Fifth Third Bank just agreed to pay a $20 million fine to settle charges it forced car buyers to purchase unnecessary insurance and created fake accounts in customers' names.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau said the bank required customers with car loans to buy insurance, even if they already had coverage or got their own within 30 days.

Rosemary Shahan, president of Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety, said some customers then could not afford the payments.

"There were about 1,000 consumers who had their cars repossessed," Shahan recounted. "Most people rely on their car to get to and from work, and get their kids to school, and get to medical appointments. So that is really devastating when they lose their car."

In a statement, Fifth Third Bank said it shut down the protection insurance program in 2019 and is taking action to set things right. The money from the fine will go to a fund to reimburse 35,000 customers who were harmed. The court order also bans the company from setting employee sales goals incentivizing fraudulently opening accounts.

Shahan pointed out car dealers sometimes make verbal promises differing from the written contract or fail to even print out the financing paperwork. She wants people to know they cannot be required to buy insurance if they already have coverage.

"The best way to avoid all these scams is join a credit union, get your own financing, and deal with a reputable bank," Shahan recommended. "Don't let the dealer get financing for you."

In 2015, Fifth Third Bank was ordered to pay more than $21 million in fines for discriminatory auto loan pricing and for illegal credit card practices.

Fear, shame, and helplessness are feelings Minnesota fraud victims describe after losing their life savings to a scam.

They're hopeful about a path to financial recovery as state lawmakers finalize a new tool to lean on.

Under a bill poised for final passage, Minnesota would join a handful of other states in creating a Consumer Fraud Restitution Fund.

A percentage of money collected from civil penalties leveled against suspected fraudsters would be diverted into a state-managed account.

That money would be divvied up among people who've had trouble recovering money in their cases.

Dennis Anderson of Maplewood told lawmakers that was the situation for him.

"It can happen to anyone," said Anderson. "Scammers exploit emotions and fears, robbing us from our financial security."

Anderson lost $20,000 after getting a frantic call from someone posing as his grandson about a legal matter.

The legislation is now part of a large omnibus bill as lawmakers near the end of session.

The measure has bipartisan support, although some Republicans want more transparency in how the money is handled. Sponsors say the plan has enough guardrails.

State Senator Ann Rest, DFL-New Hope, is the bill's main sponsor.

She said those guardrails include caps on how much money can go into the restitution fund, before the rest is moved into the general fund.

She noted that they also added language that a victim who receives restitution won't have to list it on their tax return. Rest said it's one way to make them feel better moving on from what happened.

"People lose their dignity over it," said Rest. "Sometimes they have risked a lot of their retirement income. They feel embarrassed, and by having a restitution account, it allows some restoration of that dignity."

AARP Minnesota worked closely with lawmakers on this plan.

It highlights data from the first three quarters of 2024, when the Federal Trade Commission received more than 22,000 fraud reports from Minnesotans, with losses totaling nearly $103 million.

For now, Minnesota officials say panic has eased over federal funding for a program helping low-income households with their energy bills but there is still concern about long-term budget moves.

The state said last Thursday, it received its last remaining share of Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program grants for the current fiscal year, which means Minnesotans still needing help catching up on heating costs from this past winter will not be left behind. States were kept waiting on funds after the Trump administration laid off the entire staff in charge of sending the money out.

Lissa Pawlisch, assistant commissioner of federal and state initiatives for the Minnesota Department of Commerce, said they are relieved, noting the long-standing program is a lifesaver.

"This is something that helps support your neighbor, your grandmother," Pawlisch pointed out. "It is what is needed to make sure that every Minnesotan has a warm and safe environment for their children, for elderly, for folks with disabilities."

The state had warned it was dangerously close to exhausting funds. For the next federal fiscal year, President Donald Trump has proposed eliminating LIHEAP. However, Congress will have a say on the program's future, as it enjoys bipartisan support. The White House said state utility disconnection laws make LIHEAP unnecessary but advocates countered such protections are temporary and energy bills still need to be paid.

The Trump administration pointed to a 15-year-old Government Accountability Office report on LIHEAP which identified potential cases of fraud. However, state directors said reforms have helped strengthen the program's integrity. Pawlisch added the federal aid gets sent to utilities on behalf of customers in need, preventing people from exploiting the service.

"We don't want to see any waste, fraud or abuse in these programs," Pawlisch emphasized. "We want to make sure that those dollars are helping the people who really need them."

The department said so far this year, Minnesota's Energy Assistance program has helped more than 116,000 households. Demand is higher in rural counties, especially in the northern half of the state.

Officials said aid does not just go toward energy bills. Participants can also tap into it for filling up propane tanks or to cover emergency repairs for furnaces.


get more stories like this via email

Congress has overturned legislation which would have limited bank overdraft fees before the measure could go into effect.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau said Texans have filed almost 3,000 complaints about overdraft fees. The rule would have capped fees at $5 or limited them to cover costs and losses.

Ann Baddour, director of the Fair Financial Services Project for the advocacy group Texas Appleseed, said the $35 to $40 fee can negatively affect someone who might already be struggling financially.

"To have these mounting charges for often relatively small amounts of money that people are over drafting, it can be a real burden, particularly on families who are struggling or people living paycheck to paycheck. "

She pointed out low-income people are hurt most by bank fees. The overdraft rule was set to go into effect Oct. 1.

The bureau said the nation's biggest banks take in roughly $8 billion in charges and fees every year. Complaints from Texans increased by more than 130% from 2023 to 2024.

Kimberly Fountain, field manager at Americans for Financial Reform, said the rule would have saved Americans $5 billion annually.

"Most debit card overdrafts are less than $26, far below the typical fee and are repaid within three days resulting in the equivalent of a 16,000 percentage rate loan," Fountain emphasized. "Often for transactions consumers would rather have been denied. "

Republicans argued the rule would have forced banks to stop offering overdraft protection altogether making it harder for Americans to access credit. Baddour and Franklin added people in support of overdraft fee reform can still contact lawmakers.