Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Defends Borrowers from Illegal High-Cost Loans

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: APRIL 28, 2017 || Contacts: Lauren Saunders ([email protected]); Jan Kruse ([email protected]) 617.542.8010

Online Lenders Attempted to Collect 440% to 950% APR Loans that Were Illegal in Many States

Washington, DC – The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) yesterday took action against four tribally affiliated online payday installment lenders for deceiving consumers and collecting debt that was not legally owed in many states because the loans exceeded state interest rate caps or because the lenders were unlicensed. Under the law of those states, the illegal loans were void and could not be collected.

The four online lenders – Golden Valley Lending, Inc., Silver Cloud Financial, Inc., Mountain Summit Financial, Inc., and Majestic Lake Financial, Inc. – made $300 to $1200 long-term payday installment loans with annual percentage rates (APRs) from 440% to 950%. The CFPB charged that the loans violated licensing requirements or interest-rate caps – or both – that made the loans void in whole or in part in at least 17 states: Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, and South Dakota.

While some of those states permit short-term payday loans, all but New Mexico and Ohio limit the interest rates for long-term loans, according to a report by the National Consumer Law Center, and most of the states (including New Mexico and Ohio) limit interest rates for unlicensed lenders or void loans by unlicensed lenders. (South Dakota voters adopted a 36% interest rate cap after the NCLC report was published and Connecticut and New Hampshire also adjusted their rates.)

“High-cost loans, whether short-term payday loans or long-term payday loans, put people in a cycle of debt. State interest rate caps are a critical consumer protection, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is defending families against predatory lenders,” said Lauren Saunders, associate director of the National Consumer Law Center.

All of the lenders are owned and incorporated by the Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake Indian Tribe located in Upper Lake, California. The lenders claimed that only tribal law, not state law, applied to the loans. However, in 2014, the Supreme Court made clear that tribes “’going beyond reservation boundaries’ are subject to any generally applicable state law.’” The loans to the borrowers were not made on the California reservation. “Predatory lenders can’t evade state loan protections by hiding behind a tribe,” said Saunders.

The CFPB alleges that the four lenders made electronic withdrawals from consumers’ bank accounts or called or sent letters to consumers demanding payment for debts that consumers were under no legal obligation to pay, violating not only state law but also the federal law against unfair, deceptive and abusive practices. The CFPB is the consumer watchdog that was created in 2010 after the financial crisis to protect American consumers from unscrupulous financial practices. Read the full release from the CFPB here.

Statement of National Consumer Law Center’s Lauren Saunders Regarding the Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: APRIL 26, 2017 || Contacts: Lauren Saunders ([email protected]), Stephen Rouzer ([email protected]), or Jan Kruse ([email protected])

Bill would promote Wall Street’s interests while exposing American families to financial, health and safety threats

Washington – Legislation introduced in Congress today, the Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017, would favor Wall Street and other industry interests over protections for the American public, according to advocates at the National Consumer Law Center.

“This bill would rig the system in favor of Wall Street banks and companies that have dangerous products, making it easier for them to block rules that protect the public from abusive financial practices and health and safety threats,” said Lauren Saunders, associate director of the National Consumer Law Center.

“The Regulatory Accountability Act would add to government bureaucracy, imposing unnecessary costs and delays before regulations could be enacted to address dangerous practices. The bill guarantees that government will be dramatically slower, more costly to taxpayers, and far less effective at protecting Americans from dangerous and abusive health, safety or financial practices,” she added.

“The 60-page bill is deliberately complicated. But the bottom line is that the Regulatory Accountability Act would hamstring federal agencies from doing their job to serve the American public. We urge Congress to reject this bad bill and to stand up for public protections,” Saunders concluded.

The RAA was introduced today by Senators Rob Portman (R-OH) and Heidi Keitkamp (D-ND). An analysis of a similar bill introduced in the House of Representatives is here.

###

Since 1969, the nonprofit National Consumer Law Center® (NCLC®) has worked for consumer justice and economic security for low-income and other disadvantaged people, including older adults, in the U.S. through its expertise in policy analysis and advocacy, publications, litigation, expert witness services, and training. www.nclc.org Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Goes to Bat for Military Families Again

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: APRIL 26, 2017 || Contacts: Lauren Saunders ([email protected]) or Jan Kruse ([email protected]); 617.542.8010

Auto lender specializing in loans to servicemembers is fined $1.25 million

Washington, D.C. — Today, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) took action against Security National Automotive Acceptance Company (SNAAC), an auto lender with headquarters in Ohio and operating in more than two dozen states that specializes in loans to servicemembers, for violating a CFPB consent order. In 2015, the CFPB ordered SNAAC to pay penalties for illegal debt collection tactics, including making threats to contact servicemembers’ commanding officers about debts and exaggerating the consequences of not paying. SNAAC violated the 2015 order by failing to provide more than $1 million in refunds and credits, affecting more than 1,000 consumers. The consent order requires SNAAC to make good on the refunds and credits it owes and pay an additional $1.25 million penalty.

“This ruling is the latest in a long line of actions that the CFPB, through its Office of Servicemember Affairs, has taken to protect the financial well-being of those who serve our country,” said Lauren Saunders, associate director of the National Consumer Law Center. Saunders discusses the “consumer watchdog’s” record looking out for servicemembers and veterans in USA Today.

SNAAC, based in Mason, Ohio, is an auto-finance company that operates in more than two dozen states and specializes in loans to servicemembers, primarily to buy used vehicles. In June 2015, the CFPB sued SNAAC for aggressive collection tactics against consumers who fell behind on their loans. If servicemembers lagged behind on payments, SNAAC’s collectors would threaten to contact—and in many cases did contact—their chain of command about their debts. Also, the company exaggerated the consequences of not paying. For instance, they told some consumers that failure to pay could result in action under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, demotion, discharge, or loss of security clearance.

That same year, a CFPB consent order found that SNAAC had engaged in unfair and deceptive acts and practices while collecting on these auto loans. The order required SNAAC to pay $2.275 million in consumer redress through credits and refunds, and a $1 million civil penalty. Acting on a tip from a servicemember’s father, the CFPB discovered that SNAAC had issued worthless “credits” to hundreds of consumers and failed to provide proper redress to many more.

The CFPB’s consent order is available at: http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201704_SNAAC-consent-order.pdf

###

Statement of National Consumer Law Center’s Lauren Saunders on Introduction of Wrong Choice Financial Reform Rollback Legislation

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: APRIL 26, 2017 || Contacts: Lauren Saunders ([email protected]); Jan Kruse ([email protected]) or 617.542.8010

(WASHINGTON) House Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-Tex), has announced that the Committee will hold a hearing today to discuss the introduction of sweeping legislation that would repeal essential financial reforms passed under the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, as well as longstanding financial protections that go back decades. Also today, the National Consumer Law Center, on behalf of its low-income clients, sent a letter to members of the House of Representatives strongly opposing the misnamed Financial CHOICE Act of 2017, noting that “it is breathtaking in its assault on ordinary Americans, responsible companies who want a level playing field, and safeguards for the economy as a whole.”

Lauren Saunders, associate director of the National Consumer Law Center, made the following statement:

“The Wrong CHOICE Act introduced by Rep. Hensarling represents a grab bag of gimmies for Wall Street and predatory lenders that gut essential reforms adopted after the foreclosure crisis to fix a rigged system that destroyed American families and cost our economy $10 trillion. The bill appears to have been written by a team of lawbreakers and predatory lenders putting together their wish list of how to undo consumer protections. Even by the standards of other anti-consumer protection legislation, this bill is breathtaking in its assault on ordinary Americans, responsible companies who want a level playing field, and safeguards for the economy as a whole.

“The bill takes the side of lawbreaking financial companies by weakening the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Over its short life, the CFPB has returned nearly $12 billion in relief to nearly 30 million American consumers, including older adults, member of the military, and veterans.

“Since its founding in 2011, the CFPB has been a powerful ally of the little guy, going after illegal practices by predatory lenders, big banks, abusive debt collectors, and scam artists.

“The Wrong CHOICE Act eliminates the consumer watchdog’s authority to go after unfair, deceptive, or abusive practices; removes the CFPB’s authority over large banks; deprives the CFPB of power over abusive practices by predatory lenders making 400% APR loans; and eliminates public access to the complaint database. The bill prohibits the CFPB from stopping banks like Wells Fargo from using forced arbitration to strip people injured by two million fake accounts from banding together in court. And it would roll back key Dodd-Frank mortgage protections, exposing homeowners and new home buyers to abuses, such as unaffordable loans made by companies who hold the loan in portfolio, upcharging of certain title insurance costs, and skyrocketing interest rates for manufactured home borrowers. The bill also makes it easier for predatory lenders to use rent-a-bank arrangements to avoid state interest rate caps and charge sky high rates.

“The CFPB has improved protections for mortgages, student loans, auto loans, and dozens of other financial products and should not be gutted to enrich Wall Street banks. This Wrong Choice Act would destroy the lives of hard-working Americans, regardless of political belief. Many of these families are yet to recover from the 2008 financial collapse that was fueled by big banks and corporations gaming the system. Wall Street is doing just fine. Our Senators and Representatives need to stand up for Main Street.”

###

Since 1969, the nonprofit National Consumer Law Center® (NCLC®) has used its expertise in consumer law and energy policy to work for consumer justice and economic security for low-income and other disadvantaged people, including older adults, in the United States. NCLC’s expertise includes policy analysis and advocacy; consumer law and energy publications; litigation; expert witness services, and training and advice for advocates. NCLC works with nonprofit and legal services organizations, private attorneys, policymakers, and federal and state government and courts across the nation to stop exploitative practices, help financially stressed families build and retain wealth, and advance economic fairness. www.nclc.org

Framing the Message: Advocacy Communication Focused on Diversity and Inclusion in a New Era

April 27, 2017

In our efforts to persuade policy makers and general audiences to act on the issues we care about, we often encounter one recurring barrier: fear. Some audience members are worried, anxious and scared about a number of issues facing the country today. We need to be strategic in our communication and tell an affirmative, positive story that moving forward is more important than ever.

Presenter: Julie Fisher-Rowe, Opportunity Agenda

In this webinar, Julie Fisher-Rowe of the Opportunity Agenda, a communications firm focused on social justice, will present messaging research designed to counter these fear narratives with positive stories about values, diversity, contributions and participation. The Opportunity Agenda will share what it has learned about audiences, values, important themes, and tested language. And finally, they will provide a few ideas about how to move these audiences to positive action in todays climate. The Uniform Wage Garnishment Act: Benefits and Dangers for Wage Earners

Print in PDF

In 2016, the Uniform Law Commission (formerly the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws or NCCUSL) approved a Uniform Wage Garnishment Act, which is now being introduced in the states. Intended to make wage garnishment law more uniform, it has some good features, but is inadequate in other ways, and carries the potential for rolling back important existing protections against wage garnishment. Advocates can track state legislation here.

The inadequacies, the dangers, and the positive features of the uniform law are summarized below.

Inadequacies of the Uniform Law

Deposited wages. The main inadequacy of the uniform law is that it does not address deposited wages. Consumer advocates urged the drafting committee to address this central issue, but the committee’s approach was so weak that we advocated for removing the proposed language. As direct deposit and payroll cards grow as methods of paying wages, the failure to protect deposited wages threatens to make wage garnishment protections obsolete. Without protections for deposited wages, creditors can completely bypass the limits on wage garnishment by seizing the worker’s bank account instead.

Amount of wages protected. The uniform law leaves blanks for states to fill in regarding the amount of wages that are protected. A Legislative Note to section 13 of the uniform law provides some encouragement to states to protect more than the federal minimum, but the uniform law would be much more helpful to debtors if it included recommendations for increases to the woefully- inadequate federal minimums. The introduction of the uniform law in a state will create the opportunity to increase the amount of wages that are protected—but only if advocates and workers are prepared to mount a campaign for this.

Dangers of the Uniform Law

Rollback. Despite clauses in the uniform law stating that it does not repeal a state’s existing limits on wage garnishment, we expect creditors to use the introduction of the uniform law as a vehicle to roll back existing consumer protections. Advocates should carefully review any draft in their state to make sure existing consumer protection provisions are not repealed or replaced.

Makes garnishment easier. One of the goals of the uniform law is to streamline wage garnishment and make it less expensive, which may incrementally benefit debtors because the costs of garnishment are passed on to them. However, streamlining the process does not deal with the overarching issues left unaddressed by the uniform law—its failure to increase the amount of wages protected and to protect wages deposited in bank accounts. It would be a particular disservice to debtors to make wage garnishment a more attractive tool for debt collectors without increasing the amount of wages protected and protecting deposited wages.

Positive Elements of the Uniform Law

No gaming of venue. The uniform law generally requires that the garnishment be commenced in a court in the jurisdiction where the employee works, and requires that state to apply its wage garnishment protections. This gives the employee better access to the court, and prevents creditors from evading the debtor’s home-state garnishment protections by issuing a garnishment order from another state.

Application to employee-like independent contractors. The uniform law applies the state’s limits on wage garnishment to individuals who are classified as independent contractors but are virtually indistinguishable from employees.

Plain-language notice 30 days before garnishment. The uniform law requires the worker to be given, 30 days before the wage garnishment starts, a plain-language notice about garnishment and the steps he or she can take to contest it.

Private cause of action. The uniform law creates a private cause of action for up to $1000 in statutory damages for bad faith garnishment, plus $50 a day and attorney fees if a creditor fails to stop the garnishment and refund any garnished funds or request a court hearing on the legality of the garnishment within seven days after receiving an objection to the garnishment from the worker or the employer.

Protection against adverse employment action. The uniform law prohibits an employer from taking any adverse action against a worker because of a garnishment, regardless of the number of garnishments, thus going well beyond the federal protection.

Model Amendments

The National Consumer Law Center has drafted model pro-consumer amendments to the uniform law.

For further information, consumer advocates should contact National Consumer Law Center attorneys Carolyn Carter at [email protected], April Kuehnhoff at [email protected], or Margot Saunders at [email protected]

Print in PDF

The CFPB’s Prepaid Card Rule Benefits Financial Institutions, Prepaid Card Companies, and Employers

Print in PDF The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has issued a rule that gives prepaid cards the same fraud protections that cover debit cards; improves fee transparency; limits unaffordable overdraft fees; and bolsters’ employee choice about how to receive pay. But Congress may block the rule before it goes into effect. That would be a shame, not only for consumers, but also for responsible financial institutions, prepaid card companies, and employers.

How Does the Rule Benefit Financial Institutions and Prepaid Card Companies?

Prepaid cards are similar to debit cards, but no bank account or credit check is required. The cards are used as a bank account substitute by consumers who have lost their bank accounts due to overdrafts or who prefer to avoid overdraft fees. Employers use payroll cards to pay wages; government agencies and colleges use cards to pay government benefits and financial aid, respectively.

The prepaid card rule has several benefits for the prepaid card industry. The rule:

Legitimizes prepaid cards as a safe, mainstream financial product. Today, prepaid cards have a reputation as a fringe product and do not have the same consistent protections as bank accounts do. By extending full federal fraud protections to all prepaid cards, the rule gives consumers more confidence to use prepaid cards. Avoids confusion over fees. Consumers have many choices of different fee models on prepaid cards. By ensuring that consumers are aware of the fees and can choose the card that works for them, the rule minimizes anger over hidden fees. Levels the playing field for low fee cards. Simple, uniform fee comparison charts help providers with low fee cards compete against those that disguise the cost in complicated fees. Rewards transparent pricing and limits destructive competition through back-end overdraft fees. Today, banks have difficulty charging honest monthly fees on bank accounts because they compete with deceptively named “free checking” that is subsidized through overdraft fees on the most vulnerable consumers. Overdraft fees are rare on prepaid cards today, as companies awaited the rule. The final rule caps and limits unaffordable overdraft fees, flags cards with overdraft features, and imposes a 30-day waiting period on overdraft features. Without the rule, price competition and investor revenue pressure would make it difficult to resist a back-end fee pricing model if competitors are charging lower up-front fees and raking in overdraft fees. For example, two payroll card vendors today earn 46% and 63% of their revenue from overdraft fees. Helps credit unions and banks burdened by cashing other companies’ payroll and unemployment benefits cards. Today, many employees and recipients of unemployment compensation are coerced into receiving their pay or benefits on a card they do not want. They often flood the branch of the local credit union or bank (which receives no revenue from the cards) to cash cards at the teller window – at times misdirecting their anger at fees at the bank or credit union. The rule makes it easier for workers and government benefits recipients to get their pay or benefits through direct deposit to the account they choose – relieving teller pressure and potentially encouraging accounts at the local credit union or bank.

How Does the Rule Benefit Employers and Payroll Card Providers?

Payroll cards have gotten a bad reputation when employers have coerced employees into using payroll cards and workers have incurred unwanted fees. Negative press has led regulators to crack down on payroll cards and has scared workers away from using payroll cards, even though well- designed payroll card programs can be safer, faster, more convenient and cheaper than a paper check for unbanked workers.

The prepaid card rule will benefit employers and payroll card providers by:

Making sure that employees know they have a choice of how to be paid. No one benefits when employees end up with payroll cards they do not want. The rule ensures that employees are told the fees before they choose and are advised that they need not accept a payroll card. Helping employees understand payroll cards and compare them to other options. Simple, standardized fee charts enable employees to understand fees, avoid surprises, and compare the payroll card to other prepaid cards that can be used to accept pay by direct deposit.

Do Any Companies Support the Payroll Rule?

Yes. Green Dot, the largest prepaid card company, supports the CFPB’s rule:

“Green Dot embraces the new rule as recognition that the industry we started more than 15 years ago continues to serve an increasingly significant role in the everyday financial lives of a growing number of American families. We fully support the CFPB’s mission to ensure fairness, integrity and consumer protections for all participants in the financial system. For many years, Green Dot has voluntarily provided full checking account style consumer protections for its customers and has never charged overdraft or penalty fees on Green Dot Bank’s prepaid and checking products. It’s gratifying to know that prepaid can now move to a level playing field that can better serve consumers while allowing the entire industry to move past the period of regulatory uncertainty.”

The effort to block the prepaid card rule has very little support. Major prepaid card issuers, trade associations, and payments providers that are not asking Congress to block the rule include the Network Branded Prepaid Card Association, JP Morgan Chase (Liquid Card), American Express (Bluebird Card), American Bankers Association, Credit Union National Association, Independent Community Bankers Association, Financial Innovation Now, Amazon, Apple, Google, Intuit and PayPal.

The Center for Financial Services Innovation, which works with industry leaders to shape the quality of prepaid product offerings and helps them innovate and build better consumer products and practices, supports the prepaid card rule.

The CFPB has expressed its commitment to well-tailored and effective regulations, is continuing its outreach to industry stakeholders, and will make adjustments as warranted.

Who Opposes the Rule?

NetSpend, the only major prepaid card company with overdraft fees, opposes the rule to preserve $80-$85 million a year in overdraft and other fees. NetSpend charges $15 overdraft fees on its general use prepaid cards and $25 fees on its payroll cards for those who opt in to overdraft “protection.” NetSpend, which recently settled charges brought by the FTC, primarily sells cards through payday lenders. The Electronic Transactions Association, whose President-Elect is NetSpend’s president, also opposes the rule. For More Information:

Press Release, CFPB Finalizes Strong Federal Protections for Prepaid Account Consumers (Oct. 5, 2016)

National Consumer Law Center, Payday Lender Prepaid Cards (July 2015)

Contact: National Consumer Law Center Associate Director Lauren Saunders at lsaunders(at)nclc.org or (202) 595-7845.

Print in PDF

NCLC Advocate Statement re: Education Secretary Withdrawal of Critical Student Loan Borrower Protections

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: APRIL 11, 2017 || CONTACTS: Persis Yu (pyu(at)nclc.org) or Jan Kruse (jkruse(at)nclc.org); 617.542.8010

Boston – Today, U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos formally withdrew several policies aimed at curbing abuses by federal student loan servicers. Those policy directives focused on four areas: helping borrowers get accurate and actionable information, providing consistent service, requiring servicers to be accountable, and providing transparency.

Statement of Persis Yu, director of the National Consumer Law Center’s Student Loan Borrower Assistance Project:

“It is extremely disappointing to see Secretary DeVos walk away from these common-sense protections for student loan borrowers,” said Persis Yu, director of National Consumer Law Center’s Student Loan Borrower Assistance Project. “Servicers have often not even provided basic information to borrowers, such as an accurate payment history. It’s simply mind-boggling that the Department of Education would take away basic rights for borrowers, which, as we saw with the recent CFPB Navient lawsuit, can result in borrowers paying too much for their loans. As the CFPB lawsuit against Navient demonstrates, problems with servicing are widespread and servicers’ practices can create obstacles to repayment resulting in costly problems for borrowers. Today’s action by Secretary Devos could make it easier for the Department to hire servicers with a track record of harming borrowers.

Servicers are a borrower’s primary point of contact. Ideally, they should provide borrowers with accurate and comprehensive information about their options and help them get relief. The reality of the current servicing system, unfortunately, is far from this ideal. For years, National Consumer Law Center staff members have sent examples of poor service and legal violations to the Department of Education and more recently, to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).

The Department of Education should ensure that servicers who work for the taxpayer embrace student loan borrower-centric policies and are held accountable when they fall short, rather than rescinding basic rules that assist strapped borrowers.”

Related NCLC Resources

Coalition comments to Dept. of Education re: suggestions for creating a system that promotes quality and consistent servicing, July 15, 2016 Blog: Give the Government’s New Servicing Proposal a Chance, June 2016 Comments to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on Student Loan Servicing, July 13, 2015 NCLC Response to Department of Education Request for Information about Federal Student Loan Servicing, Jan. 30, 2015 Blog: Making Federal Student Loan Servicing Work for Borrowers, November 2014 Blog: Making Student Loan Servicing Work for Borrowers, June 2014

The CFPB’s Prepaid Card Rule by State

Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

Congress Should Not Block Protections for Employee Payroll Cards

Print in PDF

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB’s) new prepaid card rule has important protections for workers. However, members of Congress are trying to block the rule from going into effect.

How Does the Prepaid Card Rule Protect Workers?

For workers without bank accounts, payroll cards can be a safe, fast and convenient way to receive pay. But some employers have illegally coerced workers into accepting wages on payroll cards. Cards can be loaded with fees that drain thin wages — including overdraft fees, which make no sense on accounts without checks that can overdraft. A survey by the New York Attorney General found that two payroll card programs earned 46% and 64%, respectively, of their revenue from overdraft fees. At one employer, workers paid an average of $77.82 in overdraft and declined transaction fees.

The CFPB’s prepaid card rule:

Gives workers a simple chart of fees before they select how to receive their pay; Warns employees that they are not required to accept a payroll card; Protects employees from high, unaffordable overdraft fees on payroll cards. This common-sense rule will benefit not only consumers but also banks, credit unions, and employers that offer low-fee cards or are asked to cash payroll cards from other companies.

Payroll Card Companies: Source of Fees (Source: NY Attorney General)

Who Opposes the Prepaid Card Rule?

NetSpend, the only major prepaid card company with overdraft fees, opposes the rule. NetSpend expects to lose $80-$85 million in overdraft and other fees. Employees who opt in to overdraft “protection” on NetSpend’s “Skylight” payroll cards pay a $25 overdraft fee on if a purchase overdraws the card more than $5, with up to $125 in overdraft fees each month. NetSpend imposes a “cooling off” period after $450 in overdraft fees in 12 months. Skylight payroll cards are used in industries with minimum wage workers who may not have full time jobs, including fast-food and other restaurants (Church’s Chicken, KFC, Long John Silver, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, White Castle, Cracker Barrel, Friendly’s, Frisch’s, Houilhan’s); retail stores (Big Lots, Coach Leatherware, DSW, Haverty’s, Kohl’s, Liz Clairborne, Macy’s, Office Max, Payless, Shaw Flooring, SuperValu, The Limited, Valvoline); hotels (MGM Mirage and Starwood); health care providers (Hospital Corp. of America, LifePoint Hospitals, Inc., Cleveland Clinic); Kansas and Missouri State governments; and public schools (Denver Public Schools, Miami-Dade Public Schools).

Congress Should Not Undo Protections for Employee Payroll Cards.

Print in PDF