SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
banks
'Alarming': Trump CFPB Drops Cases Against Companies Accused of Cheating Consumers
"This sends a dangerous message to corporate America that financial fraud and abuse will go unchecked," said one critic.
Feb 27, 2025
Consumer advocates on Thursday slammed the Trump administration for dropping various enforcement actions against companies accused of activities that include ripping off savings account holders, illegally collecting on student loans, and engaging in an unlawful mortgage broker kickback scheme.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's notices of voluntary dismissal came as the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs held a hearing for Jonathan McKernan, President Donald Trump's pick to lead the CFPB—which Accountable.US executive director Tony Carrk has called "a gift to big banks and special interests."
"We're getting a very strong message here that if you're a bank, if you're a student loan servicer, and you're violating the law, the CFPB is not only not going to pursue you, they're going to let you out of your case scot-free."
While the former Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation board member awaits confirmation from the GOP-controlled Senate, Trump and Russell Vought, the CFPB's temporary leader, have wasted no time trying to gut the agency and undo the work of its former director, Rohit Chopra, who oversaw cases against the following companies:
- Capital One, accused of cheating millions of banking customers out of more than $2 billion in interest;
- Heights Finance, accused of loan-churning practices that harvested hundreds of millions of dollars in costs and fees;
- Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency (PHEAA), accused of collecting on student loans discharged in bankruptcy and sending false information to credit reporting companies;
- Rocket Homes, accused of providing incentives to real estate agents and brokers who steered homebuyers toward its loans; and
- Vanderbilt Mortgage & Finance, accused of trapping people in risky loans for manufactured homes.
Court paperwork "in the Rocket Homes case notes that the 'Consumer Financial Protection Bureau dismisses this action, with prejudice, against all defendants,'" according toThe Associated Press. "Dismissing a case without prejudice means that it cannot be refiled. Similar wording was used in the dismissals of the CFPB's Capital One and Vanderbilt Mortgage suits."
Those decisions came after the CFPB last week
dropped a case against SoLo Funds, which the agency accused of misleading borrowers about loan costs. Vought had then teased further action, saying on social media Sunday that "shockingly, the CFPB tried to destroy this company, SoLo, which incurred millions in legal fees and had to lay off 30% of its workforce. It was wrong and we dismissed the case. More to come but the weaponization of 'consumer protection' must end."
Meanwhile, critics like Christine Chen Zinner, consumer policy counsel at Americans for Financial Reform, are framing the CFPB's dismissals as a betrayal of the agency's mission.
"The old CFPB stood ready to protect consumers and wrestle back the ill-gotten gains of big banks like Capital One," Chen Zinner said Thursday. "With this decision, the Trump-appointed leadership is letting Capital One steal $2 billion from its depositors, another example of this administration standing up for Wall Street at the expense of everyday people who deserve the CFPB's protection."
Erin Witte, director of consumer protection at the Consumer Federation of America, also released a statement focused on the bank case.
"The CFPB was created to be a watchdog for big banks, not a lapdog, and dismissing this case is a gift to Capital One," said Witte. "$2 billion is a drop in the bucket for Capital One–less than half a percent of its total assets—but returning this money would make a huge difference to the hardworking Americans who trusted Capital One to safeguard their savings and were kept in the dark about how to earn more."
Witte also described the full list of dismissals as "unprecedented," and toldReuters, "We're getting a very strong message here that if you're a bank, if you're a student loan servicer, and you're violating the law, the CFPB is not only not going to pursue you, they're going to let you out of your case scot-free."
Accountable.US highlighted that "the news stands in stark and alarming contrast to McKernan's remarks... to senators, promising to review all existing CFPB lawsuits before making any decisions around dropping litigation."
Student Borrower Protection Center executive director Mike Pierce said in a statement about the PHEAA case that "Russ Vought and Donald Trump sided with a lawless and corrupt student loan company at the expense of borrowers across the country—another sign that powerful financial interests are driving the capture and demolition of the federal consumer watchdog."
"This is a slap in the face to students, student loan borrowers, and working people everywhere," Pierce continued. "PHEAA lied to some of the poorest and most vulnerable Americans, then illegally hounded them for debt that they did not owe, all to make a buck. And today, cowardly political sycophants backed down on the federal government’s only effort to hold PHEAA accountable."
"Of course, like all fascist toadies, Russ Vought will rightly be forgotten by history and sink into well-deserved irrelevance. But until then, law enforcement at every level of government must rush in to fill the void left by a federal consumer protection agency that now stands only to serve billionaires and big corporations," he added. "Remember: these people prey on those in need because they are motivated only by the desire to exercise power, and they are motivated to do so because they are cowards. It is everyone's job to remind Vought and his cronies of their powers' limits, and to remind the world of their cowardice."
Lauren Saunders, associate director of the National Consumer Law Center, also directed some blame at billionaire Elon Musk, the head of Trump's so-called Department of Government Efficiency, which is leading the administration's efforts to slash the federal workforce and spending.
"The Trump administration and Elon Musk are showing us exactly what it means not to have ordinary people protected by a strong Consumer Financial Protection Bureau—they are dismissing enforcement cases that sought to return billions to working families harmed by corporations accused of egregious conduct that violated the law," said Saunders. "On top of the stop-work order and firing of CFPB workers doing their jobs, this sends a dangerous message to corporate America that financial fraud and abuse will go unchecked. We must preserve a strong, independent, and functional CFPB to stand up to corporate bullies."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), a former bankruptcy professor, is the mastermind behind the CFPB. She is also the ranking member of the panel which McKernan appeared before on Thursday. The American Prospect executive editor David Dayen reported that the senator informed the nominee about the dismissals during the hearing.
"Literally while you've been sitting here and you've been talking about the importance of following the law, we get the news that the CFPB is dropping lawsuits against companies that are cheating American families, or alleged to be cheating American families," Warren said. "It seems to me the timing of that announcement is designed to embarrass you and to show exactly who is in charge of this agency right now: Elon Musk and his little band of hackers."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Meet the Banks and Investors Funding the LNG 'Carbon Bomb'
"Banks and investors can still act to put an end to the unrestrained support they offer to the companies responsible for LNG expansion," the authors of a new report said.
Dec 05, 2024
Liquefied natural gas developers have expansion plans that could release 10 additional metric gigatons of climate pollution by 2030, and major banks and investors are enabling them to the tune of nearly $500 billion.
A new report published by Reclaim Finance on Thursday calculates that, between 2021 and 2023, 400 banks put $213 billion toward LNG expansion and 400 investors funded the buildout with $252 billion as of May 2024.
"Oil and gas companies are betting their future on LNG projects, but every single one of their planned projects puts the future of the Paris agreement in danger," Reclaim Finance campaigner Justine Duclos-Gonda said in a statement. "Banks and investors claim to be supporting oil and gas companies in the transition, but instead they are investing billions of dollars in future climate bombs."
"While banks will secure their profits, it's at the expense of frontline communities who often will not be able to get their livelihoods, health, or loved ones back."
The International Energy Agency has concluded since 2022 that no new LNG export developments are required to meet energy demand while limiting global temperatures to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels. Despite this, LNG developers have upped export capacity by 7% and import capacity by 19% in the last two years alone, according to Reclaim Finance. By the end of the decade, they are planning an additional 156 terminals: 93 for imports and 63 for exports.
Those 63 export terminals, if built, could alone release 10 metric gigatons of greenhouse gas emissions—nearly as much as all currently operating coal plants release in a year. What's more, building more LNG infrastructure undermines the green transition.
"Each new LNG project is a stumbling block to the Paris agreement and will lock in long-term dependence on fossil fuels, hampering the shift toward low-carbon economies," the report authors explained.
Many large banks have pledged to reach net-zero emissions, yet they are still financing the LNG boom. U.S. banks are especially responsible, Reclaim Finance found, funding nearly a quarter of the buildout, followed by Japanese banks at around 14%.
The top 10 banks funding LNG expansion are:
- Mitsubishi UFG Financial Group (Japan)
- JP Morgan Chase (U.S.)
- Mizuho (Japan)
- Gazprombank (Russia)
- SMBC Group (Japan)
- Bank of America (U.S.)
- Citigroup (U.S.)
- Goldman Sachs (U.S.)
- Morgan Stanley (U.S.)
- RBC (Canada)
While 26 of the banks on the report's list of top 30 LNG financiers have made 2050 net-zero commitments, none of them have adopted a policy to stop funding LNG projects. None of top 10 banks have any LNG policy at all, despite the fact that Bank of America and Morgan Stanley helped found the Net Zero Banking Alliance. Instead of winding down financing, these banks are winding it up, as LNG funding increased by 25% from 2021 to 2023. In 2023 alone, 1,453 transactions were made between banks and LNG developers.
All of this funding comes despite not only climate risks, but also the local dangers posed by LNG export terminals to frontline communities. Venture Global's Calcasieu Pass LNG, for example, has harmed health through excessive air pollution while dredging and tanker traffic has disturbed ecosystems and the livelihoods of fishers.
"Banks still financing LNG export terminals and companies are focused on short-term profits and cashing in on the situation before global LNG oversupply kicks in. On the demand side, financing LNG import terminals delays the much-needed just transition," said Rieke Butijn, a climate campaigner and researcher at BankTrack. "While banks will secure their profits, it's at the expense of frontline communities who often will not be able to get their livelihoods, health, or loved ones back. People from the U.S. Gulf South to Mozambique and the Philippines are rising up against LNG, and banks need to listen."
The report also looked at major investors in the LNG boom. Here too, the U.S. led the way, contributing 71% of the total backing.
The top 10 LNG investors are:
- BlackRock
- Vanguard
- State Street
- Fidelity Investments
- Capital Group
- GPFG
- JP Morgan Chase
- Brookfield Asset Management
- Blackstone
- MSBI
Just three of these entities—BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street—contributed 24% of all investments.
Reclaim Finance noted that it is not too late to defuse the LNG carbon bomb.
"Nearly three-quarters of future LNG export and import capacity has yet to be constructed," the report authors wrote. "This means that banks and investors can still act to put an end to the unrestrained support they offer to the companies responsible for LNG expansion."
To this end, Reclaim Finance recommended that banks establish policies to end all financial services to new or expanding LNG facilities and to end corporate financing to companies that develop new LNG export infrastructure. Investors, meanwhile, should set an expectation that any developers in their portfolios stop expansion plans and should not make new investments in companies that continue to develop LNG export facilities. Both banks and investors should make clear to LNG import developers that they must have a plan to transition away from fossil fuels consistent with the 1.5°C goal.
"LNG is a fossil fuel, and new projects have no part to play in a sustainable transition," Duclos-Gonda said. "Banks and investors must take responsibility and stop supporting LNG developers and new terminals immediately."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Wall Street Banks Accused of Trying to Sabotage Key Consumer Protection Rule
"The CFPB must stop this ploy by the biggest banks to keep us trapped under their thumbs."
Nov 15, 2024
Consumer advocates applauded last month as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau finalized a rule aimed at making it easier for people to switch financial institutions if they're unhappy with a bank's service, without the bank retaining their personal data—but on Thursday, more than a dozen groups warned the CFPB that major Wall Street firms are trying to stop Americans from benefiting from the rule.
Several advocacy groups, led by the Demand Progress Education Fund, wrote to CFPB director Rohit Chopra warning that major banks—including JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Citi, TD Bank, and Wells Fargo—sit on the board of the Financial Data Exchange (FDX), which has applied to the bureau for standard-setting body (SSB) status, which would give it authority over what is commonly known as the "open banking rule."
Standard-setting authority for the banks would present a major conflict of interest, said the groups.
The banks are also on the board of the Bank Policy Institute, which promptly filed what the consumer advocates called a "frivolous lawsuit" to block the open banking rule when it was introduced last month, claiming it will keep banks from protecting customer data.
At a panel discussion this week, Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan also said the open banking rule, by requiring financial firms to unlock a consumer's financial data and transfer it to another provider for free, would cause "chaos" and amplify concerns over fraud.
"The American people are fed up with Wall Street controlling every aspect of their lives and the open banking rule is an opportunity to give all of us some financial freedom."
The groups wrote on Thursday that big banks want to continue to "maintain their dominance by making it unduly difficult for consumers to switch institutions."
"The presence of these organizations on both the FDX and BPI boards undermines the credibility of FDX and presents various concerns relating to conflict of interest, interlocking directorate, and antitrust law," they wrote.
Upon introducing the finalized rule last month, Chopra said the action would "give people more power to get better rates and service on bank accounts, credit cards, and more" and help those who are "stuck in financial products with lousy rates and service."
The coalition of consumer advocacy groups—including Public Citizen, the American Economic Liberties Project, and Americans for Financial Reform—urged Chopra to reject FDX's application for standard-setting authority so long as the banks remain on its board.
“It would be a flagrant conflict of interest for the same banks who are suing to block the open banking rule because it threatens their market dominance to also be in charge of implementing it," said Demand Progress Education Fund corporate power director Emily Peterson-Cassin. "The American people are fed up with Wall Street controlling every aspect of their lives and the open banking rule is an opportunity to give all of us some financial freedom. The CFPB must stop this ploy by the biggest banks to keep us trapped under their thumbs."
The groups called the open banking rule "a historic step forward for the cause of giving consumers true freedom intheir financial lives."
"For this reason, it is imperative that SSB status not be granted to an organization whose board members are, either directly or through a trade association they are participating in, suing the CFPB to stop the rules from taking effect, particularly when such members may be ethically conflicted from such dual participation," said the groups. "By rejecting SSB status for FDX or any other organization with similar conflicts of interest pertaining to Section 1033, the CFPB will help prevent big banks from sabotaging open banking rules."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular