be one where states are given formal authority to enforce consumer protection law alongside the Department of Transportation,” Mr. Weiser said. “Congress has failed to act on that thus far, but we are not waiting for action.”In a statement, Airlines for America, a trade group representing the country’s largest air carriers, said it regularly worked with the Transportation Department and state attorneys general to improve the flying experience for travelers.“We appreciate the role of state attorneys general and their work on behalf of consumers,” the group said, adding that it looked forward to continuing to work with them. More

    • 138 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Large Grocers Took Advantage of Pandemic Supply Chain Disruptions, F.T.C. Finds

      by

      A report found that large firms pressured suppliers to favor them over competitors. It also concluded that some retailers “seem to have used rising costs as an opportunity to further hike prices.”Large grocery retailers took advantage of supply chain disruptions to beat out smaller rivals and protect their profits during the pandemic, according to a report released by the Federal Trade Commission on Thursday.The report found that some large firms “accelerated and distorted” the effects of supply chain snarls, including by pressuring suppliers to favor them over competitors. Food and beverage retailers also posted strong profits during the height of the pandemic and continue to do so today, casting doubt on assertions that higher grocery prices are simply moving in lock step with retailers’ own rising costs, the authors argued.“Some firms seem to have used rising costs as an opportunity to further hike prices to increase their profits, and profits remain elevated even as supply chain pressures have eased,” the report read.The report’s release comes as the F.T.C. cracks down on large grocery retailers. Last month, the commission and several state attorneys general sued to block Kroger from completing its $25 billion acquisition of the grocery chain Albertsons. They argued that the deal would weaken competition and likely lead to consumers paying higher costs.The independent federal agency’s actions have helped bolster the Biden administration’s efforts to address rising prices. In recent weeks, President Biden has taken a tougher stance on grocery chains, accusing them of overcharging shoppers and earning excess profits. Although food prices are now increasing at a slower rate, they surged rapidly in 2022 and have not fallen overall. As a result, the high cost of food has continued to strain many consumers and posed a political problem for the administration.Mr. Biden has also tried to tackle the issue by fixating on food companies, denouncing them for reducing the package sizes and portions of some products without lowering prices, a practice commonly called “shrinkflation.” During his State of the Union address earlier this month, Mr. Biden again called on snack companies to put a stop to the practice.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      F.T.C. Warns Dozens of Funeral Homes to Provide Accurate Costs to Callers

      by

      The agency said an “undercover phone sweep” of more than 250 homes found that 38 failed to provide prices or supplied inconsistent prices in separate calls.The Federal Trade Commission said its first “undercover phone sweep” of funeral homes across the country had found that dozens didn’t accurately disclose costs for services to callers.Of the more than 250 funeral businesses F.T.C. employees called, 38 either didn’t answer questions about prices or supplied inconsistent prices for identical services, the commission said. Many homes, it said, provided “materially different” prices for the same services during two separate phone calls.Another home promised to send an itemized price list, the agency said, but instead sent a list of package prices, which don’t meet disclosure requirements.The 39 funeral homes received warning letters in January that they had failed to comply with a law known as the Funeral Rule. The F.T.C. enforces the rule, which outlines protections for consumers shopping for funeral services.“It’s very important that consumers are able to comparison shop,” said Melissa Dickey, an F.T.C. lawyer and a co-coordinator of the Funeral Rule. “Not everyone can go in person to pick up a price list.”Of the funeral home that sent a list of package options, Ms. Dickey said: “You don’t have to buy a package.” The funeral home must let you buy only the services you want.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More