Is Bank Of America Of Trying To Skirt CARD Act With New Annual Fees? [Testing The Water]

Is Bank Of America Of Trying To Skirt CARD Act With New Annual Fees? [Testing The Water]: "

In a series of recent posts, WalletBlog has accused Bank of America of breaking the spirit of its 'no new fees' promise and of potentially breaking the law next year, when it announced it will introduce annual fees on some existing credit card accounts in 2010.

Here's the blog's argument for why Bank of America isn't honoring its promise to customers and to Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA). On October 6th the bank released a letter in which it pledged to stop re-pricing existing credit card accounts—but introducing an annual fee where none existed before sure sounds like re-pricing, doesn't it? BoA explained it like this: they only promised to not raise interest rates.

However, that's not true. WalletBlog points out that the bank made no such distinction in their October 6th letter. Here's the relevant excerpt:

'In light of the concerns expressed to us by our customers, Bank of America will not implement any change in terms (risk or economic based) re-pricing of consumer credit card accounts between now and the effective date of the CARD Act.'

That language doesn't draw any distinctions between types of re-pricing, so it's kind of weird to retroactively define the term as only relating to interest rates.

But this is a moot point because the letter only promises that they won't practice re-pricing between now and the implementation of the CARD Act. After that goes into effect in February 2010, the promise no longer applies. I don't know why BoA's representative bothered to misrepresent the language of the letter when he could just as easily have pointed out that it was nothing more than a temporary pledge—and mostly an empty once, since they had already re-priced many accounts in the month leading up to the letter.

As far as implementing fees after the CARD Act goes into effect, well, that's where WalletBlog says that BoA may end up in violation of the law. BoA argues that the CARD Act prohibits raising interest rates but says nothing about implementing annual fees, but WalletBlog points out that the language of the CARD Act is ambiguous, and thanks to a 1996 Supreme Court case involving Citibank, the FDIC considers the term 'interest' to include:

...among other things, the following fees connected with credit extension or availability: numerical periodic rates, late fees, not sufficient funds (NSF) fees, overlimit fees, annual fees, cash advance fees, and membership fees.

It sounds like BoA may be testing the boundaries of the CARD Act and seeing if it can get away with annual fees by arguing that they're not specifically prohibited.

Be sure to check out WalletBlog's full post on the matter.

'Bank of America Tries but Fails to Defend New Annual Fees' [WalletBlog]
'Bank of America Readies Itself to Break the Law' [WalletBlog]
(Photo: mrkathika)

Duke University official concerned that sex toy study will make students want to "just sit around and masturbate"

Duke University students: you should not ‘just sit around and masturbate’

Image by AFP/Getty Images via Daylife

A Duke University study on sex toys has raised the ire of the University’s Catholic Center director. But not because he’s worried about the 18-year-old participants who might be breaking vows of celibacy, and doing it with handcuffs and vibrators. Instead, Father Joe Vetter says he’s concerned that the study will encourage young women to “just sit around and masturbate” instead of hitting up singles night to track down their future husband.
The study, being conducted by a behavioral economist and student health workers, was advertised around the Duke campus for much of October. Researchers were interested in female attitudes towards sex and sexually-themed “toys” and paraphernalia. Women filled out a survey and took part in a one-hour meeting, where they were asked to view sex toys and discuss them with other participants. As incentive to donate their time, the women were all offered a gift bag, and discounts on the items – a sex-themed Tupperware party, if you will.
You’d think Father Vetter would be pleased: student health workers say they hope the study will shed light on whether sex toys can be a useful tool in curbing campus promiscuity. But no:

“I’m concerned about promiscuity also,” Vetter said. “And to be honest, I don’t have the solution. … My concern is these students are in this developmental phase, and I don’t think it’s a good developmental practice to just tell somebody to just sit around and masturbate. I don’t think that promotes relationships.”

Sit around and masturbate? Yes, that sounds exactly like what this study was suggesting: just load up on discounted vibrators, a Sade CD and some scented candles for your dorm room, girls. Is Vetter concerned that we’re all going to stop procreating once we realize that getting off is generally easier without male intervention? If he’s so convinced that sex toys can out-sex men, to the extent that women are just going to play solo from now on, maybe Vetter needs some couples counseling and a stack of helpful reading material.
The study is already completed, but Vetter still plans to protest, by speaking on the topic at mass this weekend. Unfortunately, he’ll probably be preaching to the converted, anti-sex-toy among us. I’m pretty sure the women from the study have – uh – other plans on Sunday morning.

Citibank To Charge Fees On Checking Accounts [Fees]

Citibank To Charge Fees On Checking Accounts [Fees]: "

If you're a Citibank customer who has one of the bank's two smaller checking account plans—the ones where the monthly fee is waived as long as you use direct deposit or their online bill payment—then maybe it's time to consider taking your business elsewhere. Starting in February, anyone with an average balance of less than $1500 will be assessed a monthly $7.50 service fee, reports the New York Post.

Penny-pinching Citibank will put the squeeze on small-fry customers, charging them up to $90 a year by demanding a fee every time their average monthly checking account balance sinks below $1,500.

Starting in February, Citibank will no longer automatically waive its $7.50 monthly fee for its 'EZ' and 'Access' checking-account holders who make either a direct deposit, or two bill payments online monthly.

A management consultant told the Post that if customers stay with Citibank even after they implement the new fee rule, it will send a signal to other banks that they can do the same with low-balance checking account customers. Hmm, maybe it's time to start looking around for a good credit union?

'Really Citi treatment' [New York Post] (Thanks to Kearas!)
(Photo: Mike McCaffrey)

"

MPAA Asks FCC For Control Of Your TV's Analog Outputs [Video On Demand]

MPAA Asks FCC For Control Of Your TV's Analog Outputs [Video On Demand]: "

The Motion Picture Association of American wants to rent movies to TV viewers earlier in the release window, but they don't want anyone potentially streaming that video out to other appliances. That's why last week they went back to the FCC to once again ask for the power to disable analog ports on consumer television sets.

This capability is called selectable output control or SOC, and the FCC banned it back in 2003. SOC would allow 'service operators, such as cable companies, to turn off analog outputs on consumer electronics devices, only allowing digital plugs' such as HDMI. The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers and therefore make everyone happier.

But that's not what over a dozen public interest groups think, notes Home Media Magazine:

[Groups] including Public Knowledge, the Digital Freedom Campaign, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Consumer Federation of America and the Media Access Project, are fighting the MPAA over the request, saying it puts control of privately owned consumer electronics into the hands of the movie industry, hurts TiVo and Slingbox owners, and leaves out consumers who own TVs without digital connections.

'The MPAA has failed to provide a reason as to why the limited interests of its six member movie studios should be allowed to outweigh the interests of those consumers that will be forced to replace over 20 million television sets and countless other devices in order to view content that their current equipment is capable of displaying,' the Nov. 4 letter from the interest groups reads. 'Furthermore, granting the waiver effectively would allow MPAA member companies to control the types of connections and features offered to all U.S. consumers, forcing consumer electronics designers and manufacturers to agree to almost any consumer-unfriendly conditions just to display SOC content.'

Here's a video from Public Knowledge that addresses SOC. (Hey Public Knowledge guys, record your audio in a room with less background noise!)

'MPAA, Consumer Groups Battle Over FCC Waiver' [Home Media Magazine]
'MPAA Wants to Control TVs in Your Home; Consumer Groups Fight Back' [The Wrap]
Public Knowledge page on SOC [Public Knowledge]

Ebook license "agreements" are a ripoff

Ebook license "agreements" are a ripoff: "In today's Observer Business column, John Naughton discusses what a ripoff it is for ebook vendors to 'sell' you books with abusive, multi-thousand word 'license agreements,' pretending that because you bought your book over the network, it wasn't a sale, and so you don't get to own it. These 'licenses' aren't about upholding copyright (if they were, you could replace thousands of words of lawyerese with four simple words: 'Don't violate copyright law'). They're about overriding copyright -- which has all kinds of guarantees for the rights of book-owners -- with a private law that gives every advantage to the publisher or retailer, converting you from a noble reader to a wormy, contemptible licensor who doesn't deserve to own books.

The Kindle EULA is a good example. Section 3, which deals with 'Digital Content' (such as downloaded books), says that 'Unless specifically indicated otherwise, you may not sell, rent, lease, distribute, broadcast, sublicense or otherwise assign any rights to the Digital Content or any portion of it to any third party, and you may not remove any proprietary notices or labels on the Digital Content.' In other words, you are forbidden to lend or sell the book you've just 'bought'. In real-world terms, you can't lend your copy of 1984 to a friend or donate it to the school jumble sale.

Under the subsection on 'Use of Digital Content', the Kindle EULA says: 'Amazon grants you the non-exclusive right to keep a permanent copy of the applicable Digital Content and to view, use, and display such Digital Content an unlimited number of times, solely on the Device or as authorized by Amazon as part of the Service and solely for your personal, non-commercial use.'

Translation: you can't back up your electronic books on to any other device - which means that if your Kindle packs up, or if Amazon moves on to another technical standard, you're screwed: your entire digital library has effectively been vaporised. Then you look round your house and note the number of electronic devices that no longer work.

Kindle readers beware - big Amazon is watching you read 1984


"