logo

U.S. PIRG Consumer Blog

March 25, 2009

Groups oppose "Payday Lender Protection Act"

We've joined a number of leading consumer and community groups in a letter to the full House in opposition to HR 1214, the Payday Lending Reform Act introduced recently by Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), chair of the House Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit. We are disappointed that Mr. Gutierrez, with several other consumer champions as co-sponsors, has introduced a bill to legalize payday lending at the federal level at an allowable APR of 390% for a two week loan. It might better be called the Payday Lender Protection Act. Although Mr. Gutierrez has essentially said (statement) that because the lenders and the consumer groups both oppose it, he must be in the right place, we respectfully disagree. In actual fact, the lenders have supported large parts of his bill in state fights and must be privately cheering the federal proposal.

In 2006, Congress capped loans to military families at 36% APR. Similar protections should be extended to all Americans, especially in an economic downturn when financial scams become an even bigger problem for cash-strapped consumers. Payday lenders represent one of the worst examples of wealth-stripping financial predators in the marketplace today. They should be required to comply with the same rules as other small lenders, not given Congressionally carved-out safe harbors to ply their sordid trade. Long excerpt from our letter after the jump:

H.R. 1214 provides Congressional approval to payday loans at rates of 390 percent APR for two weeks or 780 percent APR for one week. The loan cap of fifteen cents per dollar loaned in HR 1214 authorizes lenders to charge $60 for a typical $400 loan, which is due in one pay cycle. This means that, for the typical borrower with nine loans per year, H.R. 1214 authorizes lenders to collect $540 in finance charges for a $400 loan taken out over an 18-week period.

While the bill purports to provide other consumer protections, these provisions will not stop this product from being a debt trap for borrowers because they are easily evaded. They also fail to address the fundamental problem with the payday lending model--requiring the borrower to repay the entire principle and interest from a single paycheck in just two weeks--that ensures the typical borrower cannot pay back a loan without needing to take another. The provisions of HR 1214 haven’t worked in states where they have been tried; indeed, the industry has supported most of them at the state level.

Legalizing payday lending at triple digit interest rates runs counter to President Obama’s promise to cap payday and other loans at 36 percent annual rates and to existing protections provided by Congress to Service members and their families. In 2006, Congress outlawed loans that are based on holding checks or debit authorization for future payment at the request of the Department of Defense. Our organizations have also endorsed legislation introduced by Senator Durbin (S. 500) and Representative Speier to cap rates for all forms of consumer credit at 36 percent, including interest and fees. Last fall, voters in both Ohio and Arizona soundly rejected payday loan industry ballot initiatives that would have continued payday lending at 390 percent APR or higher, despite the fact that they were bombarded with industry messages about “reforms” similar to the provisions of HR 1214.

Federal legislation to authorize payday lending, instead of prohibiting the predatory small loan terms, is particularly counterproductive when the economy is in recession and families can least afford triple-digit rates. A growing body of research demonstrates that using payday lending is harmful to borrowers. Using payday loans doubles the risk a borrower will end up in bankruptcy within two years, doubles the risk of being seriously delinquent on credit cards, and makes it less likely that consumers can pay other bills and get healthcare. Payday loan use also increases the likelihood that consumers’ bank accounts will be closed involuntarily. Given the lower bank account penetration rate for minority consumers, this product undermines progress being made to bring unbanked consumers into mainstream financial services.

Although the bill does not preempt stronger state rate caps, it would send a message approving usurious lending at triple-digit rates. The practical impact of Congressional passage of this bill will be to stop the progress of reform in the states. No state has legalized payday lending since 2005. Since then Ohio, Oregon, New Hampshire and the District of Columbia have either capped rates at low levels or repealed payday lending outright. The Arkansas Supreme Court recently overturned that state’s payday loan law for violating the state’s constitutional usury cap.

Posted by Ed Mierzwinski at 09:42 AM | Comments (0)


July 11, 2008

Toy safety video posted

We've posted a short video (at top right of page) of me explaining why we need to improve toy and product safety by finishing Congressional action on the CPSC Reform Act, now mired in conference committee where industry lobbyists take potshots daily at its most important provisions. It was taped a few months ago. Previous CPSC blog.

Posted by Ed Mierzwinski at 05:09 PM | Comments (0)


November 20, 2006

4 of 5 breaches at point of sale (stores)

Data security expert Avivah Litan of the Gartner Group is reporting that 4 out of 5 breaches are occurring in point-of-sale (POS) systems -- e.g., convenience stores,gas stations, grocery stores and other retail outlets. According to this Computerworld story quoting Litan, Fifth Third Bank of Cleveland has joined a growing number of banks and credit unions re-issuing debit cards after a breach at the Wesco convenience store chain.

Consumers should remember two things about debit cards:

  • Even though your bank may make "promises" to make you whole ("zero liability") after debit card fraud, credit cards are much better protected by law. With a credit card, your liability is limited to $50 by law, and you also have Fair Credit Billing rights, allowing you to dispute items that don't arrive or don't work properly. With a debit card, your maximum liability by law ratchets up over time, and you could end losing all the money in your account, or more. (PIRG fact sheet linking to Federal Reserve fact sheet).
  • With a debit card dispute, you're fighting with the bank over getting your own money back. Meanwhile, while it is missing from your account, you could have other checks that bounce.

    The best advice is to only use debit cards in ATM machines. Maybe with all this fraud, the banks will go back to offering plain old ATM cards.

    Posted by Ed Mierzwinski at 11:19 AM | Comments (0)


    April 20, 2006

    Student Debt Clock/Ball and Chain Contest

    The Student PIRG Student Debt Alert campaign has launched a new and dizzying debt clock, where you can watch student debt mount up. logo_sm.gif

    Get your fellow students to participate in the Debt Clock - and you could win 200 small ball-and-chains to attach to your graduation caps. Organize your commencement to take aim at the irony: college graduates beginning a life of opportunity that is limited by record amounts of deep student debt.

    Posted by Ed Mierzwinski at 10:34 AM | Comments (0)


    November 22, 2005

    PIRG petitions FTC/FDA over toxics in toys

    Today PIRG released its 20th annual Trouble In Toyland report, documenting choking (small parts, balloons), strangulation (yo-yo balls), noise and toxic hazards found in children's toys. troubleintoylandcover.gif We also petitioned the Federal Trade Commission to investigate whether toy companies are violating deceptive advertising rules by claiming toys are free of the toxic chemicals known as phthalates when it turns out that they are not, according to independent lab tests we commissioned. From the FTC letter:

    The FTC Act gives the Commission the power to bring law enforcement actions against false or misleading marketing claims, including environmental or “green? marketing claims. The “phthalate-free? label qualifies as an environmental or green marketing claim, as the label implies that the product is less toxic than products containing phthalates.

    Phthalates are a class of chemicals that pose serious reproductive and cancer threats and have been banned in the European Union, although U.S. regulators haven't acted. Six of eight toys labeled "phthalate free" contained the toxic chemicals. We also separately petitioned the Food and Drug Administration over hazardous chemicals found in children's nail polish according to their labels (we didn't test the nail polish):

    Play cosmetics — cosmetics intended for children under 14 — must conform to the requirements of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act). Under the FD&C Act, a cosmetic is deemed adulterated—and therefore subject to regulatory action—if it contains any “poisonous or deleterious substance which may render it injurious to users under the conditions of use prescribed in the labeling thereof, or, under such conditions of use as are customary or usual.? We believe toluene, xylene and dibutyl phthalate meet these requirements.

    Over the past 20 years, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has recalled or taken other corrective actions on at least 120 toys identified in PIRG reports. PIRG maintains a website for parents and toygivers at www.toysafety.net where you can download English or Spanish printable versions of PIRG's Tips for Toy Safety. Also, here's a link to a blog on our recent report on toxic chemical hazards in other children's products.

    Posted by Ed Mierzwinski at 11:49 AM | Comments (0)


    October 09, 2005

    Debit card liability/send us your complaints

    We are receiving an increasing number of complaints that banks are refusing to comply with federal rules governing losses due to ATM and debit card fraud. Complain to your bank and its regulator and send us a copy!

    Disclaimer. This is not legal advice, simply consumer information:

    While credit cards are subject to the more consumer friendly Truth In Lending Act (your maximum liability for loss/fraud is $50) and the Federal Reserve Board's Regulation Z, an ATM or debit card is subject to the FRB Regulation E, implementing the Electronic Funds Transfer Act (EFTA). Full legalese of Regulation E (an "access device" is an ATM/debit card) here; easy to read Fed fact sheet here. If your ATM/debit card is used fraudulently, there is a 3-tiered system of liability -- if you notify the bank within two days, your liability is $50, within 60 days, $500, and after that, as much as all the money in your account and other accounts (e.g, savings) or over-draft lines of credit linked to it. Worse, of course, you are fighting to get your own money back.

    The banks, of course, have promoted their much ballyhooed voluntary schemes purporting to limit your liability to either zero or $50, same as a credit card. These claims are subject to asterisks and exceptions.

    Regardless, however, of whether banks are sometimes honoring those purported voluntary liability limits, some banks and credit unions are also denying legitimate claims of fraud, where the consumer does make timely notice ("Sorry, your son wasn't authorized. Too bad he supposedly lost the card" OR "you must have given up your PIN, you lose.") Don't put up with these sorts of "go away" responses. The law requires an adequate and timely investigation and the law describes the circumstances under which you can be held liable. These may or may not be among them, depending on the facts. That's why you need to copy the regulators, so the bank (1) knows you mean business and (2) the regulators know that these problems are occurring and can review the investigation and disposition of your complaint.

    You must, if you are a victim of debit card fraud, notify the bank immediately and keep copies of all documents as well as a written log of your interactions with the bank. We advise also sending copies of all communications with the bank to the bank's primary regulator. It lets the bank know you aren't willing to put up with any shenanigans.

    Also send copies to the Federal Reserve Board here. If a bank has national in its name or NA after its name, it is regulated by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) which regulates most bigger (and a lot of smaller) banks. You can get a list of the other regulatory agencies here.

    The fed’s general consumer fact sheet on Regulation E is here explaining your EFTA rights. PIRG's factsheet is here.

    Posted by Ed Mierzwinski at 04:30 PM | Comments (1)


    August 19, 2005

    State security freeze/breach list updated

    We've updated our list of state security freeze and breach laws. The page links to legislative pages of the 10 state legislatures that have enacted freeze laws and the 19 states that have enached breach notification laws. NJ has both sitting on the governor's desk. The NJ laws will be signed in September. Our main identity theft and credit reporting page includes a lot more detailed information, including information about free credit reports. We also have a detailed list of specialty credit bureaus on our downloadable short id theft fact sheet. These tenant, employment, check clearing and similar bureaus also must provide free reports-- through 800#s.

    Posted by Ed Mierzwinski at 11:16 AM | Comments (0)


    August 08, 2005

    You Have No Check Writing Rights, Says OCC Brochure:

    Last week, the nation's chief national bank regulator, the OCC, took time out from its prime directive -- to seek out and destroy strong state consumer laws. Instead, OCC published an almost ludicrous brochure called "Writing A Check: Understanding Your Rights." The brochure's own text highlights the serious flaws in consumer protection laws applying to checks, especially since the just-implemented Check 21 law (PIRG Release) accelerated the speed at which checks you write clear, without also giving you faster access to the checks you deposit.

    Here are some excerpts from the brochure, which explains that your limited dispute rights depend on how a merchant or bank decides to handle your check. To be fair, some of the blame goes to Congress, but not all. The agencies lobbied Congress heavily for Check 21-- they have never lobbied Congress in favor of any consumer protection laws.

    "What if something goes wrong? Different laws and rules apply, depending on how your check was processed."

    "Although electronic processing might mean that the check you write will clear more quickly, the funds that you deposit might not be available to you any more quickly." [That's because Congress didn't change the law that applies to deposited checks, as it should have.]

    "May I choose the processing method for my check? Not usually."

    "Can I tell how my check is being processed? You probably will be able to tell how your check was processed, after the fact, by looking at your bank statement." [After the fact, very helpful.]

    "Be sure that the available account balance you're counting on does not include funds from your bank's "overdraft protection" program."

    [Hunh, you mean some banks offer seamy payday-loan loan-like products where you are charged $35 or more per overdraft and, even worse, your true balance is disguised so you actually think have the money in your account?" Yes, some banks do. Good question. here's a better one-- why haven't the sleazy products been banned?]

    "Can I get my cancelled checks with my bank statement? No law requires your bank to send you your cancelled checks."

    Next week, students, we will tackle the related question: "Why are debit card liability rights so much more anti-consumer than credit card liability rights." PIRG Fact Sheet.

    Posted by Ed Mierzwinski at 08:35 AM | Comments (2)



  • 218 D. Street, SE Washington, DC 20003
    Phone (202) 546-9707

    E-mail: