Trump orders the CFPB to pause all activity including customer complaints

Most of the people who think they're insulated won't be insulated if the coup continues at this pace

 

you mean cult, no?

 

I mean it has to get really bad. Their material day to day conditions have to be so much more severe than the cult of personality they are in. Another big factor is if the media bubble system effectively scapegoats why their material conditions got worse even with MAGA controlling all across of government.

And that would be the worst case scenario as material conditions are now really bad and the scapegoating of minority groups ramps up to 1930s Nazi Germany level.

So either these people break from their trance when their material conditions suffer or they double down on eating up the scapegoating but now with higher stakes.

You are seeing the Trump administration already scapegoating the fact they deployed thousands of Ricky recon fully kitted out special forces operator looking chuds and caught one human that defined the definition of "illegal immigrant gang member" when the claim is there are hundreds of thousands of them. They are scapegoating leftist activism now. So see criminalization of basic activists activities like trying to inform migrants of their civil liberties.

 

Of course it's bad.
I know that. Just surprised (wait..i am not) by people saying "who cares".

 

Brother, these people don't learn. If they could think objectively or logically, they won't have joined the MAGA cult.

Their hatred for the other side is all they know. BIDEN GAS PRICES HIGH. BIDEN EAT EGGS SO PRICES HIGH. WHAY WHAY.

 

Affect, dumbass.

 

While maga folks will cheer now, in the coming months when people are getting screwed over, then they will care and it will be to late. I am all for auditing in a transparent way, I say go for it, but to have the type of LIES that musk throws out daily is just ridiculous. This is third world chaos where you flood the zone, so no one knows what's really happening all the while throwing red meat to the base to keep them hyped. But there will come a time when the negative impacts affect Americans, whether its the cuts in schools where kids cant get a free meal, you have no protection from fraud at the banks, health care to the poor is cut off.................people will suffer, and at that point I dont think you can put the toothpaste back in the container

I predict in one year from today, the negative impacts will be so severe that people who need help will not be able to get any help........and the RED states will be hit the worst. I`m sorry, but if those folks voted for this clown show, they get to see their vote in action...............but hey, they can say at one time they owned the Libs.

Have we rounded up the folks in Cali who pick the fruit and Veggies yet? If not, let's get on that so I can see the cost of food skyrocket and all the maga folks can say, "its the price of keeping trump in office, then we will pay it dam it"

 

Jan 17, 2025

https://www.consumerfinance.gov/abo...er-investigations-of-credit-reporting-errors/


WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) took action against Equifax, the nationwide consumer reporting agency, for its failure to conduct proper investigations of consumer disputes. The CFPB found Equifax ignored consumer documents and evidence submitted with disputes, allowed previously deleted inaccuracies to be reinserted into credit reports, provided confusing and conflicting letters to consumers about the results of its investigations, and used flawed software code which led to inaccurate consumer credit scores. The order requires Equifax to comply with federal law, and Equifax must pay a $15 million civil money penalty, which will be deposited into the CFPB’s victims relief fund.

“Equifax failed in its basic duty to investigate and resolve consumer disputes about inaccurate information on their credit reports,” said CFPB Director Rohit Chopra. “Today’s order requires Equifax to pay a civil penalty and follow federal laws on handling credit reporting disputes.”

Spoiler

The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) requires consumer reporting agencies to investigate the accuracy of disputed information and take steps to ensure consumers’ credit reports are accurate. For example, consumer reporting agencies must provide notice of a consumer dispute to the furnisher who provided the disputed information, conduct reasonable investigations to determine whether the disputed information is inaccurate, and provide the results of the investigation to the consumer.

The CFPB found Equifax violated the FCRA’s requirements for investigating and processing consumer disputes and assuring maximum possible accuracy of information on its consumer reports. The CFPB also found that Equifax violated the law by using ineffective systems and flawed processes, and excessively deferring to furnishers to address disputes. Specifically, the CFPB found Equifax harmed consumers by:

• Failing to thoroughly investigate consumer disputes: Equifax’s process for submitting disputes limits the ability of consumers to fully and accurately describe their disputes. In many cases, Equifax also failed to consider relevant information submitted by consumers, sometimes not looking at the information at all. Then, after Equifax forwarded information about a dispute to a furnisher, it did not meaningfully consider whether the furnisher’s response made sense, sometimes ignoring information it had that contradicted the furnisher’s response. Finally, the resulting letters Equifax sent to consumers sometimes contained confusing or contradictory statements, such as both “this has been verified as accurate” and “this item has been deleted.”
• Putting previously deleted errors back on credit reports and failing to block identity- theft related information: Equifax did not have systems to detect information that was previously removed and block that information from again appearing on the consumer’s credit report. In addition, Equifax also had no process to identify situations where a consumer is forced to send another dispute about the same inaccurate information because Equifax failed to correct the information the first time, or because Equifax reported information that had previously been corrected. Equifax’s policies limited consumers’ ability to dispute inaccurate information being put on their credit report. Finally, Equifax reported credit information that it should have blocked because the information resulted from identity theft.
• Sharing inaccurate credit scores and data about consumers with lenders: Coding errors in Equifax’s internal software caused the company to miscalculate and share inaccurate credit scores for several hundred thousand consumers. The company also reported the same credit accounts multiple times for more than 50,000 consumers.

Enforcement Action
Under the Consumer Financial Protection Act, the CFPB has the authority to take action against institutions violating consumer financial protection laws, including the FCRA, and the prohibitions on unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices under the CFPA.

The order requires Equifax to:

• Follow federal law on handling credit reporting data: Equifax must bring its dispute resolution processes into compliance with the FCRA and CFPA.
• Pay a $15 million penalty: Equifax will pay a $15 million civil penalty to the CFPB’s victims relief fund.

 

Jan 16, 2025

https://www.consumerfinance.gov/abo...ay-175-million-and-fix-its-failures-on-fraud/

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) ordered Block, the operator of the peer-to-peer payments app Cash App, to refund and pay other redress to consumers up to $120 million and pay a penalty of $55 million into the CFPB’s victims relief fund. Block employed weak security protocols for Cash App and put its users at risk. While Block is required by law to investigate and resolve disputes about unauthorized transactions, the company’s investigations were woefully incomplete. Block directed users — who had suffered financial losses as a result of fraud — to ask their bank to attempt to reverse transactions, which Block would subsequently deny. Block also deployed a range of tactics to suppress Cash App users from seeking help, reducing its own costs.

“Cash App created the conditions for fraud to proliferate on its popular payment platform,” said CFPB Director Rohit Chopra. “When things went wrong, Cash App flouted its responsibilities and even burdened local banks with problems that the company caused.”

Spoiler

Cash App attempted to avoid many of its investigative obligations through tricking consumers with its Terms of Service. For example, many Cash App users link their bank account to the app. When a transaction occurs, the money is pulled from the user’s bank account and sent to the transaction recipient. In Cash App’s Terms of Service, consumers are led to believe that disputes are the responsibility of their linked bank. The Electronic Fund Transfer Act generally requires that peer-to-peer platforms, including Cash App, investigate disputes of unauthorized transactions, and a company cannot simply use fine print to escape these legal requirements. When it did conduct investigations, Block used intentionally shoddy investigation practices to close reports of unauthorized transactions in the company’s favor.

Block also deprived Cash App users of meaningful and effective customer service and left the network vulnerable to criminals defrauding users. While Block included a telephone number on the back of its Cash Card and in its Cash App Terms of Service, for many years this telephone number did not connect consumers to customer support of any type. Instead, it led to a pre-recorded message directing consumers to contact customer support through the app. Consumers could only contact Block through the app or through U.S. mail and were often met with delayed, inadequate, confusing, or inaccurate responses. Consumers looking for an alternate route to Cash App customer service through web searches were targeted by fraudsters posing as Cash App representatives, who tricked them into giving up their passwords and other personal information. Block knew that its customers were being targeted by fraudsters in this way but failed to take timely action to address the issue.

Enforcement Action
Under the Consumer Financial Protection Act, the CFPB has the authority to take action against institutions violating consumer financial protection laws, including those engaging in unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices. The CFPB also has the authority to enforce the Electronic Fund Transfer Act. The CFPB’s order requires Block to:

• Pay $120 million to harmed consumers: Block is required to pay up to $120 million in refunds and other redress to consumers whose unauthorized transfers were not investigated, consumers who did not receive refunds they were entitled to, and consumers whose accounts were locked for an extended period of time or who were not provided provisional credits during a delayed investigation. Block must pay a minimum amount of $75 million in refunds and other redress. The CFPB will enforce the order’s redress requirements to ensure affected Cash App users receive redress. Consumers will not need to take action at this time to obtain redress.
• Fix customer service and investigate disputes: To ensure that the misconduct does not recur, the order requires Block to set up 24-hour, live-person customer service. The order also requires Block to fully investigate unauthorized transactions and to provide timely refunds, where appropriate.
• Pay a $55 million fine: Block will pay a $55 million penalty to the CFPB’s victims relief fund.

The CFPB order only addresses violations of consumer financial protection laws under the CFPB’s purview. Yesterday, state regulators separately ordered Block to pay $80 million for Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money laundering law violations.

 

Jan 14, 2025


https://www.consumerfinance.gov/abo...ion-in-interest-payments-on-savings-accounts/

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) sued Capital One, N.A., and its parent holding company, Capital One Financial Corp., for cheating millions of consumers out of more than $2 billion in interest. The CFPB alleges that Capital One promised consumers that its flagship “360 Savings” account provided one of the nation’s “best” and “highest” interest rates, but the bank froze the interest rate at a low level while rates rose nationwide. Around the same time, Capital One created a virtually identical product, “360 Performance Savings,” that differed from 360 Savings only in that it paid out substantially more in interest—at one point more than 14 times the 360 Savings rate. Capital One did not specifically notify 360 Savings accountholders about the new product, and instead worked to keep them in the dark about these better-paying accounts. The CFPB alleges that Capital One obscured the new product from its 360 Savings accountholders and cost millions of consumers more than $2 billion in lost interest payments. The CFPB’s lawsuit seeks to stop the companies’ unlawful conduct, provide redress for harmed consumers, and impose civil money penalties, which would be paid into the CFPB’s victims relief fund.

“The CFPB is suing Capital One for cheating families out of billions of dollars on their savings accounts,” said CFPB Director Rohit Chopra. “Banks should not be baiting people with promises they can’t live up to.”

Spoiler

In 2012, Capital One acquired online bank ING Direct USA, including its online savings account product, “ING Direct,” which was known for having higher-than-average interest rates. In 2013, Capital One rebranded “ING Direct” as “360 Savings,” and started offering 360 Savings accounts to the general public.

Capital One marketed its 360 Savings account as a “high interest” account with a variable interest rate that was “one of the nation’s” “top,” “best," and “highest,” and would earn much more interest than the average savings account. It also assured former ING Direct savings accountholders that, with 360 Savings, they would “still have great rates.” However, from late 2019 to mid-2024, Capital One lowered and then froze the 360 Savings account rate to just 0.30%, even as rates increased nationwide. In contrast, starting in early 2022, Capital One increased the 360 Performance Savings account rate. In fact, the rate went from 0.40% in April 2022 to 3.30% as of January 2023, and 4.35% as of January 2024.

The CFPB alleges that Capital One schemed to keep 360 Savings accountholders in their lower-yielding accounts by obscuring 360 Performance Savings’ existence as a distinct product with a higher rate from 360 Savings accountholders. For example, Capital One named and marketed the two products similarly; it eliminated nearly all references to the 360 Savings account product on its website and replaced them with references to the essentially identical 360 Performance Savings account, without notice that 360 Savings continued to exist as a distinct product; it excluded 360 Savings accountholders from a marketing campaign advertising 360 Performance Savings to Capital One’s other existing customers; and it forbade its employees from proactively telling 360 Savings accountholders about 360 Performance Savings. Specifically, the CFPB alleges that Capital One:

• Misled consumers about “high interest” accounts: Capital One illegally deceived consumers and Capital One, N.A. violated the Truth in Savings Act by representing that 360 Savings provided a variable interest rate that was “one of the nation’s” “top,” “best," and “highest,” and would earn much more interest than the average savings account.
• Kept consumers in the dark to maintain a two-tier system: Capital One misrepresented to existing customers that its 360 Savings account was and would be its only 360 high-interest savings product with the features, terms, and conditions of 360 Savings and obscured from those customers its newer, much-higher-interest 360 Performance Savings accounts, which otherwise had all the same terms, conditions, and features of 360 Savings. Capital One used 360 Performance Savings to attract new depositors without paying existing depositors the interest they were promised. Capital One avoided paying more than $2 billion in additional interest to millions of customers because of these actions.

Enforcement Action
Under the Consumer Financial Protection Act, the CFPB has the authority to take action against institutions violating consumer financial protection laws, including the Truth in Savings Act. It also has the authority to enforce the Consumer Financial Protection Act’s prohibitions on unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices. The CFPB seeks to stop Capital One’s unlawful conduct, provide redress for harmed consumers, and impose civil money penalties, which would be paid into the CFPB’s victims relief fund.

 

Dec 23, 2024

https://www.consumerfinance.gov/abo...s-for-more-than-one-million-delivery-drivers/

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) sued Walmart and Branch Messenger for forcing delivery drivers to use costly deposit accounts to get paid and for deceiving workers— “last mile” drivers in Walmart’s Spark Driver program—about how they could access their earnings. The CFPB’s lawsuit alleges that Walmart and Branch opened Branch accounts for Spark Drivers, and Walmart then deposited drivers’ pay into these accounts, without the drivers’ consent. Walmart told Spark Drivers that they were required to use Branch to get paid and that they would terminate workers who did not want to use these accounts. Walmart and Branch also misled workers about the availability of same-day access to their earnings. Drivers had to follow a complex process to access their funds, and when they finally did, they faced further delays or fees if they needed to transfer the money they earned into an account of their choice. This resulted in workers paying more than $10 million in fees to transfer their earnings to an account of their choice.

“Walmart made false promises, illegally opened accounts, and took advantage of more than a million delivery drivers,” said CFPB Director Rohit Chopra. “Companies cannot force workers into getting paid through accounts that drain their earnings with junk fees.”

 

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/justice...9?st=omcMb3&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

Justice for Elizabeth Warren
The Massachusetts senator is the reason her regulatory creation remains out of her control.
By James Freeman
Feb. 10, 2025 at 4:13 pm ET

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) is incensed that a tool she created to expand regulatory power is being used by President Donald Trump to shrink it. Maybe next time she’ll be more careful about creating unaccountable bureaucracies.

Longtime Journal readers will recall that before Ms. Warren became a senator, she persuaded Congress and then-President Barack Obama to create a strange creature called the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in the 2010 Dodd-Frank law. The bureau would duplicate, replace or expand on the efforts of existing financial regulators but with a few dangerous twists. It would have no mandate to protect the safety and soundness of the financial institutions it regulates, and it would not rely on Congress for funding. Instead, the bureau would have the ability to draw funding from the Federal Reserve, ensuring that it wouldn’t have to pay much attention to legislators.

And it hasn’t. Then-Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R., Texas) wrote in the Journal in 2012:

My House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations has tried unsuccessfully to gain greater visibility into the bureau’s budgetary planning process. I have repeatedly asked to review the bureau’s statutorily required financial operating plans and forecasts. These requests were denied.
​

Mr. Neugebauer contrasted the ability of the bureau’s director to draw money from the Fed with the efforts of people outside Washington to secure financing:

Once the director has decided that a money draw is “necessary,” there is nobody with authority to prevent these funds from being paid out. Not congressional appropriators. Not the Fed. Not even the president’s Office of Management and Budget.

What’s more, the bureau’s transfer requests often come in the form of one-page letters lacking details as to how the money will be spent. By comparison, in order to procure permanent financing for a commercial construction loan in West Texas, 29 separate documents are required—including a business plan and a complete set of building specs. ​

Unfortunately for Ms. Warren and the progressive left, Trump OMB director, Russ Vought, is now also the acting director of the bureau, and he’s using the authority she helped create for a purpose she never intended: benefiting taxpayers. Mr. Vought posts on X:

Pursuant to the Consumer Financial Protection Act, I have notified the Federal Reserve that CFPB will not be taking its next draw of unappropriated funding because it is not “reasonably necessary” to carry out its duties. The Bureau’s current balance of $711.6 million is in fact excessive in the current fiscal environment. This spigot, long contributing to CFPB’s unaccountability, is now being turned off.​

Hoist on her own petard, Ms. Warren will probably keep showing up outside federal buildings to scream objections to Trump efficiency measures. But that may be all she can do. Her beloved bureau may not even be able to keep the money it has already taken from the Fed.

Josh Blackman, a constitutional law professor at South Texas College of Law Houston, writes at Reason:

Vought has effectively shut down operations and told workers to stay home. However, I don’t think anything would stop Vought from transferring that amount back to the Federal Reserve.

What happens going forward? Vought can starve the agency of funding if he deems the money not “reasonably necessary.” And Congress can’t do a damn thing about it. I don’t even know if there is some mechanism by which Congress could force the agency to take appropriated funds. I’m sure some D.C. Circuit panel could try to force Vought to request funding from the Federal Reserve. But that would be a striking and novel interference with executive power. Again, if the CFPB was a normal agency, the failure to spend money would raise impoundment concerns. But the CFPB was made above the appropriation power.

Elizabeth Warren and her colleagues sought to create an agency insulated from the President and Congress. That strategy may have made sense with Barack Obama in office and Mitt Romney on the horizon. But this approach is quite different with President Trump.​

Mr. Blackman correctly notes:

From its inception, the CFPB was a separation of powers abomination.​

Mr. Vought seems to have found the appropriate constitutional cure.
​

 

lmao. i come to the D&D just to see OST get his/her/him/their ass whooping from @astros123.

OST is a MAGA propaganda machine.

 

Is it really?

they don’t care if something hurts them as long as those they hate hurt just as much or even more…this is who they are and who they’ve always been

they would rather everybody get none than black people/gays/insert X group get even a little