@Darinox wrote:He does not understand the law nor how it is applied. No offense to the OP for certain but this is a good example where lay people should NOT attempt to interpret the law. Leave it to the professionals and not some random internet board.
Yes, unfortunately I don't have a professional qualification but it seems like you do, tell me what is it that I do not understand? I have evidence e.g. the sources as to what I read CFPO, OCC AND FTC and presented them along the way. The law says exactly what I do: http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201307_cfpb_bulletin_unfair-deceptive-abusive-practices.pdf
OP- I am a lawyer. You are reading the statutes out of context. You are piecing together different statutes to make your case. Look up case law (you can google if you want) addressing the statutes you reference to see how the courts have interpreted them. You will then see your flaws.
You want someone to give you proof, but you have not given proof. You have provided opinion. It's hard to prove a negative.
Whenever I have a case against someone that does not have an attorney, I wish they would get an attorney. Not because they are not smart, but because they focus one section of the law and ignore all of the other parts that are also relevant. Can't get anywhere with them. Judges feel the same way. They always encourage them to get an attorney. There is a reason for that....
@Kidcat wrote:
@Darinox wrote:He does not understand the law nor how it is applied. No offense to the OP for certain but this is a good example where lay people should NOT attempt to interpret the law. Leave it to the professionals and not some random internet board.
Yes, unfortunately I don't have a professional qualification but it seems like you do, tell me what is it that I do not understand? I have evidence e.g. the sources as to what I read CFPO, OCC AND FTC and presented them along the way. The law says exactly what I do: http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201307_cfpb_bulletin_unfair-deceptive-abusive-practices.pdf
OP- I am a lawyer. You are reading the statutes out of context. You are piecing together different statutes to make your case. Look up case law (you can google if you want) addressing the statutes you reference to see how the courts have interpreted them. You will then see your flaws.
You want someone to give you proof, but you have not given proof. You have provided opinion. It's hard to prove a negative.
Whenever I have a case against someone that does not have an attorney, I wish they would get an attorney. Not because they are not smart, but because they focus one section of the law and ignore all of the other parts that are also relevant. Can't get anywhere with them. Judges feel the same way. They always encourage them to get an attorney. There is a reason for that....
I have to agree. I forced my other half who is also an attorney to read this thread this morning. He shook his head and said "you people have alot of time on your hands "
Summing it all up for me really..
I've loved the heck out of this thread. I don't understand the reasoning or logic of the OP, but it's been fun as all get out to read. If I knew it was going to take me over a hour to read, I would have made popcorn.
As someone who works for a big box bank, this rule is most certainly NOT discrimination. It's very similar to the risk-based procedures that most banks use, (i.e., too many new accounts within 6 or 12 months). Chase is just being more specific with their underwriting criteria. Saying this is dicrimination is similar to saying banks are discriminating because they don't issue cards for consumers who have credit scores under 620 or who have bankruptcies. People who aggressively seek credit in a relatively short period of time may pose a higher risk to lenders. As has been stated multiple times in this thread, Chase is applying this rule to everyone. Therefore, if you applied for 5 new accounts in the past 24 months, whether your score is 600 or 800, you will be denied. How can there be discrimination against a protected class of people if it applies to everyone? That would make all underwriting criteria discriminatory.
Banks have proprietary polices that aren't made available to consumers (i.e., who qualifes for a lower APR, who qualifies for a credit line increase, etc.). As long as these policies apply to all customers, banks aren't required to make this knowledge available to the general public. So the argument that Chase didn't notify people beforehand, doesn't wash. Why does Discover approve some people with delinquences and not others? Because the exact criteria they use for approvals isn't made available to the general public. Would this be discrimination? Of course not. If we knew the exact criteria, we would know what card to apply for and nobody would ever be denied. 
Having standards does not make something discrimation...and this is where some people get confused. To qualify, you need to meet the underwriting criteria. Chase's underwriting criteria includes not applying for more than 5 accounts in 24 months. Even if you don't agree, and there are plenty of bank policies I don't agree with, it doesn't make it discrimination.
I have read the CARD Act at nauseum and I just don't understand the thought process that would make this particular risk based procedure discrimination. I really like how CAPTOOL has articulated this point. I used to work in HR so enjoyed your example of the guy who was a jerk to everyone. Excellent example!
@IllinoisNative wrote:I've loved the heck out of this thread. I don't understand the reasoning or logic of the OP, but it's been fun as all get out to read. If I knew it was going to take me over a hour to read, I would have made popcorn.
As someone who works for a big box bank, this rule is most certainly NOT discrimination. It's very similar to the risk-based procedures that most banks use, (i.e., too many new accounts within 6 or 12 months). Chase is just being more specific with their underwriting criteria. Saying this is dicrimination is similar to saying banks are discriminating because they don't issue cards for consumers who have credit scores under 620 or who have bankruptcies. People who aggressively seek credit in a relatively short period of time may pose a higher risk to lenders. As has been stated multiple times in this thread, Chase is applying this rule to everyone. Therefore, if you applied for 5 new accounts in the past 24 months, whether your score is 600 or 800, you will be denied. How can there be discrimination against a protected class of people if it applies to everyone? That would make all underwriting criteria discriminatory.
Banks have proprietary polices that aren't made available to consumers (i.e., who qualifes for a lower APR, who qualifies for a credit line increase, etc.). As long as these policies apply to all customers, banks aren't required to make this knowledge available to the general public. So the argument that Chase didn't notify people beforehand, doesn't wash. Why does Discover approve some people with delinquences and not others? Because the exact criteria they use for approvals isn't made available to the general public. Would this be discrimination? Of course not. If we knew the exact criteria, we would know what card to apply for and nobody would ever be denied.
I have read the CARD Act at nauseum and I just don't understand the thought process that would make this particular risk based procedure discrimination. I really like how CAPTOOL has articulated this point. I used to work in HR so enjoyed your example of the guy who was a jerk to everyone. Excellent example!
I think OP's reasoning and logic is very clear. It is just based on a misunderstanding of the law and the logic is faulty. That being said though I think OP is very clear on why they think what they think. Doesn't make them right by any stretch of the imagination, but I totally get the rationale they are trying to express.
;
@Anonymous wrote:
I have to agree. I forced my other half who is also an attorney to read this thread this morning. He shook his head and said "you people have alot of time on your hands "
New best post in thread. (bolded by me)