Home > 2011 > Credit Cards

For the CARD Act’s First Birthday, Controversy Continues

Advertiser Disclosure Comments 1 Comment


Most first birthdays are a time for pure celebration. But when it comes to the first birthday of the controversial Credit Card Accountability and Disclosure (CARD) Act, no one is celebrating. The law first took effect on Feb. 22, 2010. Leaders of large banks and credit card companies remain furious about many parts of the act, and they are lobbying on multiple fronts to re-write it, restrict its power or limit the funding needed to enforce it.

Many consumers and their advocates, meanwhile, point to the good things the CARD Act has already accomplished. They worry that changing it now would hurt consumers, and ultimately the banks themselves, by allowing deceptive practices to continue that threaten to weaken the entire economy.

“David beat Goliath, but make no mistake: Goliath is not down for the count,” Elizabeth Warren, President Obama’s assistant in charge of setting up the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, said last week.

Is the CARD Act Good or Bad for Consumers?

The first disagreement is over whether the CARD Act has saved consumers money, or cost them more. Many banking industry experts and Republican commentators believed the law would increase the cost of lending, which would drive lower-income people away from using credit cards.

[Related Consumer Guide: How the Credit CARD Act of 2009 Affects You]

“It was among our safest predictions that reduced credit to consumers would result” from passage of the law, the Wall Street Journal editorial board wrote on Aug. 24, 2010.

So far, the data is mixed on whether the CARD Act has made it easier or more difficult for consumers to get credit. According to a Credit.com survey, 37% of respondents said they noticed their banks making changes to their credit card accounts that hurt their credit or cost consumers more money.

A report by the Center for Responsible Lending found nearly the opposite, however. By forcing credit card issuers to use less confusing language in their advertising messages and descriptions of their products, the CARD Act made consumers aware of $12.1 billion a year in previously hidden fees and charges, the report found.

Is the CARD Act Good or Bad for Retailers?

Perhaps the hottest disagreement right now is over interchange fees, which the CARD Act addressed by directing the Government Accountability Office to study such fees. Interchange fees are the fees that merchants pay each time a consumer swipes her debit or credit card. The fees go to banks and, sometimes indirectly, to the credit card networks (Visa, MasterCard, Discover) who facilitate the transactions so the merchants get paid.

Depending on the type of card, average swipe fees increased anywhere from 22% to 83% between 2000 and 2009, the GAO found. Merchants upset over paying such high fees lobbied successfully to pass the Durbin Amendment to the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, which required the Federal Reserve to write rules restricting debit card swipe fees to something more reasonable.

[Featured tool: Get your free Credit Report Card from Credit.com]

The Fed proposed limiting the fees to 12 cents per transaction, a 70% reduction from the current average of about 44 cents.

That proposal touched off a Battle Royale between retailers on one side, banks and credit card networks on the other.

“The government-mandated price control elements in the Federal Reserve’s proposed rule will severely affect consumers everywhere, causing new consumer fees, including checking account fees, and pushing low-income customers out of the banking system,” David Kemper, CEO of Commerce Bank, told the House Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit.

Meanwhile, retailers maintain that they represent the interests of consumers.

“Congress recognized last year that the credit card companies and big banks have been extracting monopoly-like fees from merchants and their customers for far too long,” said Mallory Duncan, general counsel for the National Retail Federation.

Is It Working? (cont.) »

Image: Chuck Kennedy [public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

Pages: 1 2

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

  • Lauren

    You seem to forget that prior to the enactment of the CARD act, interest rates skyrocketed, credit limits were lowered, and bank canceled many credit card accounts. A study should encompass a two-year time period prior to the CARD act enactment and two years post the enactment to get a good sense of whether people are hurting or not.

  • Pingback: 6 Surprising Reasons to Be Thankful for Credit Cards | Credit.com News + Advice()

Certain credit cards and other financial products mentioned in this and other articles on Credit.com News & Advice may also be offered through Credit.com product pages, and Credit.com will be compensated if our users apply for and ultimately sign up for any of these cards or products. However, this relationship does not result in any preferential editorial treatment.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Our Owners

Credit.com is owned by Progrexion Holdings Inc. which is the owner and administrator of a number of business related to credit and credit repair, including CreditRepair.com, and eFolks. In addition, Progrexion also provides services to Lexington Law Firm as a third party provider. Despite being owned by Progrexion, it is not the role of the Credit.com editorial team to advocate the use of the company’s other services. In articles, reporters may mention credit repair as an option, for example, but we’ll also be sure to note the various alternatives to that service. Furthermore, you may see ads for credit repair services on Credit.com, but the editorial team isn’t responsible for the creation or implementation of those ads, anymore than reporters for the New York Times or Washington Post are responsible for the ads on their sites.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

- The Credit.com Editorial Team