3 ms·

Competent (non-software) professionals would read the initiation as the intent, also see comment 4 there, suggesting the mindset of the regulator. As a reminder

Competent (non-software) professionals would read the initiation as the intent, also see comment 4 there, suggesting the mindset of the regulator. As a reminder, regulations are always subject to the interpereation of the regulator, which, as history shows in the case of regulation E, tends to side with the consumers. There's a deeper story here though: * Banks are given a monopoly to almost literally print money. We ceded control of a very important facet of daily lives to them. * The cost for that is tight regulation, meant to make sure they keep the trust invested in them. * In the case of Zelle, and some other new products, banks, rushing to market, try to ignore their side of the deal. * Suggesting we should give up and accept that is morally, regulatory, and legally wrong. * Regulators and policy makers seem to agree with the above.

ceejayoz 4y ago
The expandable "Official interpretation of 2(m) Unauthorized Electronic Fund Transfer" section makes it pretty clear what sort of things they consider to be covered under the regulation. If they thought it covered scams, it's highly likely they'd say so there. Elizabeth Warren's recent investigation brought this up as an issue, as well. I think regulation should cover the scam use case, but it's pretty clear to me it currently doesn't.
- snotrockets 4y ago
  Whenever people pushed the banks, they were made whole. The problem with any such issue is that it requires some knowledge and patience on how to get the bank to comply, and most people lack those (through no fault of their own: this isn't trivial).
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    > Whenever people pushed the banks, they were made whole. That's a good strategy to keep the heat off and avoid new regulation actually being made to cover the scenario, especially when it's a rare step taken by consumers. I tend to do the same if someone chargebacks us at work; it's not worth fighting, even if we're legally in the right.

ceejayoz 4y ago

The expandable "Official interpretation of 2(m) Unauthorized Electronic Fund Transfer" section makes it pretty clear what sort of things they consider to be covered under the regulation. If they thought it covered scams, it's highly likely they'd say so there. Elizabeth Warren's recent investigation brought this up as an issue, as well. I think regulation should cover the scam use case, but it's pretty clear to me it currently doesn't.

snotrockets 4y ago
Whenever people pushed the banks, they were made whole. The problem with any such issue is that it requires some knowledge and patience on how to get the bank to comply, and most people lack those (through no fault of their own: this isn't trivial).
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  > Whenever people pushed the banks, they were made whole. That's a good strategy to keep the heat off and avoid new regulation actually being made to cover the scenario, especially when it's a rare step taken by consumers. I tend to do the same if someone chargebacks us at work; it's not worth fighting, even if we're legally in the right.