Phil Mattera

Bank Robbery

For the past few years, it was easy to get the impression that Wells Fargo was an outlier when it came to the mistreatment of customers. That bank paid billions in penalties for the creation of bogus fee-generating accounts and the application of various other types of illegitimate charges.

Now it turns out that Bank of America belongs in the same category. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency have just announced that BofA is being fined $150 million for similar unsavory behavior.

CFPB and OCC cite abuses of three main types. First, BofA is said to have engaged in the practice that made Wells Fargo notorious: the illegal enrollment of customers in accounts without their knowledge or consent. In order to do this, BofA improperly accessed consumer credit reports.

Second, BofA deployed what the regulators call a double-dipping scheme to harvest junk fees, which included charging a customer more than once for the same declined transaction. Finally, the bank is accused of luring credit card customers with special offers of cash and points, only to renege on those promises.

Regulators were not the first to bring these swindles to light. For years, BofA was sued repeatedly in class action lawsuits brought on behalf of customers. Just last month, I reported that in a compilation of consumer-related lawsuits dating back to 2000 prepared for inclusion in Violation Tracker, BofA had paid out more in settlements and damages–$3.2 billion—than any other corporation. These payouts came in 29 different class actions, a number also higher than any other company.

It will be interesting to see if the BofA revelations generate as much controversy as did those involving Wells Fargo, which not only faced criminal as well as civil charges but also received the unusual punishment of being barred by the Federal Reserve from growing in size until it improved its compliance record. The Fed also forced out several members of the bank’s board of directors.

The consequences for BofA may be less dire. I fear that these banking abuses may be losing the ability to shock the conscience. There was, for example, little uproar last year when CFPB accused U.S. Bank of engaging in the bogus account scam and fined it $37.5 million.

BofA, for its part, may just brush off the $150 million penalty it is paying to CFPB and OCC. After all, that sum may seem insignificant to a corporation that has accumulated an astounding $87 billion in fines and settlements since 2000. That total is far and away the largest among all corporations. As shown in Violation Tracker, it is more than twice as much as has been paid by second-ranking JPMorgan Chase and it makes Wells Fargo’s $27 billion total seem puny in comparison.

Even if BofA treats this new case as no big deal, the rest of us should not become blasé about the bank’s abysmal record.

Consumer Deception

Large companies like to give the impression they put customer satisfaction above all else. They constantly tout their rankings in surveys such as those conducted by J.D. Power.

Yet it also turns out they are frequently sued by groups of customers for deceptive practices. Over the past two decades, major companies have paid out over $25 billion in damages and settlements in class action and multi-district consumer protection lawsuits filed throughout the United States. Some corporations have been involved in multiple cases, and a few have had total payouts of more than $1 billion.

These findings come from a compilation of consumer protection lawsuits prepared for inclusion in Violation Tracker. Using court records, we have documented more than 600 successful legal actions dating back to the beginning of 2000. These are only cases in which a company was accused of cheating its customers by overcharging for goods and services or engaging in false advertising. This list does not include cases involving issues such as product safety or privacy violations, which were previously added to Violation Tracker. It also does not include cases brought by government agencies, which were also already in the database.

One thing jumps out from the new list of cases: banks, insurance companies and other players in the financial services sector account for a far larger portion of the penalties than any other part of the economy: over $14 billion in 249 cases. This is more than 55 percent of the penalty total and 40 percent of the cases.

Half of Big Finance’s penalty total comes from a handful of companies. Bank of America paid out over $3 billion in 29 cases. JPMorgan Chase racked up $2.3 billion in penalties in 26 cases. Wells Fargo’s penalty total is $1.3 billion from 21 cases. State Farm Insurance ranks next with $669 million from six cases.

Here are just a few of the abuses Bank of America has been accused of committing: imposing excessive overdraft fees on checking accounts; charging military customers interest rates above federally mandated limits; enrolling customers in credit protection plans without their consent; applying late fees on credit card customers who actually paid on time; and forcing home mortgage customers to purchase excessive amounts of flood insurance;

Outside the financial sector, the biggest penalty totals belong to Dominion Energy ($2.5 billion), Western Union ($508 million), Apple Inc. ($462 million), BP ($414 million) and General Motors ($389 million). Apple’s alleged transgressions ranged from distributing iPhone software updates that slowed the device’s performance to the renewal of app subscriptions without customer consent.

While most of the cases on the list involve prices, fees and other monetary practices, about 100 relate to the quality of the goods and services being sold. Over $1 billion has been paid out by companies accused of false or deceptive advertising and marketing. The single biggest penalty of this type is linked to Acer America, which paid an estimated $280 million to resolve allegations that it misled customers about the Windows operating system installed on its laptop computers.

Behr and its parent Masco paid over $100 million to settle claims that they falsely advertised their wood sealants as protecting against mildew damage. Many of the smaller settlements involved allegations that producers of food and personal-care products falsely advertised their products as organic or natural.

While many of the corporate defendants in these cases will insist they settled out of expedience, it seems clear that many large companies have a tendency to engage in dubious practices. If they are truly concerned about customer satisfaction, putting an end to these practices is a good way to begin.

3M’s Sticky Legal Situation

For the past decade, Johnson & Johnson has symbolized the deterioration of a well-regarded consumer products corporation into the target of multiple lawsuits over alleged disregard for product safety. Now another familiar company is following the same path.

3M, best known as the producer of Scotch Brand adhesive tape and Post-it sticky notes, has been embroiled in two major lawsuits that will probably result in the payment of billions of dollars in settlements. The litigation does not involve office supplies but rather two of the thousands of other products produced by a company originally known as Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company.

In one of the cases, 3M has been sued by some 250,000 military veterans who accuse the company of producing foam earplugs that failed to protect them from service-related hearing loss. This stems from a 2018 False Claims Act case brought by the U.S. Justice Department in which the company paid a penalty of $9.1 million. Last year, in what is called a bellwether case, a jury awarded a single plaintiff $50 million in damages.

In an attempt to limit its wider liability, 3M filed for bankruptcy for the subsidiary, Aearo Technologies, that produced the earplugs. Lawyers for the plaintiffs cried foul, and earlier this month a federal bankruptcy judge dismissed the filing, calling it premature. 3M is appealing the dismissal, but the Wall Street Journal reports that the company is in settlement talks.

3M is also said to be deeply involved in negotiating a settlement of its other major legal woe: lawsuits accusing the company of being responsible for the contamination of water supplies with per- and polyfluoroalkyl (or PFAS) chemicals used in the production of its firefighting foam. These substances, which have been linked to numerous adverse health effects, have become known as forever chemicals because they do not break down in the human body or the environment.

A federal judge in South Carolina, where the PFAS cases have been consolidated, recently halted a bellwether trial after the parties in the wider litigation reported that a settlement seemed imminent. This was just after DuPont and its spinoff companies Chemours and Corteva announced they had agreed to pay more than $1 billion to settle their own PFAS cases.

3M’s record apart from these two cases has not been entirely unblemished. In 2018 the company paid $850 million to the Minnesota Attorney General’s office to settle allegations that its disposal of perflourochemicals, or PFCs, over many years had damaged drinking water and natural resources in the Twin Cities area.

It has also been accused of antitrust violations. In 2006 the company paid over $28 million to settle litigation alleging it monopolized the market for adhesive tape. In 2011 3M paid $3 million to settle an age discrimination case brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Violation Tracker contains more than 100 other penalties the company has paid in environmental, workplace safety, and employment cases.

With the earplug and PFAS cases, it appears that the company’s aggregate penalty total will soon reach a much higher level. 3M is going to have to sell a lot more Post-its.

Update: Plaintiffs’ attorneys reported that 3M has agreed to pay over $12 billion to public water systems to resolve the PFAS litigation.

DOJ’s Unweaponized Approach to Corporate Crime

There is a lot of loose talk these days about the supposed weaponization of the Justice Department in regard to a certain former president. Yet no one on any part of the political spectrum can claim that DOJ is being overly aggressive in prosecuting corporate defendants.

Despite promises early in the Biden Administration, DOJ has not carried out a serious crackdown on the most serious business offenders. There have been some major prosecutions, but they tend to focus on foreign-based companies (as I discussed in an April post) and the overall volume of cases has not surpassed the dismal record of the Trump years.

Instead, DOJ has devoted much of its energy to creating incentives for companies to report their own misconduct. This carrot-rather-than-stick approach may work in cases of transgressions by lower-level employees, but it is ineffective when the rot reaches all the way to the top.

Recently, DOJ rolled out its latest initiative. Unfortunately, it seems to focus mostly on image-burnishing. The department has created a webpage titled Corporate Crime summarizing all the ways in which it goes after business miscreants. It is a helpful list, but it does not include anything new in the way of enforcement—though DOJ’s self-reporting efforts are prominently featured.

There is one interesting feature on the page: a link to a new Corporate Crime Case Database. At the moment, it is a very modest resource consisting of links to 13 press releases issued recently by various branches of DOJ. The page states: “While it is still in the process of being populated, it will eventually contain the significant, relevant cases from each component and U.S. Attorney’s Office, resolved since the end of April 2023.”

We don’t know more about plans for the database because DOJ chose to roll it out with no fanfare—not even a press release. A department spokesperson told the Wall Street Journal that the scope might be widened to include cases resolved in the last several years.

Even with that addition, the database would be a less-than-robust response to the long-standing efforts by Ralph Nader and corporate accountability groups to get the federal government to produce a resource on white-collar offenses comparable to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program, which has been assembling detailed data on street crime since the 1930s. It also does not appear to satisfy the proposal put forth by Senators Dick Durbin and Richard Blumenthal, along with Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon, in the Corporate Crime Database Act they introduced in Congress last year.

Since DOJ has been so reserved about the project, it is not clear whether the new database is meant to be its complete response to the proposals by Nader, Durbin et al. Those proposals envision something a lot more ambitious. The Corporate Crime Database Act would require the DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Statistics to create a resource that collects comprehensive information from every federal agency that carries out enforcement actions with respect to corporate offenses.

That sounds like something more akin to what my colleagues and I have been doing with Violation Tracker, which also covers state and local enforcement activity and which extends back to 2000. Our aim has been to provide a repository of both civil and criminal actions in which corporations have been fined or reached settlements for a wide range of offenses.

DOJ, with resources much greater than ours, should be able to create something a lot more substantial than a list of links to its recent press releases.

Pharma Fights to Preserve the Gravy Train

Big Pharma has been fleecing its U.S. customers for so long, the industry came to regard it as a right. That arrangement started to come to an end last year, at least as far as one large customer, the federal government, is concerned. The Inflation Reduction Act included a provision empowering Medicare to begin negotiating some drug prices in 2026.

One pharmaceutical giant has decided to fight to preserve the gravy train. Merck just filed a lawsuit challenging the law, claiming that the obligation to negotiate is an infringement of its constitutional rights. The company argues that its Fifth Amendment protection against government seizure of private property would be violated. It also says that having to sign an agreement reached after negotiation would trample its First Amendment free speech rights.

The Fifth Amendment takings argument is a favorite position of conservatives in opposing all manner of government regulation, but the obligation to negotiate prices is not regulation. It is actually a free market correction to the absurd restrictions that have long existed on the ability of Medicare to bring drug prices back down to earth. The First Amendment argument is laughable.

It is not surprising that Merck would try its chances in court once its lobbying efforts against the law failed. The company has a lot at stake. It rakes in several billion dollars of revenue each year from the sale of diabetes and cancer medications through Medicare plans. Even if its lawsuit initially fails, Merck presumably hopes it will receive a more sympathetic hearing if the case reaches the corporate-friendly Supreme Court.

Freedom from having to negotiate with Medicare is not the only way in which Big Pharma has managed to evade competition. As I described in a report on antitrust cases published in April, drug companies have repeatedly been caught engaging in illegal schemes to block the introduction of lower-cost generic alternatives to their brand-name medications. Since 2000 the industry has paid a total of $10 billion in fines and settlements in these pay-to-delay cases.

Merck is one of those firms implicated in this practice. For example, in 2017 it agreed to pay $60 million to settle class action litigation alleging that its subsidiary Schering-Plough had taken improper actions to block the introduction of a generic version of K- Dur, which is used to treat potassium deficiencies.

Along with anti-competitive behavior, the pharmaceutical industry has a record of questionable practices in its dealings with the federal government. Merck alone has paid nearly $800 million in fines and settlements relating to alleged violations of the False Claims Act. For example, in 2008 it agreed to pay $650 million to resolve allegations that it failed to pay proper rebates to Medicaid and other government health care programs and paid illegal remuneration to health care providers to induce them to prescribe the company’s products.

These forms of misconduct, along with the immunity from having to negotiate prices with Medicare, have for too long given the drug companies the upper hand in their dealings with the federal government. The Inflation Reduction Act takes an important first step toward correcting that situation. It would be a shame if the courts turn back the clock.

Note: Corporate Crime Reporter reports that the Justice Department has quietly introduced a search engine covering its actions against business entities and individuals. As of this writing, the Corporate Crime Case Database contains only 11 entries but more is promised.

More Compliance Officers, Less Compliance

It appears these are boom times for corporate compliance officers. According to an article in Law360, a recent survey by the recruiting firm BarkerGilmore found that that “the demand for compliance talent is higher than ever because of an evolving list of new requirements like environmental, social and governance programs; enterprise risk management and new work culture brought on by post-pandemic norms.” Pay is also rising rapidly for these officers.

This is all good news for those who want to make a career of helping corporations deal with government regulations, but what does it mean for compliance itself? Does the inclination of big business to spend more on this function indicate that corporate behavior is improving?

Based on the data collected in Violation Tracker, that does not seem to be the case. Fines and settlements in the U.S. in 2022 climbed to over $69 billion, the highest annual total in seven years. Over the entire span of time covered by the database, which extends back to 2000, the only higher totals occurred in the mid-2010s, when the annual tallies reached as high as $77 billion due to giant settlements by the likes of BP in connection with the Deepwater Horizon disaster and by the major banks in connection with the mortgage and toxic securities crises.

Last year also saw a jump in the average penalty paid per case. That figure was $2.5 million, up from $2 million the year before. Aside from the $2.9 million average in 2020, last year’s amount was the highest since 2015.

Another indicator that 2022 was a banner year for penalties can be seen in the number of individual parent companies which paid a massive amount–$100 million or more–in fines and settlements. Sixty-three parents gained that dubious distinction, the highest number since 2015.

Included in that group were eleven companies with penalties of $1 billion or more: Allianz, Walgreens Boots Alliance, CVS Health, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Wells Fargo, Walmart, AbbVie, Danske Bank, Navient, Bayer and Glencore.

What does it say that penalties are accelerating at the same time that corporations are purportedly putting more resources into compliance? One possibility is that the increasing use of compliance officers is merely window dressing, a gesture meant to satisfy investors concerned about social responsibility. These officers may have little power and influence. They can warn managers about regulatory risks but may have little ability to change behavior that is illicit but profitable.

A more charitable interpretation would be that compliance officers are bringing more violations to light by encouraging companies to self-report infractions. This, in turn, could contribute to increases in overall penalty levels.

This would be a hopeful sign if it meant that companies were at the same time cleaning up their behavior. The problem is that recidivism shows no signs of receding. Year after year, most large companies go on breaking the rules and treating penalties as an affordable cost of doing business as usual.

If compliance officers could do something about that, they would truly be earning their rising pay.

Targeting the Infant Formula Giants

The Agriculture Department’s Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program is one of the many forms of social assistance that could be seriously affected by Republican efforts to cut supposedly wasteful federal spending as a condition of approving an increase in the debt ceiling.

If there is waste in WIC, it’s not being caused by the low-income women receiving nutritional aid. A more likely culprit are the corporations providing the infant formula distributed through the program.

The Federal Trade Commission has revealed that it is investigating whether suppliers have been colluding in their bids for contracts awarded by the state agencies that administer WIC. Any such collusion would be made easier by the fact that the infant formula market in general and the WIC portion of it are dominated by three large companies.

Two of the three—Abbott Laboratories, which produces the Similac brand, and Nestlé, which sells the Gerber brand—have acknowledged that they are involved in the investigation, while Reckitt Benckiser has declined to comment.

This is not the first time these companies have come under regulatory scrutiny. Back in 2003 Abbott and a subsidiary paid a total of $600 million in civil and criminal penalties to resolve charges that the company made illegal payments to institutional purchasers of its tube-feeding products and then encouraged the customers to overbill government health programs.

Over the past two decades, Abbott and various subsidiaries have paid another $98 million in various False Claims Act cases brought by federal and state prosecutors. This does not include hundreds of millions more paid in false claims and antitrust penalties by the portions of Abbott that were spun off as AbbVie in 2013.

Nestlé’s infant formula business has a history of controversy for another reason. During the mid-1970s Nestlé was made the target of a campaign protesting the marketing of infant formula in poor countries. Activists from organizations such as INFACT and progressive religious groups charged that the aggressive marketing of formula by companies like Nestlé was causing health problems, in that poor mothers often had to combine the powder with unclean water and frequently diluted the expensive formula so much that babies remained malnourished.

Nestlé initially responded to the boycott of its products with a counter-campaign, seeking to discredit its critics. The company later changed its posture, agreeing to comply with a marketing code issued by the World Health Organization. In the years that followed, Nestlé was frequently criticized for failing to comply with the code and for engaging in various questionable practices.

In 2019 Reckitt Benckiser, based in the United Kingdom, paid over $1.3 billion in penalties in connection with the improper marketing of the opioid Suboxone. It paid another $50 million to the FTC to resolve allegations of engaging in a deceptive scheme to thwart the introduction of a low-cost generic alternative to that drug.

Reckitt entered the infant formula business through the 2017 acquisition of Mead Johnson, producer of Enfamil. In 2012 Mead Johnson had paid $12 million to settle allegations by the SEC that the company violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act through improper payments to healthcare professionals at government-run hospitals in China.

Given these rap sheets, along with controversies over recalls and shortages, it will not come as a surprise if the FTC finds that these companies engaged in bid-rigging. The remedy should involve an effort to attract more suppliers to the WIC infant formula market, especially honest ones.

Wells Fargo Pays More for Its Sins

When the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announced in 2016 that it was fining Wells Fargo $100 million for creating fee-generating customer accounts without permission, bank executives may have thought they could simply pay the penalty and move on.

Instead, Wells has had to contend with a series of regulatory and legal consequences. The latest is a $1 billion settlement the bank has just agreed to pay to resolve a class action lawsuit brought by shareholders accusing it of misrepresenting the progress it had made in improving its internal controls and compliance practices. The deal ranks among the largest securities settlements of all time.

In between the initial CFPB action and the new lawsuit resolution, Wells confronted the following:

In 2018 the Federal Reserve forced out several board members and took the unusual step of barring Wells from growing in size until it improved its compliance. It is telling that the asset cap is still in place.
That same year, Wells paid $575 million to settle litigation over the bogus accounts brought by state attorneys general.
In 2020 the U.S. Justice Department announced that Wells would pay $3 billion to resolve potential criminal and civil liability, but the bank was allowed to enter into a deferred prosecution agreement rather than having to plead guilty. The Trump DOJ also declined to bring charges against any individual executives.

While the monetary penalties paid by Wells are not trivial, they are far from punishing for an institution with nearly $2 trillion in assets and $13 billion in annual profits. They also do not seem to have had much of a deterrent effect.

In 2022 the CFPB took new action against the bank, compelling it to pay a $1.7 billion penalty and provide $2 billion in redress to customers to resolve allegations that it engaged in a variety of new misconduct. Wells was found to have repeatedly misapplied loan payments, wrongfully foreclosed on homes, improperly repossessed vehicles, and incorrectly assessed interest and fees, including surprise overdraft charges. Some 16 million customer accounts were said to have been cheated one way or another.

That 2020 deferred prosecution agreement means that Wells has in effect been on probation. Why, in light of the CFPB case, has the bank not been found to be in violation of that agreement? Is it simply because Wells is now focusing its alleged misconduct on real accounts rather than the fake ones it had been creating? That would be like letting a mugger off the hook for using a knife rather than gun.

Not only should Wells have its probation revoked, but it should undergo something analogous to what the FDIC does when a bank is in financial disarray. Federal regulators should find Wells to be in ethical disarray and take it over while fundamental changes are made to bring it back to some semblance of compliance.

The alternative is letting a rogue institution continue to prey on its customers in any way it can.

Goldman Gives In

The verdict in the Trump case was not the only court victory against sexism this week. Lawyers for women who worked in securities and investment banking positions at Goldman Sachs announced that the Wall Street giant has agreed to pay $215 million to settle a long-running gender discrimination case.

Some 2,800 current and former employees at Goldman will share in the settlement, which resolves a case first filed back in 2010. Along with the payout, the company will take steps to improve gender equity in pay and promotions.

For years, Goldman strenuously denied allegations that its personnel evaluation system systematically placed women at lower rankings than men, and it aggressively sought to reverse the certification of the class in 2018. Those efforts were unsuccessful, eventually resulting in the scheduling of a trial in June of this year. Trials are rare in discrimination class actions, since juries are thought to be more sympathetic to plaintiffs.

Goldman finally decided to give in, becoming the latest large company to settle a class action gender discrimination lawsuit. Other cases during the past two decades documented in Violation Tracker include the following:

In 2022 Sterling Jewelers paid $175 million to settle litigation alleging that for years it had discriminated against tens of thousands of women in its pay and promotion practices.
In 2010 drug giant Novartis paid $175 million to settle charges of gender discrimination, including pregnancy discrimination.
In 2022 Google agreed to pay $118 million to settle class action litigation alleging it discriminated against women in its salary practices.
In 2007 Morgan Stanley paid $46 million to a class of about 3,000 women to settle gender discrimination allegations.
In 2018 the retail chain Family Dollar paid $45 million to more than 37,000 former and current managers who alleged they were paid less than their male counterparts. That case took nearly 15 years to get resolved.
In 2004 Boeing paid more than $40 million to a class of female workers who alleged they were denied desirable job assignments, promotional opportunities, and management positions.
In 2013 Merrill Lynch paid more than $38 million to a group of women employed as financial advisors who said they were discriminated against in pay and promotion.
In 2014 United Airlines paid $36.5 million to settle a lawsuit alleging that the company engaged in gender discrimination by requiring female flight attendants to weigh less than comparable male ones.
In 2008 Smith Barney paid $33 million to women formerly employed as financial advisors who claimed they were paid less than their male counterparts.
In 2011 Wells Fargo paid $32 million to settle a lawsuit alleging that its Wachovia Securities subsidiary gave female financial advisers fewer opportunities than their male co-workers with respect to promotions, assignments, signing bonuses and compensation.

What this list show is that gender discrimination has been an issue in a wide range of companies and occupations, but sexism has been especially problematic in the traditionally macho world of Wall Street. Now that perhaps the most elite firm in the industry has capitulated, the worst abuses may finally come to an end.

Rogue Rescuer

Once again federal regulators have turned to JPMorgan Chase to rescue a failing smaller bank. For the moment, the customers of First Republic Bank may be pleased that their accounts are being taken over by a larger and more stable institution.

Yet they may not be quite so happy to learn that their savior has a much worse record when it comes to compliance with laws and regulations. As shown in Violation Tracker, First Republic was named in only a handful of enforcement actions and paid penalties of less than $4 million. JPMorgan, on the other hand, has 236 Violation Tracker entries and has paid over $36 billion in fines and settlements.

The contrast with First Republic is partly a matter of size. JPM’s vast operations give it many more opportunities to get into trouble. Those operations have included the marketing of residential mortgage-backed securities which turned out to be toxic and which resulted in legal actions that cost the company billions. Some of these entanglements were inherited by JPM when it took over Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual in 2008.

Yet JPM has also had problems when it comes to the treatment of its own customers in the course of routine banking functions. This has become clear to me in the course of assembling data for the latest category of class action litigation to be added to Violation Tracker: consumer protection lawsuits.

The collection is not yet done, but I have already identified more than a dozen settlements in which JPM has paid out hundreds of millions of dollars. Among these are the following:

* In 2012 JPM agreed to pay $100 million to settle litigation alleging it improperly raised interest rates on loan balances transferred to credit cards.

* In 2020 JPM agreed to pay more than $60 million to settle litigation alleging it overcharged customers serving in the military, in violation of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act.

* In 2014 JPM agreed to pay $300 million to settle litigation alleging it pushed mortgage borrowers into force-placed insurance coverage whose cost was inflated due to kickbacks.

* In 2012 JPM agreed to pay $110 million to settle litigation concerning improper overdraft fees resulting from the way that debit-card transactions were processed.

* In 2011 JPM agreed to pay up to $7.8 million to settle litigation alleging it charged credit card customers hidden fees after deceptively marketing special deals on balance transfers and short-term check loans.

* In 2014 JPM and several subsidiaries agreed to pay more than $18 million to settle litigation alleging the use of misleading loan documents to steer borrowers to adjustable-rate mortgages.

* In 2018 JPM agreed to pay over $11 million to settle litigation alleging it improperly charged interest on Federal Housing Administration-insured mortgages that were already paid off.

These were all cases brought by private plaintiffs. JPM also paid hundreds of millions more in consumer protection fines and settlements to federal and state agencies. Among these was a 2013 case brought by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in which JPM paid a $20 million penalty to the agency and over $300 million in refunds to two million customers for what were said to be illegal credit card practices.

There is widespread concern that rescue deals are allowing a too-big-to-fail bank like JPM to grow even larger. Yet we should also worry that more and more of the population is being forced to do business with megabanks that seem to regard themselves as too big to have to comply with laws that protect consumers.