Financial justice advocates criticize the Cryptocurrency Regulation Act / Public News Service

Consumer defenders oppose the bill regulating the cryptocurrency market, claiming that it is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

The Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century Act would give regulatory authority to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission instead of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Mark Hays, senior policy analyst at the nonprofits Demand Progress and Americans for Financial Reform, said that would be a mistake.

“You are essentially creating a more permissive regulatory regime that allows crypto companies to do essentially the same thing they do with patina protection,” Hays noted. “But it doesn’t actually provide the same kind of protection that you would get if you just deal with them the way we do now.”

Supporters of the bill say it provides strong consumer protections and regulatory certainty that allows a growing industry to flourish. The bill passed the U.S. House of Representatives last month with a majority vote of Republicans but also some support from progressive Democrats, including Rep. Robert Garcia, D-Calif., Rep. Jimmy Gomez, D-Calif., and Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove, D-Calif. California, Representative Ro Khanna, D-California, Representative Mike Levin, D-California, Representative Ted Lieu, D-California, and Representative Jimmy Panetta, D-California.

Kevin Stein, director of legal and strategy for the nonprofit RISE Economy, said lawmakers should put the needs of vulnerable consumers first.

“There are so many terrible stories and violations of consumer rights, which is why we need regulation,” argued Stein. “The cryptocurrency industry has put a lot of money and a lot of lobbying power into trying to get the rules they want, and that’s always a recipe for disaster.”

The U.S. Senate will now consider whether to take up the bill.

receive more stories like this by email

In an analysis of 100 cities across the United States, Cincinnati ranks 22nd in reducing credit limits – not for the city itself, but for its residents.

Large drops in the average credit limit can indicate where people are struggling financially. According to Cassandra Happe, an analyst at WalletHub, credit card issuers by assessing the profitability and risk of individual users can lower someone’s credit limit to reduce their own risk and increase long-term profitability.

Happe said people should be aware of how reducing their credit limit could impact their overall financial situation.

“Adjust your spending accordingly,” she said, “so you don’t hurt your credit score in the long run by spending more when you have less to spend.”

She noted that Cincinnati has seen a significant decline over the past year, with individual credit limits being cut by more than 15% on average. In the same study, Columbus, Toledo and Cleveland were near the middle of the rankings, ranking 45th, 72nd and 80th, respectively.

Happe said that means people there are maintaining their accounts well and credit card issuers don’t see the need to limit those limits.

It’s a good idea,” she said, “for people to check their current credit limits and make sure the balance doesn’t result in a higher so-called ‘credit utilization’ than they otherwise would.

“If you see that your balance is significantly higher compared to your limit,” she said, “you can focus on paying down that balance to make sure you don’t suffer too much damage to your credit score.”

The report shows that for accounts opened in the first quarter of this year, Cincinnati ranked 77th in average credit limit per user, indicating higher credit limits for new account holders compared to many other cities in the study.

This article was produced in partnership with Media in the Public Interest and funded in part by the George Gund Foundation.

receive more stories like this by email

A new online guide helps residents of Connecticut and across the country recover from fraud.

The Better Business Bureau Scam Survival Kit provides people with services to help them recover mentally and financially after fraud. Research shows that people who have been deceived feel angry, anxious, stressed and lose trust.

Kristen Johnson, communications director for the Better Business Bureau Serving Connecticut, said they also often feel isolated.

“Many of them don’t even want to admit it to their closest friends and family,” Johnson explained. “They feel so alone as if they are the only ones who have experienced it, and they don’t realize that thousands of people have experienced the same scam, not to mention all the different scams.”

She added that this can lead to a loss of self-confidence and feelings of shame and embarrassment. The aim of the Scam Survival Kit is to encourage more people to report scams. One of the features in this set is called Survivor Stories and includes quotes from other people who have been victims of the scam. Users can also submit their own words of encouragement to help more people feel comfortable and share their experiences.

While most people think of individuals who have fallen victim to fraud, Johnson noted that the Scam Survival Kit can also help businesses by focusing on data breaches.

“We talk about data breaches because it is not only one of the most common types of fraud targeting businesses, but also one of the most impactful,” Johnson noted. “Because of course they can get financial information about the company and employees.”

Businesses lose money about 30% of the time when they are targeted by fraudsters, which is much less than when people are vulnerable to fraud. Businesses lose an average of $523 to fraudsters compared to about $100 reported by consumers.

receive more stories like this by email

The AM Radio for Every Vehicle Act now before Congress would require all new U.S. cars to be equipped with AM radios, sparking debate in Missouri.

The legislation is supported by 60 bipartisan U.S. senators, including Rep. Josh Hawley, R-Mo. However, the Consumer Technology Association criticizes it for its potential to increase vehicle costs and stifle innovation, especially as electric vehicles grow in popularity.

Gary Shapiro, CEO of the Consumer Technology Association, testified against the mandate before a House subcommittee. He highlighted the financial and technological burdens the mandate would place on both carmakers and consumers.

“AM radio is great, but it shouldn’t be required in every car sold in the ‘forever future’ because it compromises safety and other features and costs money,” Shapiro argued. “This slows down the transition to electric cars.”

Anti-AM radio mandate supporters say it’s crucial for emergency broadcasts, especially in rural areas where digital signals can be weak. Shapiro pointed out that installing AM radio in electric vehicles is problematic because of battery signal interference, which would result in costly redesigns and divert resources from other improvements.

For Missourians, especially those in rural areas who may rely more heavily on AM radio, a mandate would come with both benefits and challenges. While broad AM radio coverage is valuable, Shapiro said such a requirement could hamper the state’s broader efforts to transition to electric vehicles.

He added that demand for AM radio is declining with the advent of digital and streaming options, which many consumers now prefer.

“AM radio isn’t going away; we don’t think it should be a requirement,” Shapiro explained. “There are simpler solutions, for example if you are not buying a car with an AM radio, the car dealer should disclose this. You can also connect an AM radio.”

Shapiro emphasized that a sustainable approach is needed to electrify vehicles while satisfying the radio industry and respecting consumer choice and market dynamics.

receive more stories like this by email