A bill in the California Legislature to regulate credit-repair organizations has advocates concerned because it triggers a federal loophole allowing debt collectors to ignore correspondence on behalf of consumers.
Under Assembly Bill 2424, credit-repair organizations in the state would be required to identify themselves on their correspondence to debt collectors when attempting to help people with credit-report errors or other issues.
Eric Kamerath, legal counsel for the Lexington Law Firm, which helps people with their credit reports, said because federal law preempts California regulations in a conflict, debt collectors can ignore the letters they receive from advocates.
“Under existing federal law, if Assembly Bill 2424 passed, consumer correspondence that identified any third-party assistance, even from a non-profit organization, could be ignored,” Kamerath explained.
The loophole under the Fair Credit Reporting Act allows debt collectors, furnishers and credit-reporting agencies to ignore, without explanation, any letter sent on behalf of a consumer by a third party.
On the federal level, Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., who chairs the House Committee on Financial Services, has called for an overhaul of the U.S. credit-reporting system.
Andre Chapple, CEO of the African American Empowerment Coalition in Los Angeles, which assists communities with fixing errors on credit reports, along with free financial workshops twice a week bringing in 150-200 people, said the federal loophole can have long-term effects if people are unable to get help to fix their credit.
“We don’t tell people that they can’t hire a plumber,” Chapple remarked. “We allow people in every industry to use an expert if they choose to do so, because it doesn’t take their right away to do it themselves, but it gives them an option to do it with someone who actually does this every day and has the expertise to do it.”
The bill will have a hearing in the Assembly Banking and Finance Committee next Monday.
get more stories like this via email
A new law in Washington state bans employers from silencing employees about illegal acts in the workplace.
The Silenced No More Act – which passed in the 2022 session – allows workers to file lawsuits for discrimination, harassment, retaliation and wage and hour violations.
It prohibits and nullifies nondisclosure agreements, or NDAs, on these issues – which the state already prohibited in sexual harassment cases.
Kelli Carson, government affairs deputy director with the Washington State Association for Justice, said nondisclosure clauses covering workplace violations are on the rise in contracts people sign at the start of a job.
“The original use of nondisclosure agreements was to protect trade secrets, and that still is in place,” said Carson. “Nothing in this bill affects that. So that’s still allowed. But in recent years, they’ve been increasing incredibly as a condition of employment.”
California has passed a similar law. In Congress earlier this year, a bipartisan effort pushed legislation across the finish line to make it easier for workers to sue employers in cases of sexual harassment.
State Rep. Liz Berry – D-Seattle – was a sponsor of the bill. She said these types of provisions are mostly used by big tech companies.
“Despite the progress we’ve made in recent years, too many workers are still forced to sign NDAs and settlement agreements that silence them,” said Berry. “This bill will allow all survivors of inappropriate or illegal workplace misconduct to share their experiences, if they choose to do so.”
Carson says this law strengthens workers’ rights.
“For a long time, people were always afraid of retaliation,” said Carson. “People didn’t want to speak up and they just wanted to keep their head down and keep their job. And with the Me Too movement, people, I think, are starting to feel a little bit more empowered to say I don’t have to put up with unlawful conduct at work.”
The bill currently is awaiting the governor’s signature.
Disclosure: Washington State Association for Justice contributes to our fund for reporting on Consumer Issues. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
The future of the Sunshine State’s solar industry now depends on Gov. Ron DeSantis’ veto pen.
Solar-power advocates want the governor to veto a bill the Legislature passed at the behest of the state’s largest utility, Florida Power & Light, because they fear it would gut the rooftop solar industry.
If it becomes law, utilities would pay solar users less money for the excess energy they produce. They now get a full retail rate for the power they put back into the grid.
Heaven Campbell, is Florida program director for the group Solar United Neighbors, which was among 76 groups and businesses to send a letter to DeSantis Thursday.
“We believe that this is a bad bill,” Campbell asserted. “This is a bill that’s going to cost Florida families their jobs, their economic livelihood; and it’s also going to be taking away customer choice, at the behest of a monopoly utility.”
The utility companies see the current credits for customers who use solar as a “tax” on customers without net metering. Duke Energy has said the bill strikes a balance between consumers and the solar industry.
Critics have said passage of the bill would cut off cheaper, domestic energy sources and would even help Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Campbell called the bill a “job killer” in what is a growing industry. She added it stands to impact moderate and low-income Floridians the most.
“When a customer owns their own solar, they are able to control their own utility bill and that’s extremely important for Florida families,” Campbell contended. “Solar is actually not just for the wealthy, and a lot of solar customers themselves, the majority, are not wealthy. We know this from the utilities’ own demographics.”
In statements, FPL has said it “leads the nation in expanding cost-effective, large-scale solar,” and also supports customers who choose to buy private rooftop solar systems. Backers of the bill call the solar incentives a regressive tax and say the bill would make solar energy more equitable for all.
Support for this reporting was provided by The Carnegie Corporation of New York.
get more stories like this via email
A recent report found Tennessee households pay more than $6,000 a year on prescriptions, far more than the national average of around $4,000 dollars.
Yesterday, U.S. Senate lawmakers held a hearing on prescription-drug pricing, as inflation continues to drive up prices.
Steffany Stern, vice president for advocacy at the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, testified astronomical drug prices for conditions such as MS force most individuals to rely on charity to cover the costs of their medications.
“It’s very common for people with MS like my mom to have to rely on some kind of financial assistance to afford their costs,” Stern explained. “Our studies show around 70% of people rely on financial assistance just so they can pay their out-of-pocket.”
According to a report from the financial resource company ValuePenguin, since 2010, consumer spending on prescription and nonprescription drugs has increased every year. Last December the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Reform released a report which showed the list prices of several prescription drugs, including insulin, continue to climb.
Antonio Ciaccia, president of 3 Axis Advisors and CEO of 46 Brooklyn Research, said middle entities called Pharmacy Benefit Managers, who work to negotiate drug prices between insurance companies and pharmacies, are partly responsible for driving up the costs of drugs for consumers.
“Relatively speaking, considering their outsized role in impacting the price of medications, they’ve really kind of been overlooked and left to the side in a lot of the federal legislative efforts on drug pricing,” Ciaccia contended.
Last month the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) deadlocked a vote on whether to examine the business practices of Pharmacy Benefit Managers, but some lawmakers are urging the agency to take action. Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, recently wrote to the FTC, calling for a study on competition within the Pharmacy Benefit Manager industry.
get more stories like this via email
