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.

An expert weighs in on the best tips for consumers struggling with hearing loss

• Hearing loss affects more than just your ears it can lead to isolation, mental fatigue, and even depression.

• Social withdrawal has real health risks, including higher chances of falls, cognitive decline, and dementia.

• Support and modern solutions matter with empathy, communication strategies, and todays discreet hearing aids, loved ones can stay connected and improve overall well-being.

Hearing loss doesnt just affect your ears it can have a big impact on your social life, too. Many people dont realize that struggling to hear can lead to feelings of isolation, frustration, and even loneliness.

To better understand this connection, ConsumerAffairs spoke with Dr. Rachel Artsma, senior audiologist at hear.com, who shared her expert insights on how hearing health and social connection go hand in hand.

What is the link?

Dr. Artsma broke down the correlation between hearing loss and social isolation.

When someone begins to lose their hearing, the quality of sound signals sent to the brain diminishes, she said. This forces the brain to work harder to fill in the missing information, a process known as reconstruction and compensation.

This increased cognitive load can cause mental fatigue, making even simple conversations exhausting. To cope, many individuals with hearing loss begin to avoid social situations, as it's often easier than constantly struggling to understand what's being said. This withdrawal can lead to feelings of loneliness, anxiety, and depression.

Dr. Artsma explained that this often creates a cycle: the more someone pulls back from social interaction, the more their mental health and overall quality of life are negatively impacted.

Mental and physical health risks

While those struggling with hearing loss have their own ways of coping, Dr. Artsma explained that there are both mental and physical health risks to look out for.

Physically, we see increased risks of falls, she said. Mentally, isolation can lead to depression, cognitive fatigue, and even accelerate cognitive decline and dementia. Social connection is a major protective factor for health, and when hearing loss disrupts that, it can have a ripple effect throughout the body and brain.

Supporting loved ones with hearing loss

Though this can be stressful, embarrassing, or frustrating for consumers with hearing loss, all hope isnt loss. In fact, loved ones can be the biggest supporters, engaging with their friends and family members to make sure they still feel included.

The key is to approach the conversation with empathy, not pressure, Dr. Artsma said.

Here are her tips for consumers to support their loved ones dealing with hearing loss:

• Encourage a hearing test and offer to go with them. Frame it as a low-risk, high-reward situation with nothing to lose from giving it a try.

• Share neutral information about the benefits of hearing care, focusing on how it can improve their mental fitness and overall well-being.

• Avoid being judgmental. Let them come to their own conclusion at their own pace.

• Highlight modern features of hearing aids. Focus on the appeal of today's hearing technology, such as nearly invisible designs and tech integration like Bluetooth connectivity.

• Use social proof by sharing stories of others in similar situations who have benefited from hearing care.

• Learn communication strategies together. This includes facing each other when speaking, reducing background noise, and using visual cues.

Improving overall well-being

Dr. Artsma explained that the goal for all consumers should be to improve overall well-being.

Hearing loss isnt something to ignore, she said. Hearing aids are more than just a tool to help you hear; they are a gateway to living life to the fullest.

By making conversations easier and more enjoyable, they reduce the mental fatigue that comes with straining to understand. This renewed energy encourages you to re-engage socially and participate in the activities you love.

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.