This post concerns more on opt outs, and the lack thereof in Chase’s recent change in terms notice. This notice was distributed to me in my statement insert received on or about the first of December 2008, and in effect as of January 1, 2009 — wish I had 18 months to comply, kind of like the time period that Chase told the FED it wanted to implement new Regulation Z rules (Chase and other credit card companies seem to always get what they want from regulators).
For those who are brand new to this issue (or site), the basics of the notice included raising minimum payments from 2% to 5%, imposing a new $10/month “finance charge” (whether or not a balance is carried, at all): and its most sinister feature, the notice was conspicuously (and shamelessly, on the part of Chase spokespersons) devoid of an “opt out.”
If an account holder can pay off a large balance on short notice as a lump sum payment to any bank then he or she can “get out,” but that’s not the same as an “opt out.” Many people I’ve read about or communicated with otherwise by email, phone, or comment posts – if they are able to do so — are taking this “get out” approach in dealing with Chase, typically declaring: “I hate Chase,” “I’ll never, ever, do business with Chase, again!,” “Chase can go to hell,” or the like, in the process (see my “Rant-roll”).
An “opt out,” as previously described by Chase and others in the industry allows a customer to reject newly imposed terms by exercising the option (hence, “opt”) to voluntarily close an account and continue to pay under the old terms (at the old rate, and so forth), until the balance is paid off.
I 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 (U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, January 25, 2007) in his capacity as Chase’s Chief Marketing Officer. In that testimony, he used opt outs as an example to illustrate the way that Chase supposedly worked with account holders and (supposedly) treated customers fairly.
I have noticed and commented on the similarities that can be observed in various (professionally crafted) statements delivered by Chase executives and media spokespersons. You can be assured that they know exactly what they are doing, well ahead of time. I have also found a similar passage, reassuring lawmakers about fairness and opt outs, relative to what was delivered by Carter Franke, in the testimony that was provided by the former CEO of Chase Card Services, Richard Srednicki. This latter statement by Mr. Srednicki was delivered before the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations on March 7, 2007. Excerpted from that statement, I found the following passage:
“…we let them know they have options. They can discuss the matter with us and, if they wish, they can opt out and close an account and pay off the balance at the old interest rate over time.
We do want to help customers, and we treat them as individuals.”
I’m sorry, but as a said in my letter to the current CEO of Chase Card Services, Gordon Smith (and I continue to stand by that letter as it is substantiated by the facts and documents that I have in my possession): “Chase certainly lied to me: ‘3.99% fixed’ is not the same as 3.99% plus $10.00 per month (whether or not the consumer carries a balance).”
I certainly wish that I could easily and affordably simply “get out” as some others are able to do and are doing. I also realize that some readers here (probably those who are insensitive to the plight of individuals who, like me, took on debts, but did so expecting that they would pay in good faith, and not be mistreated by banks that are clearly acting in bad faith), might think to themselves, “What’s the big deal over $10/month?” I’ll answer: for me, $10 is not that big of a deal from a financial point of view; rather, it’s the very frightening precedent that matters.
The lack of an “opt out” certainly should have every cardholder, regardless of brand, on high alert.
If Chase is not stopped, then it truly will set a precedent before the eyes of other banks, demonstrating that from here on, credit card companies shall serve as lord and master, chief tormentor and overseer in all of our lives. I’ll bet MBNA’s only regret (it has since been bought out by Bank of America), is that it did not come up with this new idea about how to manipulate and bully customers, first.
Equally frustrating, is the fact that banks are simultaneously enjoying a FED funds rate that is so low, money is almost free to them, and our bail out money (Chase got $25 billion); yet, Chase wants to eliminate opt outs (demonstrating its “true colors” in a time of national distress: fairness is being thrown out the window at the same time).
I want Chase to know that it has options, too. It can leave my account the way it promised, and it can issue a press release retracting the change in terms notice under discussion here in its entirety (I won’t ask for an apology — if it acts quickly — because that seems to make lawyers “freak out”). Alternatively, Chase can provide an opt out for all customers on this present and any future change in terms notices it may issue (like its executives stated in testimony that it would do). Either way, I do want to see it in a press release before the public at large (apparently it’s not a problem making misleading statements in Congressional hearings).
When I see the press release (disseminated), I will quit writing posts, rising in page rank in search engines, and doing all that I can to demarket the Chase credit card brand (as its issuer is employing deceptive marketing practices). This increasing visibility can be atributed to the support of ChangeInTerms.com site visitors (thank you!) – spread the word to credit card companies in general and Chase in particular:
NOW WE’RE COMING AFTER YOU
Loading ...
on Jan 9th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
[...] Chase ignored the other points I raised about “opt outs” (stated as a means for treating customers “fairly” in testimony before Congress); [...]
on Jan 9th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
Chase’s cardmember agreement and change in terms notices are written by skilled attorneys who know contract law very well, and that’s why I say the cardmember agreement doesn’t always mean everything that it says, and sometimes it can mean more than its says. Does that twist your mind? Shouldn’t surprise you, that’s what lawyers make a living doing (and I’m not a lawyer either).
Fundamentally, there is a basic legal principle that any contractual provision which purports to force one party to agree to something in the future without specifying every material and essential element of that something is a nullity and not a legally enforceable provision. The same goes for forcing one party of the contract, under the terms of the contract itself, to agree to an unspecified future change in a material term of the contract—you know very well the proposed change cannot be legally binding on the party based on the prior agreement which failed to include the specifics of the change.
Think about it like this: if your apartment lease says you may renew the lease at its expiration at a new rate of rent to be agreed upon, do you think the landlord is really forced and required to offer you a new lease if you want to renew? No.
Want to know something else ironic about Chase’s cardmember agreement? The agreement itself seems to require that any change in terms notice which adds a fee, changes an interest rate, or modifies any repayment provisions will provide an opt-out provision. So, this change-in-terms notice which doesn’t provide an opt-out provision could technically be argued as not complying with the cardmember agreement itself and be void. However, my approach, to remain less controversial, is that a cardholder may act on the language in the original cardmember agreement by itself (the agreement currently in effect with Chase) to assert an opt-out on the change in terms notice as a matter of right under the cardmember agreement. And the biggest surprise of all? Chase seems to know this too and appears to have granted me my opt-out on their change in terms notice.
on Jan 9th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Chris, your analysis is clear and I think correct (not being a lawyer, either). Meanwhile, although I wrote what I considered to be a rather blunt rejection of Chase’s actions, I did not receive the “opt out” that you have mentioned. I find this quite interesting. It may be helpful to others, maybe extremely helpful, if we could find a way to demonstrate disparate treatment. Please feel free to contact me using the site form, of you’d be willing to try to work something out in this regard. I am in the midst of posting letters (my rebuttal to Chase, with the BBB of Delaware as an intermediary — you’ll be able to see what I’ve got). Regards.
on Jan 11th, 2009 at 12:12 am
[...] out,” which is contrary to a previous statement delivered by a Chase marketing executive in testimony before Congress. In the absence of an “opt out,” says Lahm, the consumer has no “escape [...]
on Jan 11th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
The only way to control the credit card issuers is to not “feed the beast.” Only reducing as much as possible the actual use of credit cards will hurt the cc companies. Cash, checks, and if necessary, debit cards (which still earn a fee for the issuers, and are trackable, but at least the purchases are not subject to interest) should be used as much as possible. People should pay down their debts as fast as they can manage. Cancel any unneeded accounts. “Debt is slavery” should be the new watchword.
on Jan 11th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
I would certainly agree with that advice (a bit easier said than done, but speaking only for myself, I am trying, very hard — being stuck in a house that has not sold for over 18 months has not helped)! Thanks for posting.
on Jan 13th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Dr Lahm—a “blunt rejection” and complaint about Chase’s actions is not the same thing as declaring you do not accept the changes. The P.O. box address at the end of the notice is the address it told you to correspond with about the change, not some other address for Chase’s Executive offices. You probably can still send a proper opt-out letter to the correct address, and include with it a request to get the $10 service charge on your January statement removed, because Chase also didn’t specify an opt-out deadline in their change in terms notice like they should have.
If that doesn’t work (or it is too late or you are still very angry with Chase), the next best thing for those aggrieved to do would be to file complaints against Chase about the lack of an opt-out provision in their change in terms notice which adds a fee and changes the repayment requirements. The more complaints received, the more likely the regulators will act on the matter.
File the complaint with a letter or paper form and include supporting documentation; don’t submit an Internet form. Include a copy of the notice November 2008 change in terms notice and your January statement with with your complaint (both of which can be reprinted online), and also a discussion of how you are aggrieved by the change (increased minimum payment, new fee, and can’t opt-out) and what Chase has offerred you to remove the changes (7.99% promotional rate, etc.). In reality, you should have a right under law to outright opt-out of any change which adds a fee or changes your APR or minimum payment without agreeing to any alternative change, as any change in the material elements of the credit agreement require your acceptance to go into effect.
The appropriate regulators to contact would be your state Attorney General, the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) ( http://www.helpwithmybank.gov/complaints/index.html ), and maybe the Federal Reserve and/or FTC. The ideal resolution would be for Chase to formally announce to all cardholders the ability to opt-out of the changes which should have been included in the notice and refund the service fees and accrued finance charges from the appropriate APR tier of the accounts, in addition to any consequental damages you may have incurred (balance transfer fee to another credit card in order to payoff the Chase balance).
Good luck to all, and make sure Chase keeps hearing about their transgression and is continually forced to make things right.
on Jan 13th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Thinking I could “opt-out” per Chris’ experience above, I called Chase again today and finally got to speak with a supervisor, Ron Cool – 4th attempt to speak to a supervisor is the charm I guess.
Mr. Cool claims I only had until 12/31/08 to opt-out, close the account and continue to repay under the existing terms of the agreement. That sounds fishy, since, although I never saw the “Important Notice” change in terms supposedly included with my bill in either December (first CSR) or November (second CSR), I understand it did not provide an opt-out provision. So how could there be a deadline on an option they didn’t provide????
Mr. Ron Cool said there was no deceptive purpose in Chase not including the “Important Notice” on the statement itself, nor in its decision to not include the “Important Notice” in December’s statement. Nor was there any deceptive purpose in including it on an insert. I am still awaiting a copy of the change-in-terms supposedly included with my statement.
How can Chase state unequivocally that I received the change-in-terms notice? I never saw it. I don’t recall throwing any insert away. Are their envelope stuffing machines so flawless that they can determine with 100% assurance that every person who was supposed to receive the notice, actually did receive it? I think not.
I am beyond angry. I never really hated a company before….Chase has changed that.
on Jan 13th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Peggy – send in an opt-out letter now anyway. I am in a similar fight with Chase on my second Chase credit card account subject to the notice. They received my certified letter on Dec. 31, 2008, and the January 2009 statement did not have the fee or increased minimum payment, however Chase did not close that account either, and Chase’s response letter dated Jan. 5, 2009 doesn’t confirm the opt-out, but rather just instructs, “call us to discuss your options.”
Therefore, I will be sending them another opt-out letter on the same account now which also indicates that I will not consider any alternative changes to my account that Chase may be willing to offer until Chase confirms in writing that the changes it proposed in the November 2008 change in terms notice will not be applied to my account on any future statements. I think they will cave in under pressure.
Chase knows (or should know) that the cardmember agreement cannot compel you to accept any change to your account which adds a fee, changes an interest rate, or modifies repayment (the older version of the cardmember agreement even says that outright), so they are trying to trick us into accepting something other than the status quo (which I guess is undesirable to them now), making us think we are compelled to accept a change. My position is the November 2008 notice was an invitation to payoff and close accounts, so if Chase insists on breaking the law and cardmember agreement, they are going to get exactly what they wanted, and trouble for doing it to boot.
Tell Chase you are not agreeing or accepting anything they may offer, and if they make an account change anyway, the service fee and new minimum payment amount will be disputed.
on Jan 14th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Hi Chris, I have just been typing in a long reply to your post, but something happened to my browser screen, and suddenly I was on a Sony site, and lost all of my work — arrrrrrrrrrrrg! I’m out of time, so I’ll have to summarize. First, I think that your advice is procedurally quite logical, and it is appreciated. It does get interesting. I have friends and colleagues who are attorneys, and they have suggested something that stands as a unique “twist,” in my case as a possible legal argument, and raises some very problematic issues, for Chase. One interpretation of my letter to Chase in 2006 was that I put Chase “on notice” at that time, that I demanded that it honor the 3.99% fixed rate loan terms, and that no other terms were acceptable. Its reply in October 2006 affirmed that I would keep that rate, unless I violated either of two conditions specified (not going over limit and not missing a payment); and, I have indeed met those conditions.
Secondly, the whole “opt out” thing. A Chase spokesperson was quoted by Wall Street Journal writers as saying that there was no opt out. Well, if there was no opt out, then there was no sense in writing, and a deadline did not apply. Anticipating a counter argument: “the spokesperson was misquoted.” Response: depose the spokesperson, and the journalists. Nevertheless, the change in terms notice did not indicate an opt out option, either; therefore, there was nothing to write about, and no deadline, with respect to an opt out. Do keep in mind that I am not an attorney, and I can not service a protracted legal discussion, here.
I have written all of the entities you mentioned (and it is a good idea for anyone to so the same, even though the OCC ultimately has jurisdiction); the FTC, if it would be so kind as to recognize a blatant act of deceptive practices, could also act (but I doubt that government on any front will lift a finger, in the end — just me being cynical, perhaps, but we are where we are today, thanks to laws, or to be more precise the lack thereof, that allow credit card companies to financially brutalize account holders).
To address a few other matters I see in your post: I’m not fighting, just for me. I could simply buckle under and let Chase have its way with my dignity, get rid of the $10 per month “finance charge,” and raise my rate to $7.99% (double). Sooner or later, I’ll sell my house; I pay off Chase; my personal problem goes away.
Unfortunately, I see this move on Chase’s part as just being too despicable, and too dangerous. Chase could set a precedent for being able to do anything it pleases, no matter how deceptive, before the eyes of other industry executives who may follow Chase’s lead. That would be unacceptable for my family; for thousands of other individuals and families; and for small business owners (many of whom use credit cards to get by — don’t intend to get into that very deep discussion here — let’s just say I am reporting the facts about these businesses, and that is not the same thing as recommending credit cards as a source of capital).
Last but not least, I will be disputing any charge on my own statement!
on Jan 14th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
I will tell you this, even though the notice doesn’t mention anything about an opt-out, there is an opt-out and I got it free and clear on one of Chase accounts. Chase replied to my opt-out letter, “Please accept this letter as confirmation that your account will not reflect the change(s) in terms that you could choose not to accept. We have closed your account at your request and it will remain subject to your current terms, including, if applicable, penalty annual percentage rates (APRs) and fees.”
It is my second account, where I sent the same opt-out letter but later in the month, that Chase simply replied, “Please call us to discuss your options”, they didn’t close that account, however the January statement also didn’t have the service charge or increased minimum payment. I think that means Chase has decided to postpone the matter for me.
You are right, since the notice didn’t specify anything about an opt-out, Chase cannot assert an opt-out deadline, though I think after the January payment has been made without any opt-out and/or charge dispute filed, the success of any efforts to opt-out will become very slim because you can be deemed to have accepted the changes at that point.
Chase’s biggest problem, if you ask me, is the cardmember agreement says something to the effect of, “the change in terms notice will describe any rights you may have with respect to the change under applicable law.” By law, you have a right to opt-out of any change that adds or changes a fee, changes an interest rate, or modifies repayment, but their notice failed to describe these opt-out rights which Chase itself admitted to me existed, so it was an unlawful notice and does not comply with the requirements of the cardmember agreement. That’s the issue I would complain to OCC and BBB and whoever about; the rest isn’t actually a violation. I may actually have to complain myself to OCC if Chase doesn’t grant my opt-out on the second account like it must.
on Jan 14th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
By the way, Reg. Z spells out in black & white how the change in terms notice should have contained information about opting-out, which doesn’t make Chase’s actions look very good in any OCC Truth-In-Lending Act complaint:
12 CFR 226.9(e) Disclosures upon renewal of credit or charge card–
(1) Notice prior to renewal. Except as provided in paragraph (e)(2) of this section, a card issuer that imposes any annual or other periodic fee to renew a credit or charge card account of the type subject to Sec. 226.5a, including any fee based on account activity or inactivity, shall mail or deliver written notice of the renewal to the cardholder. The notice shall be provided at least 30 days or one billing cycle, whichever is less, before the mailing or the delivery of the periodic
statement on which the renewal fee is initially charged to the account. The notice shall contain the following information:
(i) The disclosures contained in Sec. 226.5a(b) (1) through (7) that would apply if the account were renewed;\20a\ and
(ii) How and when the cardholder may terminate credit availability under the account to avoid paying the renewal fee.
on Jan 14th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
Chris, You obviously have a sharp eye for detail, and you seem to have made some headway in fighting Chase on your own behalf. I have a long day ahead, but I will go to sleep wondering (probably will awake in the middle of the night), how to settle this matter with Chase on behalf of all those individuals who are now starting to come out of the woodwork, discovering that while they were on holiday, Chase had instituted changes, with major consequences in those account holders’ lives?
You may have seen my post on Chase and Reg. Z? (Chase thinks customers should only need 15 days notice, but in its “sweetheart” letter from a Chase attorney to the FED Secretary, it requested, and received, 18 months to comply with changes.)
I do remain convinced that this is all a game to the sleazy, manipulative jerks who make a living trying to find ways to screw people, at Chase. That’s fine with me. We are right, they are wrong, and ultimately, we will win by continuing to assert our place on both a moral high-ground, as well as a procedural one. Chase has botched this in several ways. Even if it slithers through like the snake that it is in a legal context, it has proven beyond all doubt the lengths that is will go to to play dirty, on a rigged table.
Well, on that latter basis, I’m ready. Chase can “bring it on.” We’ll win where it counts; people will know in the marketplace that Chase’s executives are evil, it has no conscience, and it is not a business that anyone who is in his or her right mind, would trust. My mother taught me well. It’s all about trust, and Chase, can not be trusted.
Companies that play games with the law as compared to doing the right thing eventually tend to lose in the “court of public opinion,” rightfully so, and subsequently lose their customer base, and perish.
Even if you resolve this matter with regard to your own accounts, I do hope you will complain to the OCC and any other entity that collects data about the number of, and nature of complaints it receives.
Sleep well.
on Jan 14th, 2009 at 11:00 pm
I still have not seen the change-in-terms notice. I asked Chase to send me a copy over a week ago and it has not arrived yet.
Chris, you said it could be printed out from the website – however, I don’t seem to be able to locate it. Can you provide a link? Or tell me where it is hiding?
I believe that if no opt-out was offered, then they Chase supervisor I talked to recently had to be lying when he said I missed the deadline.
My January payment is due on the 21st – so I am running out of time. I don’t have the address for disputing the charges either.
Thanks for any assistance you can provide in helping me obtain a copy of the notice so I can continue my battle with Chase.
on Jan 14th, 2009 at 11:34 pm
Never mind – I finally found it. Apparently Chase is not too eager for people to actually read their Notice.
I’ve had a Chase account for decades – I wonder how I could find or obtain a copy of the original card agreement terms? Or should I just assume it or a later version of card terms included the standard “opt-out” language that this latest Notice so famously omitted?
on Jan 15th, 2009 at 11:30 am
Peggy—I had Chase mail me a copy of the current cardmember agreement. There is nothing new that is really exciting in there, except for the mandatory arbitration clause. Although they say they’ve made it easier to read, really they’ve made it more generalized so that they can stretch the truth about what they can do as much as possible.
on Jan 24th, 2009 at 12:03 am
I have a “to do” list that’s a mile long, due to a new semester at the university, but I am planning to scan a copy of the change in terms notice and post that as soon as I can get to it. I know that a lot of people are looking for a copy of that notice (or they will be, when their surprise, “gotcha” monthly statement arrives for the month of January).
on Jan 24th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Okay, for those who need to see the actual change in terms notice, here is a scanned copy.
on Feb 1st, 2009 at 5:41 pm
[...] it against losses, or against the very customers whose relationships, if they were managed “fairly,” ethically and responsibly, would prevent those losses from occurring in the first place? [...]
on Feb 11th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
I got one of those notices also. Went not where with them on the phone. They hang up, I would call back. Played this game for two hours with 17 different reps.
Tomorrow, I am going to the Chase branch with a picket sign stating “JP Morgan / Chase screwed me over! Ask me how!”
I will stand on the sidewalk in front of their bank starting at 9am.
on Feb 11th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Hi Scott,
If you are really, really serious about picketing, I really hope you know someone with a video camera (and might be willing to YouTube yourself in action)! You might also call some news media persons, ahead of time, and suggest that they might want to send out a photographer. If you get any coverage, the band of Chase “resistors” who are working on this site would certainly appreciate a “shout out.” For now, I salute you. Bless you.
on Feb 11th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
I did this to my dad’s HMO years ago when they refused treatment for my father. “Blue Cross is screwing with my dad’s health! Ask me how!”
Within three minutes, someone came out of the office and I got approval in 20 minutes.
I am trying to get my wife to come with me tomorrow to video record it, but she thinks I am nuts. As long as I do not interfer with their business, perfectly legal.
Just like with HMOs… you have to play hardball with the credit card company sometimes.
Dr. Lahm…
Have you thought about sending Chase your own change of terms and conditions? Sending it certified and telling them can not opt out? If they can do this to us, why cant we do it to them.
on Feb 11th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
Hi Scott,
This whole site is, in effect, my “change in terms” notice to all abusive credit card companies! You can see all of my correspondence to Chase in a “package” here. This is no longer a game of “softball,” we’re fighting for every single account holder (including millions of small businesses), and I’m not planning to stop until Chase as well as the rest of the credit card industry is the “team that goes home in defeat.”
Humm, I usually avoid asking my wife if she thinks I’m “nuts” (I’m glad a few of us have the moxie to fight, however, so kidding aside, I’m proud to have met you here, and I wish you and your family the best, including your dad). Take care.
on Apr 15th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
[...] but there have been noticeable gaps relative to center-piece issues, such as the missing “opt out.” We must therefore wage our war in grassroots fashion, “takin’ it to the [...]
on Apr 24th, 2009 at 9:27 am
[...] hit” against Chase on national TV about the missing opt out for 400,000 customers, despite the testimony that Chase executives delivered before Congress. As regular ChangeInTerms.com site visitors are aware, I have mentioned this “smoking [...]
on Jun 23rd, 2009 at 6:27 pm
Hi, has anything changed on this? I just got the notice from Chase today that they are raising my minimum payment from 2% to 5%, which will be $700 more per month. Has the opt out happened? thanks so much! Please send reply to my email at sbeck45@msn.com. ThANKS
on Aug 25th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
I called Chase this weekend to verbally notify them that I had already written them via their on line “contact us” web links that I did not accept their change in terms and requested them to close my account and opt out. Of course they told me I could not opt out, but they could refer me to their alternate options personnel to see if I qualified for a lower minimum payment. This was all another fasad for the lead in to their desire to change my fixed 3.99% rate life of the loan terms for their offered 7.99% with a 2% minimum payment term. I told them I was not interested in increasing my interest rate, because the 3.99% rate based on a minimum payment of 2% of the last statement balance was what they offered and I had already accepted. I simply wanted to opt out and close my account, because I could not afford the 250% increase in minimum payment they were trying to force upon me without my consent. I was then transferred to their alternate options personnel in Texas, who told me they could help me get a lower monthly payment, if I provided them some financial income/expense data to support the hardship the increased payment would create. After providing enough information to show that there was not enough income at the end of the month to pay the increased amount, they stated that my income was insufficient to sustain the 3.99% rate even with the 2% minimum payment!! Based on this, they said I did not qualify for any reduced minimum payment and I asked to speak with a manager. I was transferred to “Melissa” who was the supervisor I spoke to. She refused to provide her last name or employee ID. She told me that she was as high up the management chain as I could get to resolve this issue and that since they had determined that I was not financially able to sustain the current 3.99% payment, then I was ineligible for any other options and thus the 250% increas of my minimum payment would stand and was due on oh yeah, 9/11/09, I would like to ask Chris for some specifics on his letters he sent that seemed to work for him, because I told “Melissa” that other individuals had requested to opt out and close their accounts with the same terms they agreed to and she flat out told me that is not true, NOBODY can opt out, she said, per upper management directions. She said she can only enforce what Chase Management told her to do.