While the ChangeInTerms.com site is devoted to fighting abuses against consumers and small businesses by the credit card industry relative to its primary mission, we can’t help but notice that Chase is involved in numerous class action cases and/or investigations across the gamut of its various businesses, all of which seem to be related to some form of legalized loan sharking.

I also asked for, and was granted, permission to promote the link that lists these class action lawsuits and investigations.  It is therefore my great pleasure to point out that not everyone is as quiet as most members of the media, and Chase can at least still be challenged through litigation.

© Dr Robert Lahm for ChangeinTerms.com, 2009. | Permalink | 8 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: Class Action, consumers, credit, small business

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

I have not had a chance to check in with Robert Green as of late, but it remains my understanding that some states might be more amenable to class action lawsuits than others (this is because these states may provide venues that are more likely to recognize mandatory arbitration as a rigged game, thereby allowing the means for a class action lawsuit to move forward).  Please visit a list of such states that may show more understanding of consumers’ dilemma (being trapped with no real recourse) on the Green Welling LLC site.

Some of you may recognize Peggy Durant’s name from appearances she has had in national media.  She and her husband, Tim (who own an entrepreneurial business — which makes their issues near and dear to my heart), were shown in a Wall Street Journal article (by Jane Kim, in which I was also quoted). 

Peggy was also the first person that I know of who has managed to score a “direct hit” in the national media against Chase by pointing out that its previous testimony about opt outs is inconsistent with the actions that it turned around and took against 400,000 customers (when it imposed an onerous and coercive change in terms notice with no opt out).  This was significant because the media have been irresponsible (or worse, perhaps purposely suppressing facts) in not investigating and reporting the discrepancy between the testimony and Chase’s about face in terms of its actions.  (Thanks to Alessandro, who transcribed Peggy’s remarks, here; the above link will lead to a video version.)

Having come to know Peggy through this whole debacle, I am honored to be acquainted with someone who has stepped forward to join the fight with such commitment.  I don’t think that I am revealing too much to suggest that she is a hero in my eyes.  Meaning, Peggy (like me and thousands of other affected account holders who have done nothing wrong), would rather not have this issue with Chase. 

Unfortunately, we were given no choice relative to what Chase did, but I know of many people who will not stand up and fight, publicly.  It is easier to watch someone else risk humiliation and defeat, instead of stepping into the arena.  Yet, Peggy has refused to “go quietly into the night,” and she has shown the courage to do battle with a monolithic corporation (which in my opinion I could likened to the “evil empire,” in Star Wars), including its media spin machine.  Peggy has thus far confronted Chase’s negative and hurtful campaign (which has been fully engaged in defaming all of us) head-on, and now she is a lead plaintiff. 

Chase ”chose the dark side” and it does not seem to matter to its executives what damage it may do to individual consumers, small business owners, or an economy that depends on entrepreneurs. 

While Peggy is too humble, I don’t mind whatsoever promoting her heroism, or her small business.  Accordingly, if you are ever in Pennsylvania, please support Peggy’s bed and breakfast (see VictorianLoft.com).  Tell her I sent you, from the ChangeInTerms.com site, and use the promotional code: CIT-NO-OPT-OUT-CHASE.  (OK, I made this last part about the promotional code up, but I would not put it past Peggy to offer you a special rate, or at the very least an exceptionally gracious B & B stay.)

Meanwhile, Peggy, you and your family (Peggy’s brother is also battling cancer), are in my prayers.     

© Dr Robert Lahm for ChangeinTerms.com, 2009. | Permalink | 8 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: change in terms, Class Action, consumers, credit, economy, small business, Testimony

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

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.”

© Dr Robert Lahm for ChangeinTerms.com, 2009. | Permalink | 27 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: change in terms, Class Action, interest, Testimony

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

It’s a virtual certainty that if banks don’t want the regulation, it must be good for consumers.  When’s the last time a bank did anything in your best interest, as compared to their own?  When’s the last time that you received a change in terms notice that was good for you?  I’ll tell you when, most likely it was after a class action lawsuit was settled, or the bank was otherwise forced to take an action that was in your favor, as compared to being in the bank’s favor.  (I would place community banks and credit unions in a different category as compared to the big banks that monopolize the credit card industry.)

According to a CNN report entitled,  ”Obama to lean on credit card CEOs,” you may find it interesting to know just how badly the banks do not want consumers to enjoy additional legal protections:

The credit card sector gave as much as $7.3 million to lawmakers in both political parties during the 2008 election cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Since last October, Visa spent $1.7 million on lobbying, according to government lobbying registries.

That same report also stated, “if the bills advance all the way to President Obama’s desk, it won’t be without a fight.”  Banks are fighting for their interest, and not yours or mine, or those of small businesses.  Unless you are happy with the way things have been going (and how credit card companies have been treating you and others), now is the time to fight back.

We don’t have the money to ”buy” the votes of our Congressional representatives, but you should let them know that we expect them to finally act in the consumer’s (taxpayer’s) interest on this issue, instead of yielding to the will of a few corrupt credit card company executives and their lobbyists.  Be nice, but as far as I am concerned, a vote against these protections is a vote against the American consumer.  Contact your representative and those who are involved in the House and Senate versions of these credit card bills.  The House committee could vote as soon as tomorrow (Wednesday, April 22, 2009).

The only reason I don’t use the word “never” to describe when banks are on your side is to avoid violating the old adage, “never say never.”  Thus, try this phrasing, instead:

When there may be an occasional cold spell in hell, banks may be on your side, instead of their own.

© Dr Robert Lahm for ChangeinTerms.com, 2009. | Permalink | 13 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: banks, change in terms, Class Action, consumers, credit, economy, interest, regulation, small business

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

However, one of this site’s visitors (who also was quoted) sent me this link to an April 8, 2009, MSNBC.com article that Mr. Weisbaum has just published: Did Chase pull a credit card bait and switch? 

I have emailed Mr. Weisbaum again, this time to convey my thanks.  Although his piece mentioned one class action lawsuit (and the N.Y. Attorney General’s settlement), I also pointed out that we are now tracking 13 class action lawsuits on the ChangeInTerms.com site.

Apparently, Chase’s spokesperson, Stephanie Jacobson, remains committed to defaming the customers who were paying on time and fulfilling their obligations with the same negative portrayal — deadbeats making “little progress” deserve it — that we have seen quoted by various members of the media recently.  Mr. Weisbaum reported that he received this in an email from Ms. Jacobson, when Chase was asked for a response; quoting from Mr. Weisbaum’s article:

Chase will not comment on a pending lawsuit, but the company e-mailed me a statement. “Tens of millions of Chase customers have taken advantage of our promotional low rate financing over the last five years,” writes Stephanie Jackson, first vice president for public affairs.  “Most of these loans have been paid back in less than 24 months.  However, there have been a small percentage of customers that have made little progress in paying down these loans.  Our desire is to have these loans repaid in a reasonable period of time.”

Do you think that disclosure rules should mention Chase’s “desire” for customers who are capable of mind-reading, in its future promotional offerings?  At least we now know that when Chase promises a “Fixed APR Until the balance is paid in full” loan, it means “less than 24 months.” 

Too bad, Mr. Weisbaum apparently only inquired about the one lawsuit.  I would have enjoyed seeing something along the lines of: “Chase will not comment on 13 pending class action lawsuits, but…”   

© Dr Robert Lahm for ChangeinTerms.com, 2009. | Permalink | 27 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: Class Action, credit

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

There’s been some speculation on the part of site visitors in light of some recent headlines that the class action lawsuits would perhaps be impeded by Chase’s rescission of the $10 monthly finance charge for account holders (conflicting reports leave some uncertainty as to exactly how many). 

Nevertheless, even though I am not an attorney, I can say that conceptually, Chase can’t simply say “Nevermind!” or hit a “rewind button” to make this whole issue simply vanish.  There are other aspects of the change in terms still in play.  For instance, the 5% minimum payment remains problematic for Chase, in that it is clearly coercive on a common sense basis, and lawsuits, including this one, do tend to point that out through formal statements relative to allegations. 

There can and still should be plenty of fight left in us all, because at this point, a retraction of the fee does nothing to make up for the sheer hell that Chase has inflicted upon innocent account holders.  Other posts have outlined areas of damage and demands that I have made, along with specific suggestions relative to punishment.  The whole idea is to make sure Chase, as well as other credit card issuers recognize that we are not going to tolerate these abuses any longer.

Maybe you are one of the persons who got a retraction letter.  If you decide to quit now, Chase will be back.  Or another card company will send you a “sweet little notice” that changes your life.  I encourage you to resist the temptation to rest on your laurels.  This is no time to back down from the rest of the demands we must continue to make.  Contact the class action attorneys and see if more lead plaintiffs for other states are still being sought (I’ll bet that they are), and step forward.  Small businesses need us; the economy will not recover if they do not recover.

I have to clarify, since it is April 1st, I think that the number “13″ is a bad omen for Chase.  This isn’t a prank.  Here’s a link to the very real lawsuit, #13 (thanks Green Welling LLP!).

© Dr Robert Lahm for ChangeinTerms.com, 2009. | Permalink | 4 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: change in terms, Class Action, credit, economy, small business

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

We must continue to refute a defamatory portrayal cast upon 400,000 of Chase’s “most Valued Cardmembers“ before members of the media.  The article was entitled, “JPMorgan To Refund Account Fees For 400,000 Credit Cards,” and apparently relied upon Chase’s spokesperson, Stephanie Jacobson, as a source.   Let’s take it from the top, relative to corrections; quoting from the article:

In January, Chase Card Services, a unit of New York-based JPMorgan, notified nearly half a million credit card customers that they would be subject to a $10- a-month service charge for keeping their account open.

Correction: The “$10-a-month service charge” is in fact one that “is a finance charge.”  Why do I correct this over and over, and over, again?  Because it is one of the main points of the entire debacle for account holders.  Since it is a “FINANCE CHARGE,” then Chase violated the previously promised promotional rates; this provided a basis for 12 class action lawsuits (plus 2 more that I have heard about through lead plaintiffs who have contacted me — just waiting on links to the suits). 

I am fairly certain that well before any of the class action lawsuits were filed, I may have been the first person to have made this point about the “FINANCE CHARGE” and the fact that it changed the promotional rate (indicating that Chase made a strategic error) in my letter to Chase Card Services CEO Gordon Smith, which was dated December 3, 2008 (immediately after my receipt of my own change in terms notice).

Relative to “for keeping their account open,” that may be technically correct, but it does not reflect the actual wording in the change in terms document in a manner that conveys the situation with adequate richness: “This charge is owed whether or not you use your account, and you agree to pay it when billed.”

Finally, Chase has continued to engage in what can only be described as an obstructionist campaign based upon an outright lie relative to this so-called “service charge” (a.k.a., “fee”) as described to members of the media.  According to the change in terms notice, Chase falsely stated: “Important: Your APRs will not be impacted by these changes” (Panel 1, Summary Section).  I’m afraid that one probably does not even need to be “smarter than a fifth grader” to grasp that adding a charge that “is a finance charge” does absolutely, positively, and certainly impact APRs; it makes them HIGHER.

Next quote: 

Chase also raised the minimum monthly payments for those customers from 2% to 5% of the account’s outstanding balance.

Correction:  There’s a little more to it than that.  Although any account holder may feel like this is “blackmail,” forcing him or her into switching to Chase’s premeditated option (designed to herd individuals into accepting higher interest rates, typically double the previous rate, e.g., from 3.99%-old to 7.99%-new), as non-lawyers and laypeople, they may not discern some of the finer points of legal language.  Thus, here is a passage from the class action lawsuit, DAVID M. SKAGGS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CHASE BANK USA, N.A., Defendant, which explains Chase’s act in legal terms (p. 1, lines 16-21):

Chase reneged by placing a $10 per month finance charge on these accounts, and raising the minimum payment due each month.  Chase then uses its unilateral implementation of these onerous terms to coerce cardholders to agree to a higher rate of interest or to pay the loan balances in full.  3. In doing so, Chase consistently misrepresents the facts applicable to these accounts and violates the Truth in Lending Act.

Switching back to plain talk, Chase planned to bully account holders who could not make the higher monthly payments.  Especially in these hard economic times for individuals and families (and small business owners), Chase knew it had a powerful stick with which it could threaten account holders.  It had a lot of people at a tremendous disadvantage and it planned to plunder and pillage, even after accepting $25 billion in bail out money.  (Since this is a PG-rated site, I’ll not add the word that often accompanies “plunder and pillage,” that word being a form of sexual assault.) 

For instance, an account holder with a $20,000 balance (not an atypical debt for a small business owner) would go from paying $400 per month to $1,000 per month; the $600 per month increase may be just about the right amount to support a part-time employee, or pay the rent and utilities for a small business owner’s office.

Next quote: 

Jacobson said the decision to assess account fees at the rate of $120 a year applied to “less than one-half of one percent of our customers.” The credit card accounts in question, she said, carry low promotional interest rates and are tied to “a small percentage of customers that have made little progress in paying down these loans.”

Correction:  I have written about the defamatory nature of these statements made by Chase through its spokesperson(s).  However, “the accounts in question” were most certainly not all associated with individuals who “have made little progress in paying them off.”  Here is a previous post that I created after spending some time researching the Internet to determine if there were in fact other persons, who like me (as I discussed in response to a quote from me in the New York Times), paid more than the minimum — findings indicated numerous others. 

Secondly, the portrayal of these account holders in a negative light, by virtue of suggesting that their “progress” was in some way deficient relative to their loan agreements with Chase, was and is unconscionable, and damaging to the reputation of those account holders.  These account holders, all 400,000 of them (otherwise, they would have already been subjected to usurious 30-something percent rates) were meeting their obligations, have done nothing wrong, were not required to pay more than the minimum — even if that was the case, but many did pay more — and were previously praised as being among Chase’s “most Valued Cardmembers.” 

This inappropriate negative portrayal of good-paying account holders should come at a cost to Chase.  I for one, would like Chase to pay punitive damages and restore the good names of these good-paying account holders, all 400,000 of them, with a letter of apology published on the same newswires which it used to distribute the original misrepresentations and defamatory information. 

Further, a letter of correction should be sent to every credit bureau, for each of the 400,000 account holders (given three major credit bureaus, I estimate approximately 1.2 million letters), specifically noting that these account holders “made the required amount of progress that was indicated in each monthly statement, and therefore faithfully and fully met their obligations.”  Back to street language: “I’ll dare you Chase, insult the honor of these account holders” (since I am a college professor and the father of a teenager, I have the vocabulary to be even more colloquial: “Chase, you better say you’re sorry for dissin’ me and my peeps”).

Given that the “low promotional rates” to which Ms. Jacobson referred would have only been offered to good-paying account holders in the first place (with good to excellent credit — and that takes work on the part of account holders), who have in the interim fulfilled their payment obligations, Chase should be forced to make restitution as described above. 

Because I have now become a public figure, essentially forced into doing so as the only apparent means of protecting my family’s interests in this matter, personally, I would still NOT be satisfied should Chase merely send the aforementioned retractions.  The damage has been done, including tangible losses to my retirement account, from which I took an early distribution (incurring penalties and taxes as well as the loss of future retirement earnings) under the threat of higher monthly minimum payments to Chase.  I’m not the only one who has suffered money damages, which by the way, were associated universally with account holders who were doing all that they could do to protect their good reputations, respectively. 

Several site visitors have asked me privately, “what does this do to the lawsuits?”  While I am not an attorney, I would assert that a “Nevermind!” from Chase does even come close to undoing the damage it has wreaked upon 400,000 account holders.  I know my own sense of psychological as well as financial well being has been egregiously violated, and I would suggest that this is a common condition that has resulted from Chase’s actions.

Next quote:

“Our desire is to have these balances paid back in a reasonable period of time,” Jacobson said. “The minimum payment due will remain the 5% of their new balance.”

Correction: The backhanded implication of the above quote, consistent with the defamatory remarks, is that customers were not already paying their loans back as agreed, “in a reasonable period of time.”  Nevertheless, if Chase had specific ideas or requirements (i.e., “desires”) regarding a loan payoff period, at the very least it should have said so in its promotional messages. It should have provided payment terms in statements that were consistent with these promotional messages as well.  In other words, Chase set the minimum payment amount all along, and it has no right to gripe about account holders who met their obligations by paying the amount that was specified as being due as per their respective monthly statements.

Instead, Chase promoted a false impression of a “fixed APR Until the balance is paid in full” loan as a “Rate Reduction for our [Chase's] most Valued Cardmembers,” and by originally setting payments at 2% of the balance, mislead customers into believing that these payment terms could be expected to continue.  Since it could not easily claim default on the part of individuals who were paying on time and subsequently engage in rate-jacking, Chase decided to try payment-jacking (again, this is also tied to bad faith and coerciveness).

One might note that no time period, whatsoever, was originally disclosed; and, whether from a legal or simply a practical point of view, such disclosure should be recognized as an obvious requirement so that a lender and borrower can communicate in connection with expressing mutual expectations. 

As just about anyone who can drive a car is aware, if one knows the speed at which he or she is traveling, then the time to arrival (ETA) at a destination with a known distance can be calculated.  Translated, this means that Chase knew when it lent money at a given rate of interest, that with payments set at 2% of the balance, accounts would be paid in full in a period of time that was easily calculable.  Thus, for the initial period of the loan, account holders were erroneously led to believe that there was a certain rate of repayment and time associated with these loans.  This illustrates a profound disclosure issue.

Further, noting that Chase has now, finally, indicated that “a reasonable amount of time” would be associated with payments at 5% of the balance per month (like stepping on the gas and accelerating from 40 mph to 100 mph), two questions would arise on the part of any consumer given the language quoted from the promotional offerings: 1) why (in the hell) didn’t Chase define “reasonable” in its original promotional messages?; and 2) if Chase had a specific (“reasonable”) time period in mind, then it is a basic premise of any loan to state as much in advance of providing that loan — hence, why didn’t Chase do so? (For example, car loans may typically be 48 to 60 months, and real estate loans may typically be 15 or 30 years.)

I remain astonished that Chase’s present statements ignore its initial failure to disclose its “desire” in a manner that was forthright.  Further, its failure to disclose its desires essentially necessitates a need for mind-reading on the part of account holders. I also would point out that these are individuals who were previously praised in promotional messages, but who have now for no reason of default have more recently been defamed as essentially, “slow paying laggards who deserved it” from Chase.

Next quote (apparently a portrayal of the author’s now incorrectly skewed viewpoint):

Chase’s decision to assess the monthly fees before retreating only months later illustrates the struggle among credit card lenders to wind down open accounts tied to risky borrowers.

Correction:  “Risky borrowers” exacerbates the damage inflicted by the initial defamatory portrayal (or at the very least, illustrates the result of Chase’s dissemination of misinformation by its spokesperson).  As should be very clear by this point in my discussion, we, the 400,000 who have been defamed, are not the “risky borrowers.”  We were selected for low promotional rates precisely because we were among the least risky borrowers.  We have paid on time and as agreed.  Perhaps the author of this article did not intend to “add insult to injury,” but by accepting what Chase has stated at face value and then providing further (inappropriate) justification to Chase’s misrepresentation, this is exactly what has occurred. 

Therefore, I would like a correction that adds proper clarification from the publication and the author.  I want to be respectful of the author as I can understand how this situation may have occurred.  However, at the same time, I must strongly object to the added insult resulting from the suggestion that we are “risky” or otherwise unworthy borrowers (who from a social justice point of view, somehow “deserved it” relative to what Chase has done).

Next quote:

“Customer satisfaction is important to us,” Jacobson said.

Correction:  ChangeInTerms.com is my primary means for providing customer feedback with regard to the credit card industry as a whole and its abusive treatment toward account holders.   

If the 400,000 number quoted by the media (and in the article’s headline) is accurate from Chase, then there are at least 399,999 individuals, plus me, who are by no means remotely close to being “satisfied” by Chase’s unprecedented act of aggression (which I intend to make into a “textbook study” of how NOT to treat or otherwise “satisfy” customers).  

I can guarantee that even though my wife does not have a Chase account that was associated with this present change in terms, given that ”Chase Card Services Stole Christmas,” and a few years ago a supervisor also flatly told her that Chase did not care whether or not she kept two accounts of her own open, she’s not “satisfied,” either.  For the record, she did nothing wrong (perfect payment record, like me, and these 399,999 additional account holders).  I have mentioned this instance of complete dissatisfaction on the part of my wife in my correspondence with Chase, but I don’t see that it has shown any interest in addressing my her situation.

The class action lawsuits against Chase, in effect, also constitute a form of feedback regarding “satisfaction.”  Indeed, it would be an understatement to say that customers are anything less than outraged.  

An additional form of feedback includes the notoriety of being included in a petition launched by Consumers Union (publisher of Consumer Reports — a premier objective and independent evaluator of what may be good, bad, or in-between relative to product offerings and promotional claims), against this egregious action on the part of Chase.  The intended audience for the petition is the President of the United States.  I’d say that when an organization such as Consumers Union has gone so far as to specify Chase’s actions in a petition all the way to the President, that is a good indication that overwhelmingly, “We can’t get no, sa-tis-faction; though we try, and we try and we try and we try.”

In closing, I would add that the article should also mention Chase’s original representations before Congress in testimony describing “opt outs” as the means by which it treated customers “fairly” (given that this change in terms under discussion is missing any such “opt out” as was portrayed in that testimony). 

The author’s byline contains contact information.  Please help me emphasize the needed corrections as indicated above, along with any other insights you may wish to provide to the author of this inflammatory piece (keep in mind that the author may not have understood that Chase has engaged in an ongoing campaign to spread misinformation, and its executives lied before Congress about opt outs — be polite):

Marshall Eckblad, Dow Jones Newswires; 201-938-4306; marshall.eckblad@dowjones.com

© Dr Robert Lahm for ChangeinTerms.com, 2009. | Permalink | 31 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: "Bail Out", advocacy, change in terms, Class Action, consumers, credit, credit cards, debt, fees, interest, interest rate, penalties, small business, Testimony

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

Thus, although I have been speaking on a few occasions with Jane Kim of the Wall Street Journal over the last month, I have only now been able to announce this on the ChangeInTerms.com site.  Jane’s article entitled, “Chase Retracts Unpopular Monthly Fee on Some Accounts,” has now been published (as of March 27, 2009) on the WSJ’s “Fat Wallet” personal finance and investing news site.  Jane was even courteous enough to email me and let me know exactly when the article was published. 

There is some very good news for those of us who have been affected by Chase, as indicated by the title itself.  However, even though we have won a battle, this war is still not over, and I am going to repeat something that I have already expressed to Chase:

“If Chase wants peace, it can issue a press release.”

In other words, while I have seen justifiable comments that are celebratory, and I am grateful to receive this breath of fresh air, this site shall leave no man or woman behind.  The war is not over until I see a headline along these lines: “Chase Retracts Entire Change in Terms on All Accounts.”  (As you know, if you are a regular reader here, I am especially concerned about account holders who may also be small business owners.)   

Further, I can still see elements of the same old Chase spin relative to some of the quotes from its spokesperson, Stephanie Jacobson.  For instance, the one about “changes were aimed at customers who had made little progress in paying down their balances, and affected less one-half of one percent of its customers.” 

Still making light of this and trying to minimize the number of customers, how severely they were treated (noting that “minimum payments due will remain at 5% of their new balance” — so much for bail out money), the fact that Chase’s aim was extremely poor — hitting numerous people who were paying more than the minimum — and defamatory toward responsible account holders by suggesting that they were “slow-paying laggards who deserved it” to members of the media, are we Ms. Jacobson?

I therefore shall now require more than a press release stating a rescission of the entire change in terms notice for all impacted account holders:

I demand an apology for the negative portrayal of myself as well as 399,999 other account holders. 

I’ll leave it to law firms to seek restitution and damages, along with punishment, if they can prevail in class action litigation efforts (which may take years).  In the meantime, this war will be won sooner, and with a longer lasting, more significant victory, if it is fought on a de-marketing basis.  I remember back in December 2008, after I installed the software and converted this site to a blog, I had only a few posts, and a few visitors, something like a half-dozen per day.  At this point in time, I am proud to say that I (and the people who have joined me) have now warned thousands of consumers and small business owners about Chase and its unethical shenanigans. 

Since Chase seems to be good at coming up with “alternatives” and “options” (instead of providing the opt out that its executives described in Congressional testimony, whereby customers would reject the change in terms and continue to pay under the old rates and terms), I’d like to present Chase with the “alternative option” of my own.  It might help in mitigating damages and possible punitive actions in “jury trial demanded” class action proceedings:

Chase could elect this “alternative option” by crediting the entire balances that its impacted customers presently owe, reducing their accounts to zero.  I’d like Chase to make “tremendous progress” in crediting these accounts, by doing so within 15 days. 

Why 15 days? 

Because as I observed here, although Chase wanted 18 months to comply with new FED Regulation Z Rules (surprise: banks got their way from their advocate and chief defender, uncle FED), Chase’s corresponding attorney argued that customers should only need 15 days to comply with its new rules. 

Why so much (crediting customers’ respective accounts the entire balance that they presently owe)? 

Well, it’s not really not that much.  You see, this would only entail zeroing out the balances of “less than one-half of one percent” of account holders.  Heck, it’s just such a small percentage, and Chase did receive $25 billion in bail out money (which we would like back before it gives that all out to executives in AIG-like bonuses).  Me, personally, I’d even forgive them for ruining Christmas.  Indeed, you could consider that amount to be extremely modest compensation for defaming people who were meeting their obligations faithfully, and fully. 

We good-paying customers who have done nothing wrong take our reputation and honor seriously, Ms. Jacobson.  Therefore, I’m afraid that this is only the end of round one.  Chase, this means that I’m not giving you an “opt out,” either:

NOW WE’RE (STILL) COMING AFTER YOU

© Dr Robert Lahm for ChangeinTerms.com, 2009. | Permalink | 7 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: "Bail Out", banks, change in terms, Class Action, consumers, credit, regulation, small business, Testimony

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

Part of the story featured Kevin as he described his ordeal with American Express, and he was quoted to say:

“People like me, who have excellent credit, pristine payment histories, are getting thrown under the bus as it were, and again, I think that a lot of the tactics that they are using now are totally illegal.”

Following the aforementioned quote, the report suggested, “unfortunately, they’re not against the law, yet.”  This matter of legality, or not, merits some discussion here.  Media coverage in print or broadcast is often constrained by space and time limitations. 

While I am not a lawyer, the “not against the law, yet” remark that followed Kevin’s quote could be perceived by viewers as one that corrects him (as though he may be misinformed).  However, I happen to know that had he been given more time, Kevin could have in turn added clarity.  For instance, the fact that there are now 12 class action lawsuits (that we are tracking to-date) against Chase, supports the proposition that Kevin presented.  At the very least, it has been vigorously alleged that what Chase has done, is indeed “totally illegal.”

I ran into this same situation when I received coverage in the New York Times.  The typical quote that Chase keeps sending out in its media spin campaign was used: “these changes affected less than one half of 1 percent of its accounts and were aimed at those who had carried large balances for more than two years while making little progress in paying them off.” 

Although Ron Lieber did publish my own personal rebuttal to the “little progress in paying them off” claim on the part of Chase in a snippet of text from me, I had a lot more to say and was only able to fully articulate my points here on the ChangeInTerms.com site, which imposes no limits on space.  As a reminder, here are a few links that shed additional light on the New York Times coverage:

Dr. Robert Lahm in the New York Times — Not enough space, to talk about Chase

Only Paying the Minimum–Not True in my Case with Chase

The two posts above primarily referred to my own situation.  However, Chase has continued to “hunker down” in the press and repeat information that is extremely misleading, which reporters keep publishing without much apparent effort at critical reasoning or further investigation (I sent a correction to USA Today’s Kathy Chu, for instance, which it seems to have ignored).  For a while, there were no observable efforts to associate a number with the stated percentage.  We now know by our own estimates as well as some subsequent quotes from Chase that the “less than one half of 1 percent” is associated with 400,000 account holders (if the claimed percentage and 400,000 number is accurate). 

Regardless of the number or the percentage, the original ”spin” was an obvious deflection meant to minimize the issue with respect to the number of persons who were impacted.  That any member of the media would fail to cross-examine what this number really means constitutes some very irresponsible reporting, and is a true injustice, especially in such challenging times.  For instance, by comparison, according to a report in the Financial Times, there were 290,631 foreclosure filings in February 2009 (one out of every 440 homes).  Further, given that many of the account holders may have families or own small businesses that have been hurt (and those small businesses may employ others), a domino effect would render that 400,000 number far larger relative to its actual impact on regular folks like you and me.  We also know the “squeeze” in general on the part of the credit card industry as a whole is affecting entrepreneurs (and as an entrepreneurship professor, this is extremely troubling to me).

Nevertheless, even one person being treated unfairly goes completely against statements made by Chase executives in Congressional testimony (just like the lies about providing an opt out, as evidenced by the fact that an opt out is conspicuously missing; see item 7, here).  Carter Franke, (page 1) said:

We appreciate our customers, and we believe our success is based on maintaining a good relationship with every one of them. 

Does that mean “every one of them” except me, and 399,999 other account holders?  That would be an extremely large exception to Carter Franke’s claim (and that claim was also made by the former CEO of Chase Card Services; see the post on “Scripted Messages“). 

Let me add that my wife — although her accounts have not been associated with this present “5% minimum payment add a new service charge that ‘is a finance charge‘ to a ‘fixed‘ promotional rate” change in terms debacle — previously closed two of her accounts after a supervisor basically communicated that Chase didn’t care if it kept her business, or not (and this was a few years ago, long before the economy tumbled). 

I mentioned this instance with my wife in my December 3, 2008 letter to Chase Card Services CEO Gordon Smith, by the way, and never heard a “peep” addressing my wife’s experiences — looks like we’re missing some “warm fuzzies” with respect to Chase’s “relationship” with her as well.  Readers here should also note that my wife and I both have a perfect payment history on all of our accounts, to clarify that Chase should have cared and was instead callous toward her.  Hence, the “good relationship with every one of them” claim must mean except me, 399,999 others, plus, my wife — do you think there may be any more exceptions out there? 

I keep mentioning that the “word gets around,” and it’s interesting that credit card companies don’t seem to get the point that if they abuse one person in a household, others will find out.  Chase also rate-jacked a former colleague of mine, and I found out about that, too (the former colleague does not feel any warmth from Chase, either, so I am reminded of yet another exception — seems everywhere you look, the ”thrown under the bus” body count keeps rising). 

Let me now address the other aspect of the oft repeated Chase spin, “little progress in paying them off,” with respect to accounts besides my own.  One day I started researching this statement and found numerous exceptions to this claim as well.  I should point out that this, too, was a deflection, since it was simply a derogatory remark that attempted to tarnish account holders who were previously identified as being among Chase’s “most Valued Cardmembers.”  By virtue of Chase’s failure to acknowledge that the affected account holders were indeed meeting their obligations, its portrayal was insulting.  I would further suggest this this constitutes a form of damage to the reputation of individuals — me, and 399,999 others — by unfairly casting them in a negative light when this was not deserved.

The findings from my research efforts were quite amazing, as it was not difficult at all to locate numerous Internet posts and comments in which others had indicated that they were paying more than the minimum, and contrary to Chase’s claim were indeed making great “progress.”  Do I have to keep saying that, nevertheless, the rate of progress is irrelevant since account holders were paying as agreed on accounts that were promoted as “fixed APR Until the balance is paid in full” loans? 

Subsequently, I assembled this post, which cited numerous instances where this portrayal of “making little progress” did not ring true; you’ll note at the end I concluded, given the time to keep scouring the Internet (or discovery through legal processes in connection with the class action lawsuits), I think we could find thousands of exceptions:

Chase “aimed at” account holders who were only paying the minimum? Someone must need new eyeglasses.

Meanwhile, I appreciate any coverage we can get, because it obviously ”takes an uproar” to get Congress to actually do something to make sure us regular people in the “village” will have any protection from a very abusive credit card industry.  This is an industry that has for the most part, managed to operate like a gang of thugs under existing laws, and engage in what amounts to legalized loan sharking for years and years.  And, as alleged in numerous class action lawsuits, companies like Chase may be engaged in some ”totally illegal” activities, as well (like Kevin said). 

We need even more coverage and to also make sure that members of the media “connect the dots” and recognize that people like Kevin, as well as millions of other entrepreneurs who have bootstrapped businesses, are struggling now.  What the banks are doing  is “no way to run an economic recovery.”

© Dr Robert Lahm for ChangeinTerms.com, 2009. | Permalink | 9 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: change in terms, Class Action, credit, economy, fees, interest, interest rate, small business, Testimony

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

Paul Pensabene of Saratoga Springs, N.Y., received a statement from HSBC on Dec. 8 that said he had a $359.99 balance and remaining available credit of $8,640. But when he went online to pay the bill several days later, his online account showed that same balance put him over his newly-reduced credit line of $300. And that didn’t include the $35 over-limit fee.

We consider this to be an extremely unfair tactic on the part of any card issuer.  It’s one thing to reduce credit lines, it’s another thing altogether to penalize a customer for doing so.  Shame on any card issuer that employs this tactic (not that they seem swayed by being called out for shameless behavior).  Bankers want to reduce risk, and that’s fine, they need to.  But purposely manipulating accounts and putting someone in default when that person has done nothing to deserve such treatment is deplorable. 

Another example in the article mentioned a small business owner, who has been left (by Amex, which would not answer even after repeated calls) “to juggle business expenses on his personal cards.”  Hence, given that we need to support entrepreneurs, I remain concerned on that basis as well. 

I hope some class action attorneys are interested in this new “trap.”

© Dr Robert Lahm for ChangeinTerms.com, 2009. | Permalink | 9 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: Class Action, credit, fees, interest, small business

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh