The bank misled online savings customers and cost them billions

• New Yorks attorney general leads coalition opposing Capital One class action settlement

• Officials say deal would return pennies on the dollar while letting the bank keep $2 billion

• Settlement criticized for failing to stop deceptive practices in savings accounts

New York Attorney General Letitia James is leading a bipartisan coalition of 17 other state attorneys general in opposing a proposed class action settlement with Capital One, arguing it would cheat customers out of billions in unpaid interest and shield the bank from accountability.

James sued Capital One in May, alleging the bank misled online savings customers by keeping interest rates on its 360 Savings accounts artificially low while advertising them as high interest products. As rates rose nationwide in 2022, Capital One instead created nearly identical 360 Performance Savings accounts that paid far higher yields at one point more than 14 times higher while continuing to underpay 360 Savings customers.

Critics: Settlement favors Capital One

In an amicus brief filed Tuesday, James and her counterparts said the proposed settlement in a separate class action case shortchanges consumers and benefits Capital One at their expense. The deal would deliver $125 million in extra interest to current 360 Savings customers, but the coalition argues that is a fraction of what they are owed.

By comparison, the attorneys general say Capital One has withheld more than $2 billion in interest. The average consumer lost out on about $717 but would receive less than $54 under the settlement.

Capital One customers worked hard for their savings, only to be misled and cheated out of billions of dollars, James said. Now, Capital One is pushing a settlement agreement that would let it off the hook. We are opposing this unfair settlement so we can truly hold Capital One accountable.

Great heres a sidebar/graphic explainer you could run alongside the main story:

What Capital One customers lost vs. what the settlement pays

Unpaid interest at stake:

• More than $2 billion in interest Capital One allegedly withheld from 360 Savings customers

Average customer loss:

• About $717 in missed interest

Settlement payout:

• $125 million total in additional interest

• Less than $54 per customer on average

Comparison:

• In the time it would take to pay out $125 million, Capital One would have owed $800 million at its higher 360 Performance Savings rate

Key criticism:

• Settlement does not require Capital One to raise 360 Savings rates, meaning underpayments could continue

Push for stronger restitution

The attorneys general also criticized the deal for failing to require Capital One to stop paying 360 Savings customers below-market rates while continuing to market the accounts as high-interest. Without structural changes, they warned, the scheme at the center of both lawsuits would persist.

Capital One has argued the settlement should prevent James office from pursuing its separate enforcement case. The coalition urged the court to reject both the settlement and any attempt to use it to block state-level restitution efforts.

Attorneys general from California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Ohio and 13 other states joined James in filing the brief.

But researchers say consumers shouldn't stop eating fresh foods

• Eating certain fruits and vegetables linked to higher pesticide levels in the body

• New study highlights gaps in regulation and cumulative exposure risks

• EWG urges consumers to prioritize organic options for the most contaminated produce

Study: Some produce raises pesticide levels in people

Eating certain fruits and vegetables can increase harmful pesticide levels in the body, according to a new peer-reviewed study published in the International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health.

The research, led by Environmental Working Group (EWG) scientists, found that people who consumed produce with higher pesticide residues such as strawberries, spinach and bell peppers had significantly more pesticide biomarkers in their urine than those who ate mostly low-residue fruits and vegetables.

The findings reinforce that what we eat directly affects the level of pesticides in our bodies, said Alexis Temkin, Ph.D., EWGs vice president for science and lead author of the study. Eating produce is essential to a healthy diet, but it can also increase exposure to pesticides.

Clear dietary link

Researchers combined U.S. Department of Agriculture residue testing with diet surveys and urine samples from nearly 1,900 participants in a federal health and nutrition study. They created a dietary pesticide exposure score to estimate exposure and compared it with biomarkers for three major pesticide classes.

The results showed a direct link between eating high-residue produce and increased levels of pesticides in the body. The analysis also revealed that Americans are exposed to mixtures of chemicals: USDA testing found residues from 178 pesticides on produce, though only a fraction matched the biomarkers tracked in urine.

Health concerns and regulatory gaps

Pesticides have been associated with cancer, reproductive harm, hormone disruption and developmental problems in children. Despite years of research, the Environmental Protection Agency continues to set limits on individual pesticides rather than accounting for cumulative exposures, EWG noted.

This study builds on previous work showing that certain fruits and vegetables are a major route of pesticide exposure for millions of Americans, Temkin said. Young children and pregnant people are particularly susceptible to the harms from exposure.

Advice for consumers

EWG urged people not to avoid fruits and vegetables but to reduce risks where possible by choosing organic, which has been shown to lower pesticide biomarkers in the body within days. The group pointed to its annual Shoppers Guide to Pesticides in Produce, which highlights the Dirty Dozen produce items with the highest pesticide residues and the Clean Fifteen with the lowest.

The emphasis is still on keeping groceries affordable for consumers

• Aldi has announced a new namesake private designed to be more recognizable to its shoppers.

• The majority of products in Aldi stores already come from the retailers private brand, and now the branding will reflect that.

• Some of the fan-favorite third-party items will remain on store shelves amidst the refresh.

Aldi has been known for being a budget-conscious option for grocery shoppers.

To help facilitate that further, the retailer has officially introduced its own private-label namesake brand to be more recognizable to shoppers.

The new look and feel of our products is the next step in our journey to modernize our simpler, quicker shopping experience. Now, its easier than ever for shoppers to instantly spot the value and quality only ALDI can deliver, Atty McGrath, who began her role as CEO of ALDI on September 1, said in a news release.

After nearly 50 years of setting the standard in private label, our updated packaging will give shoppers yet another reason to reach for our products first.

An updated look

The grocery chain said the primary goal with the new branding is to be more recognizable to shoppers. Moving forward, Aldi-exclusive items will be flagged appropriately with either an ALDI Original or the new ALDI brand logo.

The retailer said that over 90% of products sold in Aldi stores are already private label. The biggest difference for shoppers will be the refreshed branding and look.

While some fan favorites will remain on shelves including Clancys, Simply Nature and Specially Selected others will be replaced with the new Aldi branding.

The updated logo and branding will start being rolled out to stores, and shoppers can expect the transformation to be ongoing over the next year.

As we worked on this refresh for the past few years, we drew so much inspiration from our fans. Our customers already call our private labels ALDI brands, and were excited to officially recognize them with a name they can see and trust," Scott Patton, ALDI Chief Commercial Officer, said in the news release.

Our research shows customers associate ALDI with affordability, value, quality and convenience. Now, they can feel confident knowing our trusted name is behind every exclusive product in their cart.

The changes would favor lawbreaks who prey on American consumers, the groups say

• Advocacy groups warn that cutting CFPB oversight would leave consumers vulnerable

• Proposed changes could slash the number of supervised firms across key industries

• Critics say reduced supervision favors lawbreakers and risks another financial crisis

A coalition of 31 consumer advocacy groups is urging the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) not to roll back supervision of major financial firms, warning that doing so would embolden lawbreakers and expose Americans to greater risk of abuse.

In comments filed with the bureau, the groups led by the National Consumer Law Center (NCLC) and Consumer Federation of America (CFA) said scaling back oversight could signal to companies that violations of the law will go unchecked. The organizations submitted both broad and detailed objections in response to four advance notices of proposed rulemaking that suggest the CFPB may drastically reduce the number of companies subject to examination.

Proposed cuts across industries

The groups said the potential changes would shrink the pool of supervised firms to just a fraction of its current size:

• Auto finance companies: from 63 to as few as 5, possibly excluding all subprime lenders

• Consumer reporting agencies: from about 36 to as few as 6

• Debt collectors: from 250300 to as few as 11

• International money transmitters: from about 28 to as few as 4

These industries are among the top sources of consumer complaints, said Lauren Saunders, associate director at NCLC. Limiting the CFPBs ability to examine larger companies in those industries to make sure they are complying with the law makes no sense.

Warnings of wider risks

Erin Witte, director of consumer protection at CFA, said the proposal could not come at a worse time. Americans are drowning in debt, putting corporations in a position of power to exploit them, and the Bureaus response is to simply walk away, she said.

The CFPB was created after the Great Recession to provide federal oversight of nonbank financial firms a sector whose unchecked practices helped fuel the crisis. Advocates argue that scaling back supervision now would undo hard-won protections, give nonbanks an unfair advantage over banks, and weaken the bureaus ability to spot compliance problems early.

Supervision as a safeguard

Consumer advocates stress that supervision is not only vital for protecting households but also for creating a level playing field. Without it, law-abiding companies may be forced to compete against firms that cut corners or exploit consumers.

Flexible supervision authority helps the CFPB stave off smaller problems before they turn into bigger problems that harm more people, the groups wrote. Restricting oversight to only the largest players will deprive the Bureau of information it needs and leave consumers exposed.