Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Friday January 06 2017, @04:51AM   Printer-friendly
from the colour-me-surprised dept.

In personal finance, practically everything can turn on one's credit score. It's both an indicator of one's financial past, and the key to accessing necessities—without insane costs—in the future. But on Tuesday, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announced that two of the three major credit-reporting agencies responsible for doling out those scores—Equifax and Transunion—have been deceiving and taking advantage of Americans. The Bureau ordered the agencies to pay more than $23 million in fines and restitution.

In their investigation, the Bureau found that the two agencies had been misrepresenting the scores provided to consumers, telling them that the score reports they received were the same reports that lenders and businesses received, when, in fact, they were not. The investigation also found problems with the way the agencies advertised their products, using promotions that suggested that their credit reports were either free or cost only $1. According to the CFPB the agencies did not properly disclose that after a trial of seven to 30 days, individuals would be enrolled in a full-price subscription, which could total $16 or more per month. The Bureau also found Equifax to be in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which states that the agencies must provide one free report every 12 months made available at a central site. Before viewing their free report, consumers were forced to view advertisements for Equifax, which is prohibited by law.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Funny) by Bethany.Saint on Friday January 06 2017, @02:37PM

    by Bethany.Saint (5900) on Friday January 06 2017, @02:37PM (#450217)

    This is exactly why Trump should shut down the CFPB. We don't need regulations and they just don't work. Consumers need to step up and figure this stuff out for themselfs. Without regulation, credit agencies can just charge what the market bears and provides what returns the most profit. If consumers don't like it they can start their own competing business. Like Capitalism demands. Get off their lazy butts and create a new business. If it survives it was the right thing to do. If not, the existing system was better.

    And why is banking always being slammed. You don't get to fill out a request for Facebook's consumer score, nor Google's, or any other web site we use daily. And with each passing day more and more businesses are using these sites to profile you and decide what actions should be taken. Why should the financial industry suffer from the weight of liberal regulations? The financial sector provides the capital so all Americans can lift themselves up. Why are we trying to limit them? When Trump gets into office we'll finally get pro-business and pro-American policies in place. God Bless Donald Trump.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Flamebait=1, Insightful=1, Funny=2, Overrated=1, Total=5
    Extra 'Funny' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 06 2017, @03:12PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 06 2017, @03:12PM (#450237)

    These credit-rating agencies are the result of government-granted monopolies, not the markets.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 06 2017, @05:43PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 06 2017, @05:43PM (#450308)

      There are four of them. How is that a monopoly?

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by HiThere on Friday January 06 2017, @08:05PM

        by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 06 2017, @08:05PM (#450384) Journal

        True, the correct term would be quadropoly.. But they, collectively, act as a monopoly., and any one of them can act improperly without appreciable repercussions.

        OTOH, what are the alternatives? I can think of worse ones as well as better ones. Perhaps the NSA should be in charge? This is basically electronic communication, and financial operations are essential to the continuation of our civilization. Or perhaps a central database where anyone is free to enter or "correct" the data at any time?

        When I look at the design requirements, the current system seems basically properly designed, it just needs a *lot* more auditing, and easier access by people to their own data (while not allowing easy access to anyone else's data). And easier ways of challenging bad entries. And some requirement (with teeth in it) limiting the requirement that access be made accessible by other people, including employers and potential lenders. What those limits should be isn't clear, but they should be a lot more stringent than the current ones.

        --
        Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 06 2017, @09:11PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 06 2017, @09:11PM (#450433)

          In some sense the problem is not enough government involvement. All of those improvements are to benefit citizens, the system mostly works great for corporations as is. Yeah they probably miss out on some customers because bad data makes them look like bad customers. But the harm is not proportional - losing 1% of your potential customers is nothing compared to 1% of customers losing 100% of their access to lenders.

          And that's why Bethany's original post is right.

  • (Score: 2) by Whoever on Friday January 06 2017, @05:37PM

    by Whoever (4524) on Friday January 06 2017, @05:37PM (#450305) Journal

    So are you also going to make them responsible for the accuracy of the information that they provide?

    If they provide wrong information, they should compensate the victims not just a token amount, but the actual losses incurred by the victims. In many cases, this could be millions for an individual who was unable to buy a house, or refused a job because of inaccurate information.

    And how do you plan to ensure that potential victims can find out if the CRBs provided wrong information?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 06 2017, @06:00PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 06 2017, @06:00PM (#450317)

      You seem to have been lawyered. Poe lawyered.