Quote:
Originally Posted by john70t
You: "This clause was not explicitly explained and signed. It is bait-switch and unenforceable".
Bank: "You did not immediately cancel when the info was provided. Implied concent applies."
|
Yeah, I thought the "implied consent" thing is what they would claim. Interesting. Implied consent to a footnote to another message. The footnote to the message did not state that continued use of the account implied consent, just stated the change in our "agreement." I guess I'm supposed to refer to the original contract for that language.
The root of this, obviously, is that banks are getting tired of all the class action suits against them over their abuse of their customers. Their response is not to start treating customers with respect, but to use the same underhanded tactics to immunize themselves from justice. I'm not sure why. BOA reaped $4.5 billion from their debit card scam and only had to pay $4.5 million in damages. A $4 billion profit from screwing their customers wasn't enough?
Honestly, I feel like a fish in a barrel, and insurance companies, financial service companies, and the governments are all shooting at me.