Ethics At Wells Fargo

[eltf177]

I wonder how much of that drop is due to fake accounts not being opened?

That exact question was also brought up in the article, and no one's sure.

Still, this doesn't bode well for Wells Fargo...

[Ironclad Alibi]

Looks like they've been doing it for a long time. Check this out.

[wolfie]

But it's not customers staying away in droves - it's those lazy peons not trying hard enough to get customers to buy additional services.

(Mis)managers always have the same attitudes.

[eltf177]

I have to wonder if management has really changed or is just going through the motions.

Unfortunately I strongly suspect the latter...

[eltf177]

And it's not over by a long shot:

https://consumerist.com/2016/12/01/p...ail-free-card/

"Wells Fargo has admitted that millions of its customers were victimized by bank employees who opened unauthorized accounts in these customers’ names, but those fake account fiasco victims can’t file lawsuits against the bank because of clauses buried in their account contracts. A newly introduced piece of legislation would prevent Wells Fargo from using that clause to minimize its responsibility under the law."

The bill throws out the enforced arbitration clause customers were forced to sign, making it easier to create a class-action suit that could cost Wells Fargo big time.

However, the bill faces an uphill fight and may not pass...

[Ironclad Alibi]

How can Wells Fargo enforce the arbitration clause in regard to fake accounts when the person never signed the account agreement to open the fake account?

If it is a fake account, the account agreement specifying arbitration was never signed, and is therefore not binding.

[CyberLurch]

"The first thing we do, is kill all the lawyers."

[lordlundar]

Umm, I can't even see how that bill is necessary. Standing law voids those contracts from the start in a multitude of ways. Even ignoring the fact that the fake accounts were not agreed on, there's still the fact the agreement permits illegal activity and is a grossly unfair agreement toward the client, both cases automatically void the agreement even if it WAS signed by the client. That doesn't even begin to go into the anti-fine print laws that protect against it. And oh wait, did a representative of Wells Fargo openly confess on behalf of his company to engaging in criminal activity that induces financial harm to it's clients? There's something that can be brought up in court. It's Hollywood law that says a signed contract is iron-clad-legally-binding-no-escape-period. All this takes is someone actually filing the lawsuit to prove just how bullshit it really is.

[Javarod]

How can Wells Fargo enforce the arbitration clause in regard to fake accounts when the person never signed the account agreement to open the fake account?

If it is a fake account, the account agreement specifying arbitration was never signed, and is therefore not binding.

The impression i got from the article I read is that they're trying to apply the contract terms from your valid accounts to any and all lawsuits you might file against the bank.

[lordlundar]

But as I said it's not a Carte Blanche protection. The moment Wells Fargo staff engaged in illegal activity the protections are voided. The new bill is not needed.

[Javarod]

But as I said it's not a Carte Blanche protection. The moment Wells Fargo staff engaged in illegal activity the protections are voided. The new bill is not needed.

I'm not so sure, and I'd love to hear a lawyer's opinion. If it were criminal charges against them, then the contract definitely wouldn't apply, but,all the contract says that all legal matters/lawsuits will be done via arbitrator without listing any restrictions, so its certainly not ridiculous to argue that it does apply. Ridiculous, yes, and unbelievable, but very expensive people wrote that contract to insure that Wells would win every time no matter what.

[eltf177]

I'm thinking like Javarod - on the surface the bill seems pointless. But you know Wells Fargo will try and hide behind their arbitration clause even though there were severe illegalities going on.

The bill will ensure there will be NO arbitration, making sure all customers can sue if they wish including class action suits and they don't have to endure Wells Fargo stalling behind the arbitration clause...

[Javarod]

And I just read that the CEO of Wells Fargo is complaining about new rules designed to protect tax payers from bailing out failing banks.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-we...0TK5I020151201

[flybye023]

Ummm, that article's over a year old. Tim Sloan is the CEO now.

[eltf177]

True, but maybe Stumpf knew there would be a need for another bailout?

https://consumerist.com/2016/12/07/w...fake-accounts/

Wells Fargo is hiding behind the arbitration clause despite Stumpf's promises he wouldn't...

Now we see why the "no arbitration" law is needed, Wells Fargo is not taking responsibility for their actions but hiding behind what should be an unenforceable rule...