Phil Mattera

Getting Tougher on Product Safety

For most of its history, the Consumer Product Safety Commission has not been the most aggressive federal regulator. Created in 1972, the agency has depended primarily on voluntary recalls of dangerous products by manufacturers. Its budget is below $200 million and its staff numbers around 500, both tiny by DC standards.

While the CPSC has the ability to use monetary penalties when companies fail to disclose hazards, it is relatively restrained in its use of that power. As shown in Violation Tracker, the agency has imposed a total of $397 million in fines against companies since 2000. More than half of that total has come since the Biden Administration took office. By comparison, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which started operating in 2011, has racked up more than $17 billion in fines and settlements.

For all these reasons, it is significant that the CPSC and the Justice Department recently announced that a federal jury in Los Angeles had returned a guilty verdict in the first-ever criminal prosecution brought against corporate executives under the Consumer Product Safety Act.

The defendants in the case were the chief administrative officer and the chief executive officer of Gree USA, Inc., a subsidiary of the Chinese-owned Hong Kong Gree Electric Appliances Sales Co., Ltd. The two men were charged with deliberately withholding information about defective dehumidifiers that could catch fire and selling these units with false certification marks that the products met applicable safety standards. They were convicted of conspiracy to defraud the CPSC and failure to meet reporting requirements, though they were acquitted of wire fraud.

Gree itself has also been targeted by the CPSC. The company has paid more in fines to the CPSC than any other company over the past two decades. That includes a $91 million penalty that was by far the largest single fine brought by the agency during this period. It was also the first criminal enforcement action under the Consumer Product Safety Act.

The impact of that was softened by the decision of the Justice Department to offer Gree a leniency deal in the form of a deferred prosecution agreement by which the company was able to avoid pleading guilty to the charges.

On the other hand, DOJ and CPSC took the bold step of going after the two Gree officials individually. It took four years from the time the two men were indicted, but their conviction sends a powerful message to executives that they can be held personally responsible for brazen disregard of product risks. The Gree executives are scheduled to be sentenced next March and could receive up to five years in prison.

The debate over how to deal with corporate crime is often framed as a choice between penalizing the company and prosecuting executives. The Gree case shows the value of using both approaches at the same time. That makes it more likely the message will get through to everyone in a rogue company that it has to change its practices in a fundamental way.

The CFPB Fights On

The Washington Post recently published a long examination of the obstacles facing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in its effort to rein in payday lenders which prey on low-income families. The leading companies in the industry have managed to block various investigations of their practices.

The agency’s difficulties mainly stem from a lawsuit brought by financial industry groups challenging the way in which the CFPB is funded. It is based on disingenuous arguments about the separation of power between the executive branch and Congress. The case made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments last month but has not yet issued a ruling.

The good news is that the CFPB, which is no stranger to opposition from powerful corporate and Congressional foes, is not backing down. While the payday lending cases may be stalled, the agency is aggressively targeting other bad actors.

Last month, the CFPB fined the credit reporting giant TransUnion $23 million for violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to ensure the accuracy of the information it supplies to landlords for screening of tenant applications. Last week, the agency fined Citibank over $25 million for intentionally discriminating against Armenian Americans in reviewing credit card applications and then lying to those applicants about the reason for the denial.

In its latest action, the CFPB goes after the online lender Enova International Inc. for what the agency calls “widespread illegal conduct including withdrawing funds from customers’ bank accounts without their permission, making deceptive statements about loans, and cancelling loan extensions.”

This is not the first time the CFPB has targeted Enova. In 2019 it fined the company $3.2 million for many of the same practices. That penalty apparently did not get Enova to change its ways. The CFPB found that more than 100,000 customers have been subjected to abuses during the past four years.

To its credit, the CFPB is not just issuing another cease-and-desist order and imposing a larger fine ($15 million) this time around. It is also restricting some of Enova’s business and putting a crimp in the wallets of the company’s top managers.

Specifically, the CFPB is banning Enova for a period of seven years from offering or providing closed-end consumer loans that must be substantially repaid within 45 days. It is also requiring the company to reform its executive pay practices so that compensation is determined in part by compliance with federal consumer financial law.

This approach of restricting a rogue corporation’s business is potentially more effective than simply upping the fine. The same goes for making top executives personally feel some financial pain as a result of their failure to end the misconduct.

In its dozen years of existence, the CFPB has an impressive track record of policing misconduct in the financial services sector. As shown in Violation Tracker, it has imposed more than $17 billion in penalties against miscreants large and small. Let’s hope it is able to go on performing this essential mission.

Banking on Stereotypes

There are about half a million people in the United States with Armenian surnames. Managers at Citigroup apparently decided that all of them are criminals and went to great lengths to deny them credit cards.

That accusation is the basis of a $25 million penalty just imposed on Citi by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The agency alleges that supervisors at the bank ordered employees to discriminate against credit applicants deemed to be of Armenian origin based on the spelling of their family name—especially those living in and around Glendale, California, home to the country’s largest concentration of Armenian-Americans. To hide the blacklisting, applicants were given bogus reasons when their applications were denied.

Individual Armenian-Americans have been involved in organized crime. Earlier this year, a reputed Armenian mafia figure in the Los Angeles area was sentenced to 40 years in prison in connection with a scheme to fraudulently claim more than $1 billion in refundable renewable fuel tax credits.

Yet the existence of mobsters who belong to a particular ethnic group is hardly a justifiable basis for discriminating against everyone who shares that national origin. Citi’s alleged practices constituted a textbook violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.

The CFPB enforcement action is a reminder that not all corporate discriminatory practices involve hiring, pay levels, promotion and other conditions of employment. Companies can also discriminate against customers based on race, gender, national origin, etc. In Violation Tracker we document more than 500 such cases dating back to 2000.

Many of these involve financial institutions accused of unfair treatment of African-American and Latino borrowers. Some of these are holdovers of the longstanding practice of redlining, in which credit is denied to those living in communities with demographic characteristics banks regard as undesirable. Earlier this year, Park National Bank paid $9 million to settle Justice Department allegations it redlined parts of Columbus, Ohio.

There have also been some cases involving other minorities. In 2016 Toyota Motor Credit was fined $21.9 million by CFPB for charging higher interest rates to Asian and Pacific Islander borrowers (as well as African-Americans) on automobile loans.

The cases I found that were closest to Citi matter were actions involving discrimination against Arab-Americans in the wake of 9/11. The most relevant was a 2006 settlement reached by the Massachusetts Attorney General and Bank of America to resolve allegations that Fleet Bank, which BofA acquired in 2004, had improperly closed the accounts of customers with Arabic names, supposedly to guard against the channeling of funds to terrorist groups.

It is ironic to see the likes BofA and Citi portraying themselves as so concerned about potential bad actors that they stereotype entire ethnic groups. If any group deserves to be so stereotyped it is the big banks themselves.

BofA is by far the most penalized company in the United States, with over $87 billion in cumulative fines and settlements since 2000. Citi ranks sixth with nearly $27 billion in penalties. They need to clean up their own houses rather than making assumptions about the behavior of others.

The Missing Crackdown

Joe Biden came to office vowing to get tough on corporate abuses, reversing the soft-on-white-collar-crime approach of his predecessor. Biden went on making those promises, and they were echoed by Attorney General Garland and other Justice Department officials.

That crackdown, however, has not materialized. A new report from Public Citizen shows that the Justice Department concluded only 110 corporate criminal prosecutions in 2022—lower than in any year of the Trump Administration. In fact, it was the smallest number since 1994.

In addition to the decline in overall cases, Public Citizen points out a drop in the number of those cases in which the defendant company received a leniency deal. These are arrangements known as non-prosecution and deferred prosecution agreements in which a firm can avoid a guilty plea by paying a penalty and promising to change its behavior.

Those pledges are frequently broken, and the companies are charged again. Instead of throwing the book at these recidivists, DOJ often offers them a new leniency agreement, making the whole process a farce.

As Public Citizen notes, a decline in leniency agreements would be a good thing if it went along with an increase in the overall volume of prosecutions. Instead of replacing leniency agreements with conventional cases, the DOJ statistics suggest that the agency is simply choosing not to prosecute at all in many instances.

Public Citizen says DOJ may be making greater use of a process called declination, which is essentially a form of super-leniency in which no charges are brought. Some of these deals are made public, but the best corporate defense lawyers can negotiate declinations that are kept secret.

The analysis done by Public Citizen focuses on criminal cases. I decided to check comparable civil cases brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission. According to data collected in Violation Tracker, the SEC collected $1.4 billion in penalties from companies in 2021. This was down from the totals in the final two years of the Trump Administration. In 2022 the SEC’s total jumped to $4.4 billion, thanks in large part to a single case involving a $1 billion settlement with the German insurance company Allianz.

This year the SEC total through mid-October is $1.5 billion. Unless the agency announces some very large cases in the next nine weeks, its 2023 total will also fall behind the final Trump years.

While case and penalty totals do not tell the whole story, what we see in both the criminal and civil areas is something less than a major assault on corporate misconduct. There have been some laudable steps taken by other agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, but both of those regulators have faced legal challenges to their enforcement powers. At the same time, the whole system of business regulation is threatened by Republican defunding efforts.

Overall, the Biden Administration has yet to show that it can overcome these obstacles and make good on the promises of a crackdown on rogue corporations.

Whose Advantage?

Progressive Democrats such as Bernie Sanders have long promoted Medicare for All as the solution to the country’s health insurance problems. Given the popularity of Medicare among the seniors it serves, extending the program to other age groups has a great deal of appeal.

The problem, though, is that Medicare is not a single program. It is an assortment of coverage options that can be bewildering to those turning 65 and to participants during the open enrollment period each year when they must decide whether to stick with their current plan or jump to another. The 2024 open enrollment period began on October 15th and ends December 7th.

Seniors are currently being bombarded with coverage offers, not from the federal government, which oversees Medicare, but from the private insurance companies which have gained a significant foothold in a nominally public program.

That involvement may take the form of supplemental coverage for the 20 percent of medical costs Medicare does not cover. Prescription drugs coverage, which was not part of traditional Medicare, was added in 2006 through a system that requires most participants to purchase plans from private insurers.

Most problematic is the coverage designated as Medicare Part C, which is more commonly known as Medicare Advantage (MA). Whereas traditional Medicare operates much like the fee-for-service health insurance many Americans receive through their employer, MA is more akin to a health maintenance organization or HMO. Instead of paying doctors and others for providing service, MA gives plan providers, which are usually commercial insurers, a lump sum for each beneficiary. They are then responsible for managing patient care. Around half of Medicare participants are in MA plans.

MA providers claim that they can offer improved care, including services such as dental and vision which are not included in traditional Medicare. They also depict themselves as the solution to runaway medical costs. To the extent this is true, the MA providers achieve these results through many of the same ruthless practices that gave HMOs and managed care a bad name starting in the 1990s.

That means erecting roadblocks to care by limiting beneficiaries’ choice of providers, requiring prior authorization for many procedures and refusing authorization at a high rate.

It turns out that MA also fails to deliver on the promise of reducing healthcare costs for the Medicare program. A recent report from Physicians for a National Health Program estimates that the way MA’s capitated system is structured causes taxpayers to overpay the plans at least $88 billion per year and perhaps as much as $140 billion.

Along with these technical reasons is old-fashioned fraud. The Justice Department recently announced that Cigna would be paying $172 million to settle allegations that it submitted “inaccurate and untruthful” diagnosis codes to the federal government to inflate risk adjustments and thus boost the MA payments it received.

Cigna is not alone. As shown in Violation Tracker, Sutter Health paid $90 million to resolve allegations of submitting inaccurate information about the health status of its MA beneficiaries in order to get its payments increased. It had previously paid $30 million for similar misconduct.

An analysis last year by the New York Times found that all but one of the top ten MA providers had been accused by the federal government of fraud or overbilling.

When we talk of Medicare for All, we need to be clear that means an extension and ideally an enhancement of traditional Medicare–not the false promise of Medicare Advantage.

The Corn Dust Conspiracy

About 5,000 workers are killed on the job in the United States each year. Some of these are pure accidents, while others may result from a lapse in safety procedures. Most disturbing are those caused by a failure on the part of management to rectify known hazards.

Solidly in the latter category is the wrongdoing attributed to Didion Milling. In 2017 a dust explosion at a corn mill operated by the company in Cambria, Wisconsin killed five workers and seriously injured others. Six years later, corporate officials whose actions contributed to the disaster and then concealed its causes are finally being held to account.

A federal jury recently convicted Didion’s Vice President of Operations, Derrick Clark, of conspiring to falsify documents, making false environmental compliance certifications and obstructing the Occupational Safety and Health investigation of the explosion. Shawn Mesner, former food safety superintendent at the plant, was convicted of conspiring to obstruct and mislead OSHA by falsifying sanitation records concerning the accumulation of corn dust at the mill.

In other words, Clark and Mesner were found to have covered up dangerous conditions before the explosion and then engaged in a cover-up after the fact. They did not act alone. Three other company officials previously pleaded guilty to related charges. A sixth official was acquitted.

The company was also prosecuted. Last month it pleaded guilty to falsifying records related to its Occupational Safety and Health Act and Clean Air Act obligations. Although Didion has not yet been formally sentenced, it has agreed to pay $1 million in criminal fines and $10.25 million in restitution to the victims of the accident and their families.

The Didion case exemplifies some harsh realities about U.S. workplace practices.

First, it demonstrates the willingness of some employers to put the lives of their workers at risk to boost their bottom line. It is no secret that corn dust is highly combustible and needs to be reduced through careful sanitary practices. Didion and its managers decided to sidestep these practices and instead falsify records to conceal their reckless behavior.

Second, it illustrates the myth of over-regulation. The Didion facility had been cited by OSHA for dust explosion hazards six years prior to the explosion. In 2011 it was fined all of $6,300—which it negotiated down to $3,465. It appears that Didion then began keeping false records while OSHA was kept in the dark about the increasingly dangerous conditions at the mill.

Third, it shows how the country has become blasé about both workplace hazards and the difficulties faced by an over-extended OSHA to do anything about them. I find it remarkable that the Didion accident and the subsequent revelations and legal proceedings have received so little coverage outside Wisconsin.

It is true that Didion is not a well-known company, but the story of its egregious behavior needs to be more widely told. This case also deserves more attention in that it is a rare instance in which managers were held personally liable for their efforts to subvert the regulatory system. The sentences they end up receiving will be an indicator of how serious a crime such behavior is considered to be—and how much we value the lives of workers.

The Junk Food Industry’s Drug Problem

There’s a crisis related to junk food in America, but unlike in the past, the problem is not that people are eating too much of it and harming their health. Instead, consumption levels are declining, darkening the prospects for companies that depend on selling products filled with saturated fat and sugar.

The reason for this is the arrival of Ozempic and other weight-control medications that are highly effective in controlling the urge to overeat. From a public health perspective, this is great news. These drugs have the potential to substantially reduce obesity and related medical problems such as diabetes. Use of the drugs is soaring, and analysts expect millions more to follow suit.

While pharmaceutical companies are making a killing from these high-priced drugs, the food industry is faced with reduced demand. Most vulnerable are those companies that profit from binge eating, especially the snack food sector. According to the Wall Street Journal, executives at these firms are being barraged with questions from investors about the impact on profitability and stock prices. Wall Street analysts are pointing to vulnerability for manufacturers such as Hershey, Mondelez International (which makes Oreos, among other things) and Hostess Brands (Twinkies, etc.).

Not long ago, companies such as these were riding high as Americans boosted their junk food consumption during the pandemic. Kellogg was pressed by Wall Street to split into two so that its faster growing snack business (Pringles, Cheez-It, etc.) would not be held back by the less dynamic breakfast cereal operation. The separation was recently completed, but now the new Kellanova snack company may be less appetizing for investors.

A recent report by Barclays also sees negative consequences for fast food chains, soft drink producers and even cigarette companies, given anecdotal evidence that the drugs may also suppress the urge to consume other addictive substances.

These financial warnings serve as a stark reminder of how much American packaged food producers and fast-food chains have profited from unhealthy consumption patterns that they themselves helped to bring about.

It is unclear how these industries will respond to the Ozempic revolution. In the short term, they may root for the health insurance companies currently doing whatever they can do to avoid coverage for drugs that have a list price of up to $16,000 a year. Those refusals are already being met with legal challenges.

If they continue to cater to those who cannot gain access to the drugs or choose not to use them, the snack food makers will in effect follow the lead of the tobacco industry, which continued to profit from the addicted while overall smoking levels declined.

It is also possible they will choose the higher-road approach of modifying their product lines to include more nutritious offerings. Many food companies have already taken this approach. The problem is that these foods are often not significantly healthier. For example, Kellogg’s (and now Kellanova’s) Nutri-Grain bars are widely criticized for being high in sugar and low in fiber. Packaged food companies have paid out millions of dollars in class action lawsuits accusing them of making unsubstantiated health claims for their products.

The best outcome would be if large numbers of people freed of their addictions by the new drugs choose to focus their diet on fresh foods, and the worst packaged brands wither away from lack of demand.

Watching the ESG Watchmen

Investment advisors that adopt the label ESG present themselves as arbiters of corporate behavior. They claim to identify which companies are serious about environmental, social and governance goals and thus deserve to be included in high-minded portfolios.

But who watches the watchmen? Who determines when the ESG gatekeepers have gone astray? The answer turns out not to be Ron DeSantis and Republican Attorneys General who have been attacking what they see as wokeness in the business world. Instead, it is the traditional cop on the financial beat—the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The SEC recently brought charges against a subsidiary of Deutsche Bank for misleading investors by exaggerating the extent to which it actually applied ESG principles in its stock recommendations. DWS Investment Management Americas Inc. (DWS), according to the SEC, “failed to adequately implement certain provisions of its global ESG integration policy” and “failed to adopt and implement policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure that its public statements about the ESG integrated products were accurate.”

DWS, which agreed to settle the charges by paying $25 million in penalties, was also accused of failing to develop an adequate program to make sure its mutual funds were not being used for money laundering. The accusations against DWS essentially came down to deception and negligence.

It is, of course, ironic that a firm whose mission is to monitor the behavior of other companies was found to have serious deficiencies in its own conduct. Yet the real lesson of the DWS case is that the E in ESG does not stand for “ethical.”

This becomes abundantly clear when we look at the track record of many ESG investment advisors as well as the companies that score well in ESG ratings. DWS stands out in this regard. Its parent Deutsche Bank is the ninth most heavily penalized parent company in Violation Tracker with nearly $20 billion in fines and settlements in the United States since 2000.

The bank has, for example, paid out enormous sums in multiple cases involving offenses such as manipulation of interest rate benchmarks, facilitation of fraudulent tax shelters, deception of investors in the sale of what turned out to be toxic securities, and violation of anti-money-laundering laws. The latter included a $425 million settlement with the New York Department of Financial Services of allegations its Moscow, London and New York offices participated in a mirror trading scheme that laundered $10 billion out of Russia.

Despite this record, Deutsche Bank scores pretty high in some ESG rankings. The same combination of heavy regulatory penalties and high ratings can be seen with other investment firms such as Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley as well as companies in many other industries. Even fossil fuel culprits such as Chevron and Occidental Petroleum get relatively high ESG scores.

All this is further evidence that the real problem with much of the ESG movement is not that it goes too far, but rather that it is often used as a smokescreen to hide all manner of corporate misconduct by those claiming to promote virtue.

Big Business on the Defensive

Too often, the news is filled with stories of large corporations getting away with all kinds of abuses—mistreating workers, fouling the environment, cheating consumers, undermining our privacy. This week has been different.

On the labor front, there has been more coverage of strikes than we have seen for a long while. This includes a resolved dispute involving film and TV writers, a continuing one involving actors and an escalating one involving autoworkers. These work stoppages are all receiving widespread public support.

The auto strike also brought about the first-ever visit of a sitting U.S. President to a picket line. Occupants of the White House have more typically responded to walkouts by blocking them—as Biden did with railroad workers last year—or with more extreme measures such as Reagan’s firing of the air traffic controllers in 1981.

At the same time, news outlets are giving substantial play to efforts by federal and state governments to curb the power of Big Tech. The Federal Trade Commission, along with 17 state attorneys general, just filed a sweeping complaint against Amazon.com, accusing the e-commerce giant of abusing its market power to the detriment of both consumers and small businesses that rely on its platform to sell their goods.

The FTC complaint arrives as the trial proceeds in a Justice Department lawsuit against Google for monopolizing the online search market. Both cases challenge the core business models of the companies. Even if break-ups of the tech giants are unlikely, adverse court rulings could require them to make fundamental structural changes in the way they operate.

Significant changes, while perhaps not as drastic, could also result from the current labor disputes. It appears that the new contract won by the Writers Guild of America will put limits on the industry’s control of content created with the help of artificial intelligence. United Autoworkers members are seeking to dismantle tiered wage structures and reduce the basic workweek while the industry is making the transition to electric vehicles.

Other fundamental challenges to corporations can be seen in the environmental area. Not long ago, a group of young people in Montana prevailed in their lawsuit arguing that the state’s failure to consider climate change when approving fossil fuel projects was a violation of a provision in the Montana constitution guaranteeing residents the right to a clean and healthy environment. This is just one of numerous efforts to use the courts to address the climate crisis. Large companies are also facing the prospect of new greenhouse gas disclosure requirements—one passed by the California legislature and another pending in the European Union.

Corporations are not giving into these challenges without a fight. They are trying to limit their concessions to unions, aggressively arguing their positions in the court cases, taking steps to sway public opinion and employing legions of lobbyists to promote their point of view to legislators and policymakers.

Yet, for the moment, it is a pleasure to see Big Business on the defensive.

Corporations Are Not Saving the Planet After All

It used to be that you had to go to the websites of groups such as Greenpeace to learn how large corporations are failing to live up to their promises to help solve the climate crisis. Now that fact can be found on the front page of the Wall Street Journal.

The business-friendly newspaper just published an article detailing the ways in which the decarbonization efforts of the world’s largest companies are fizzling out. A big part of the problem is that most companies never developed meaningful climate transition plans and instead relied on dubious carbon offsets instead. The Journal quotes the environmental non-profit CDP as saying that of the nearly 19,000 companies using its disclosure platform, fewer than 100 have credible plans.

Some companies don’t bother to develop any plans—or they keep them to themselves. The Journal cites data showing the percentages of larger publicly traded companies that do not disclose specific plans to meet long-term climate targets. Among those in the coal, oilfield services, and midstream oil sectors the portion is 100 percent. Among integrated oil companies, 93 percent fail to do so.

Big Oil’s detrimental role in dealing with the climate was highlighted in another recent Journal article. It’s well known that Exxon Mobil worked for years to downplay the harmful effects of greenhouse gas emissions. In 2006 the company finally acknowledged those dangers, but the Journal found that within the company the policy did not really change. The newspaper was given access to internal company documents that had been collected by the New York Attorney General but never made public.

These documents, the Journal says, show that Rex Tillerson, who had just taken over as CEO at the time, continued to work behind the scenes to play down the severity of climate change. Exxon executives and scientists were apparently encouraged to go on questioning the mainstream consensus on climate harm.

In other words, it appeared that Exxon, rather than fully abandoning its overt climate denialism, replaced it with a more low-key version while simultaneously reaping the benefits of greenwashing.

Apart from its malignant impact on the climate problem, the fossil fuel industry also continues to be a major source of conventional pollution. We are reminded of this fact by a new report from the Center for American Progress which looks at the long-standing boondoggle surrounding the system by which the industry is allowed to drill on public lands and offshore.

Making extensive use of data from Violation Tracker, the report shows that the top 20 leasing companies are responsible for more than 2,000 environmental violations in their overall operations over the past two decades. Exxon Mobil leads the list with 442 such penalties, while BP has paid out the most—over $30 billion—largely due to its role in the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.

CAP’s report recommends that proposed new standards issued by the federal Bureau of Land Management for companies seeking leases be strengthened to include language specifying what defines a bad actor, adding: “Such bad actors should not be eligible for new leases or permits until they have resolved all outstanding issues and demonstrated that they are capable of changing their practices. Further, leases of companies found not to be a qualified or responsible lessee should be subject to cancellation.”

Tougher standards such as these will help to get the message through to the fossil fuel giants that they need to change their ways once and for all.