ChangeinTerms.com Rotating Header Image

Peggy got in a nicely aimed and delivered “direct hit” regarding the lies that Chase told in their testimony before Congress.

Finally, Peggy got in a “direct 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 gun” evidence of corruption and unethical behavior over and over again. 

As I was composing my letter of December 3, 2008 to Chase Card Services CEO Gordon Smith (responding to the change in terms that I had just received), I found links to that testimony and noticed the missing opt out.  Of course, I “called Chase out” on that issue in my letter.  It is just flat-out wrong that these executives have been allowed to get away with telling Congress one thing (as per the transcripts from the testimony), and then turn around and do a 180 degree about-face by imposing a coercive, onerous, precedent-setting change in terms with no opt out.

Clearly, the document trail established by the testimony showed that the executives were using opt outs as their example to demonstrate the means by which Chase treated customers fairly.  Since there is no opt out, I have been harping on the issue of their misrepresentations for months.  I consider statements made by any corporation’s executives before customers, prospects, shareholders, or Congress, to be part of the “contract” that the corporation has promoted, agreed to, and should abide by.  Yet, all we ever hear about from pundits is “read your contract.”

Meanwhile, I’ve been frustrated by journalists’ lack of initiative, skill, or fortitude in bringing these facts about the testimony versus the actual behavior to light.  Even though I am not a journalist, I happen to own a few books on investigative reporting, and the lack of coverage or failure to notice the testimony relative to the missing opt outs is frankly, incompetent.

I expect that Peggy would be less than satisfied with the responses from the panelists, given that one recommendation was to switch to the 7.99% (double-my-interest “alternate option” rate, which is exactly what Chase wanted — who wouldn’t want to double their rates?).  By the way, this is otherwise known as “bait and switch” as alleged in the class action lawsuits.

Hence, even if the media has failed to make mention, at least Peggy got in a nicely aimed and delivered “direct hit” regarding the lies that Chase told in their testimony before Congress.  See the video (starting around 4:48 into the segment):

 

The segment above aired on CNBC’s “On the Money” program hosted by Carmen Wong Ulrich (April 23, 2009, starting at 10:00 p.m., EST).

Thank you Peggy!  You scored one against Chase, and for those of us who have been abused by their “broken contract.”

Share