How does one demonstrate that Chase raised its minimum payment as a premeditated act of coercion, designed to enable a blatant campaign to switch consumers to higher rates (or otherwise place the account holder at a severe disadvantage)? Before addressing this subject, let’s briefly review the term, “premeditation,” which is “characterized by fully conscious willful intent and a measure of forethought and planning.” In common usage, the term premeditation is often used as an adjective to explain murder (differentiating between plotting and scheming in advance as compared to acts committed in the heat of the moment, when a perpetrator was enraged, for instance). As it relates to this discussion, I am going to produce evidence (right before our eyes, all along, I might add), that Chase’s plot to trap customers through deceptive marketing practices is easily discerned by looking at its own statements in publicly disclosed forums. In particular, I will refer you to testimony and statements given to members of the media.
Now, if one knows anything about how spokespersons operate, then it is easy to understand that they don’t just blurt out anything that comes to the tip of their tongue when they are questioned in the media. If caught off guard by a reporter, just like smart lawyers, they always have a ready answer: “No comment.” The same applies to those sly executives who deliver testimony before Congress. They have a cadre of speech writers and lawyers writing and going over their scripted messages, beforehand. You can bet your sweet bippy on that! Otherwise, there are other phrases besides “No comment” (hard to use that one before Congressional representatives), which include, “I don’t know,” “I don’t recall,” or “I’ll have my people check and get back to your people, on that.”
Look at the options that were laid out for account holders (who are being coerced):
Pay a large balance, supposedly at a “fixed rate” for the “life of the balance” in a lump sum, on very short notice (this is known in technical terms as a “demand note“);
pay an increased monthly “finance charge,” whether or not the account carries a balance! (and I think Chase screwed up by calling the fee a “finance charge” — what it actually is — instead of dreaming up some other name for a fee, because the use of the term, “finance charge,” proves beyond all doubt that the “fixed rate” was not fixed after all, thereby demonstrating that no matter what, Chase did lie to consumers);
“maintain their current minimum payments in exchange for giving up their promotional rates” (as originally reported by two Wall Street Journal writers, quoting Chase spokesperson Stephanie Jacobson);
So where’s the proof (beyond the aforementioned screw-up on the part of Chase in drafting its new fine print)?
The statement, “customers cannot opt out of the new terms,” is the “smoking gun.” Chase executives and spokespersons, who in stepping on one another’s stories before different audiences, gave themselves away. You see, previously delivered testimony before Congress (presented to support the argument that regulation is not necessary), claimed that if a customer got into trouble, Chase would work with that customer. The exact words in the transcript were:
“[Chase would] provide that customer with an ‘opt out’ option. This means that the customer may reject any change in terms, close their account, and pay off the balance under their existing terms” (Carter Franke, page 2).
The reality of the limited options provided in the change in terms notice under discussion here, as compared to the testimony, reflects two completely different scenarios for account holders, clearly demonstrating both misrepresentation and premeditation. Chase planned to promise one thing, and deliver another (this is otherwise known as a deceptive marketing practice, but you may call it digusting, enethical, unfair, loathesome, or something else nastier in venues designed for more raucus audiences, elsewhere than on this site). Yes, Chase did premeditatively decide to set you up, and all the while it was promising Congress that it would “deal with them [customers] fairly and responsibly.“
Loading ...
on Dec 31st, 2008 at 5:29 pm
[...] I mentioned “scripted messages,” on the part of Chase executives and spokespersons in this [...]
on Jan 2nd, 2009 at 9:39 am
[...] as “fixed rate” for the life of the balance accounts) are now, officially, in effect (with no “opt out” – Chase lied to Congress), the answer given really makes me hope that Professor Elizabeth Warren’s Congressional [...]
on Jan 2nd, 2009 at 2:49 pm
I have about $19,000 fixed at 3.99% for the life of the balance. This will take my minimum payment from ~$400 to ~$1,000 (2% minimum payment to 5% minimum payment). I was really, REALLY pissed at first. But then, I thought about it. Can I swing the extra $600 a month? Yeah, but it will be tight. So, in my eyes, Chase did me a favor. They’re FORCING me pay off my credit card balance faster. And, the day my balance hits zero, I get to stop being their customer. OH HAPPY DAY! I CAN’T WAIT!
on Jan 2nd, 2009 at 3:21 pm
I understand, if you and some of the individuals who have been targeted see this action as one that will in fact force account holders to pay off balances sooner. Unfortunately, some people will not be able to stomach the increased monthly payment amount. Another very big concern is that Chase, as a leading card issuer, is pioneering a means by which it can coerce account holders and it is getting away with some really unethical, deceptive behavior in terms of what it promoted versus what consumers are going to get. Other credit card companies could follow (and can you imagine, if auto loans, mortgages, or other types of loans could suddenly be changed like this, on a whim?).
Another major issue, which Chase testified about before Congress and claimed it provided consumers (no doubt, to convince lawmakers that regulation was not needed), is that there is no “opt out.” As you may know, an opt out would allow consumers who could not pay (as you seem to be able to do — I am happy for you!) the ability to “eject from the plummeting airplane” and survive. If all banks start making changes that consumers have no way of rejecting, even by closing accounts, I’m afraid there could be some really serious repercussions for the economy as a whole.
Meanwhile, I’m looking forward to the day when I can rid myself of Chase as well (in case you can’t tell from this site!).
Thanks for posting, Chris.
on Jan 2nd, 2009 at 4:08 pm
You’re welcome. And, thank you for your website. I’m glad I’m not alone in my hatred towards Chase Bank.
http://cybercjh.com/blog/2008/12/07/hey-chase-bank-fck-you/
on Jan 3rd, 2009 at 11:10 am
[...] in the aforementioned article with the fact that Chase is concurrently screwing its own customers (lying to Congress about providing “opt outs,” and engaging in some really despicable act…), the picture becomes quite clear: we’re in a struggle that’s as old as the quest for [...]
on Jan 5th, 2009 at 8:30 am
[...] money from taxpayers and then refusing to account for that money, is not leadership, Mr. Smith. Lying to Congress about supposedly providing “opt outs” is not Leadership, Mr. Smith. Unbridled greed is not leadership, Mr. Smith. Share and [...]
on Jan 7th, 2009 at 10:15 am
[...] have already cited the specific statements reassuring lawmakers that Chase was “fair” in its treatment of customers delivered before Congress by Carter Franke, who provided testimony [...]
on Jan 28th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
[...] Smith. Apologizing to Congress on behalf of Chase Card Services for previously delivering disingenuous testimony (stating that Chase treated customers “fairly” by providing “opt outs”) is [...]
on Feb 13th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
[...] coffee table, dear American credit card account holder (regardless if the card issuer/brand). Chase executives lied to Congress (not that we’d agree that Congress is necessarily very good at representing us, one and all, [...]
on Feb 16th, 2009 at 11:38 am
[...] of truth?” sort of question here. For one thing, Chase is a proven liar (letters to me, testimony before Congress), and for another thing, its spokespeople (and customer service letters) have persisted in putting [...]
on Mar 9th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Been a Chase Credit Card customer since 2004 and have paid them $185,000 during that time. Have only paid a late charge and interest one time two or three years ago (check took about ten days to get to them). I mailed a check for the full statement on Jan. 29, 2009. Checking my account online Feb. 06, 2009. indicated it had not been posted so I called and they did not have the check. I completed an online payment on their site. I checked and it was credited Feb. 9, before the Feb. 11 deadline for late payment and interest charges to kick in. No problem, until I got my statement that showed the payment charged back on Feb. 12 (day after deadline). I called and they said the bank rejected it. I took the information and went to my bank and we called Chase. They determined that Chase rejected it because of an incorrect routing number (same routing number on the checks I have been sending for three or four years). My bank explained that they sent Chase notification as required by (ACH or something like that) rules notifying them. The bank never saw the request since it never got to their system. I asked why I was not notified when the pmt was charged back. Chase said I would get a letter in 10 to 15 days. I asked why I did not get an email like I did on their “message alert” system. They said their system did not work that way. Chase basically said that’s just tough and charged me a $39 late fee, a $39 returned item fee and a $60 interest charge. Obviously I shall trouble them no more by using their card. However I shall remain attentive when it comes congressional hearing time. Fortunately I have some Congressional representatives who will listen to a consumer.
on Mar 13th, 2009 at 10:49 am
Hi Ron,
Relative to Congressional representatives “who will listen to a consumer,” I wonder if that means that they might actually take action, and DO something for consumers. What state are you in, if I may ask?
I am looking forward to the possibility that one day, a judge and jury may use that same word, “tough,” after one of the 12 class action lawsuits (thus far), prevails. Thanks for posting.
on Mar 14th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
[...] (and the media). An “opt out,” was described by Chase Card Services executives in Congressional testimony as an example to demonstrate that Chase treated customers “fairly” by allowing those [...]
on Aug 22nd, 2009 at 7:53 pm
Well I am one of those that just got nailed by Chase and I had no idea that Chase planned on or could have even done this so abruptly. My $173.00 monthly min. payment that I have always PAID ON TIME and always MORE than the min. payment required, went up to $430.00 because it was a balance transfer offer for a fixed rate of 3.99 on a 8,600.00 balance that they would like to get rid of so they can lend that money out at a higher interest to others. I will struggle to make it but I really feel for others who might have to suffer a default interest rate of 30% because they ended up missing a payment due to the fact that they can’t afford the difference in payment so abruptly. Wamu was always good it seemed, but since Chase took over, it turned into as much of a Loan Shark as any Banking Institution can get. But I am not taking this lightly. Next week I will take out all the money in my 2 Chase checking accounts leaving only $12 in each and open new accounts at another bank. I will then write myself a monthly check to my new Banks for $1.00 out of the Chase accounts as a constant reminder to Chase that I am using a different bank for my business now and still keep Chase’s administrative staff busy with my FREE checking accounts. All three of my Sons will do the same with their accounts at Chase. Then I will balance transfer my other 3 Chase credit card accounts that are lower balances with higher interests to another bank. I read where banks said they are doing this so people can get out from under their debt. BS…. My other 3 Chase card accounts with a higher interest, their minimum payments didn’t change. If anyone has any other suggestions on ways to protest these disgusting tactics of Chase to fatten their bonuses when people are desperately struggling to just survive in this economy, Please share!!!
on Aug 24th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
I too am another victim of Chase’s Bait and Switch tactic. Over a year ago, I accepted Chase’s cash advance check offer 3.99% fixed interest rate for the life of the loan deal, where they suggested a consolidation of other credit card balances, fix up your home, send a kid to college, etc. Whatever you wanted to use the money for, was your decision. That is why they even allowed you to write a check and deposit it into your own bank to spend as you wished. All promised for the fine print agreement, which we have all learned to read very carefully. First things first, read the fine print to see what the catch is, was there a maximum cash advance fee? If so, how much and was there a maximum? If you are late or miss a payment, even once, what is the worst case they could do to you? OK, in this case the maximum out of pocket expense was a 3% immediate charge of the cash advance amount of the check. Ok, they made a profit from day one, but with a 3.99% interest rate from then on, and as long as I did not fall into the default interest rate trap by missing a payment or being even one day late, I did the math and this was not a bad option, because I am responsible enough to know that the other fine print, stated that additional purchases would fall under a much higher interest rate that would accumulate until the lowest interest rate, 3.99% was paid off first. No problem, I would simply ensure I did not make a single late payment and would not charge any purchases or make any other cash advances against this credit card. Simple enough and with the guaranteed 3.99% interest rate and a minimum payment based on the stated 2% of the ending balance term, it made sense to take Chase up on their offer. So I did. I paid the minimum 2% balance payment plus some additional to reduce the principal a little faster. I did not pay the balance down agressively, why would I, when I had other payments to other cards, mortgage companies, etc. with higher interest rates? Then one day Chase sent me a notice of “change in terms” to inform me that my 2% minimum payment of $330 per month, which I was paying $400 per month on, was going to increase to 5% of my ending balance each month. This would be increasing my minimum monthly payment by the obvious increase of 250% thus making my new minimum payment $937 per month as my most recent statement showed. I called the Chase representative and told them that I wanted to OPT OUT and close the account and pay it off per the agreed upon amount. Their response was that there was no opt out option for this change in term only if they wanted to increase the interest rate, which they of course also offered to do, i f I simply wanted to keep my 2% balance with a 7.99% interest rate. Of course, I said that was a bait and switch option, I wanted no part of. I was then transferred to a credit counselor, who determined after her rough calculations that my financial situation would not support an opt out option to close the account and let me continue to make the $$330- $400.00 monthly payment as I have been successfully doing for over a year, which had already reduced my balance from the original $25K to the current $18.6K balance it is today. I would have to start paying the new 250% increased minimum monthly payment, since I could not qualify for the hardship case to keep my current payment, according to Chase’s “Mellissa” (who refused to provide an employee ID or a last name, but simply repeated many times that she was as high as I could go in the Chase Corporate management and supervision ladder) I asked her if she knew how ridiculous that sounded to tell a customer, that per their calculations I could not afford to sustain the current $330 minimum payment which I had been making for over a year, so I must now start making an even higher minimum payment which would be even more unsustainable. She seemed to want to pry more and more personal financial information out of me, at which I realized they were only trying to make a case that I did not qualify for an OPT OUT and close the account at the current terms, because they did not like the current terms. I repeated my research results that stated that other individuals were allowed to simply OPT out and close their accounts with the same original payment terms, why then could I not do the same. The response was that no one is allowed to OPT out per the Chase Management’s direction! So what are my options along with over a million other targeted Chase customers, To pay the thing in full and be rid of Chase as they would like me to do or suck it up and pay the higher minimum payment, which is another thing they would like me to do or the other result would be to refuse to pay the bait and switched higher payment thus triggering their “default interest rate trap”. They know I am not going to do the later, because I am in that “targeted group of customers” The ones with impeccable credit scores that will do anything to protect my credit history and FICO scores and they know that based on the analysis of the data they have collected for statistical business decisions, such as this. What is unbelievable is that they are so stupid to think this is somehow going to benefit them in the long run? To lose a customer base is one thing, but again, when dealing with millions and millions of customers, to only target a mere million that fit the model that will statistically pay off the balance, suck up the higher (Illegal change in terms) minimum payment or if they really stike gold will simply be forced into a default situation for the first time in their lives then they get the bonus loan shark interest rates and simply lump those customers back into the credit risk category anyway. Any immediate suggestions on how to stop this change in terms before the next payment due date, which they IRONICALLY extended from September 7th until 9/11/2009 to give me more time to pay! Do you think there was a psychological terrorist message there to make the first of their 250% increased minimum payment on 9/11?
on Oct 9th, 2009 at 11:43 pm
There are several options for the almost 1 million customers that Chase has screwed. First, contact Chase just so you can hear the “thats too bad” speech. Then file a complaint here
http://www.helpwithmybank.gov/complaints/index.html
It will get Chase attention! Also file a complaint with your states Attorney General and Federal Attorney General.
Get involved, class action lawsuit against these criminals!
http://www.girardgibbs.com/chase.asp
This is what you get with a government controlled by corporate money. Like FDR said, a government by organized money is just as dangerous as a government by organized mob.