From supply shortages at the start of the pandemic to recent inflation spikes, consumer prices have sometimes been linked to claims of price gouging.
In Minnesota, a state lawmaker feels authorities should be able to respond to these cases when there is a public emergency. A bill in the Legislature would give the state attorney general the authority to investigate retailers charging "unconscionably excessive prices" for essential goods or services during an emergency.
Rep. Zack Stephenson, DFL-Coon Rapids, the bill's sponsor, said recent weather-related disasters in states like Texas and Florida saw too many people being taken advantage of.
"It's morally wrong to see people trying to profit to an absurd extent off of the pain and misery of other human beings," Stephenson asserted.
He argued the bill would protect Minnesotans when the next brutal winter storm hits and an emergency is declared. Economists have long debated the effectiveness of price-gouging laws, and whether some of the language is too vague. But Stephenson countered his plan is very specific. An "excessive" price would be defined as at least 25% higher than the average set by retailers just before the emergency.
Stephenson noted his plan has safeguards for business owners, too. While it would not address some of the recent price-gouging claims during higher inflation, he emphasized it is worth looking into for nonemergency situations.
"In the energy sector, for example you know, we have the Public Utilities Commission," Stephenson pointed out. "But perhaps there's a space to give them more power and the attorney general more power to prevent price gouging in the energy world."
In recent sessions, Stephenson has also floated a separate plan to deal with excessive prices for prescription drugs. Nearly 40 states have laws on the books addressing price gouging in various ways. If approved, Stephenson's plan for emergencies would be the first such law for Minnesota.
get more stories like this via email
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has proposed new regulations on credit card late fees, which could save Americans billions of dollars.
The bureau reported late fees cost cardholders about $12 billion a year. Congress attempted to ban excessive late fees in 2009, but the Federal Reserve still allowed companies to charge late fees up to $41. The new proposal would lower it to $8 and end an automatic yearly inflation adjustment for the fee amount.
Overall, the regulation would cap late fees at 25% of the minimum payment.
Daniel Rathfelder, vice president for card services for Coastal Federal Credit Union, said the new rules would help cardholders.
"I think overall, consumers are going to see some big pieces shift in their favor, if that gets adopted," Rathfelder observed.
Late fees are intended to cover collection costs, and some card issuers increase the fees with each additional missed payment. Under the proposal, companies would still be able to charge higher fees, if they can prove their collection costs are higher. The bureau estimated the new rule would save people as much as $9 billion a year. The agency is taking public comments until April 3.
The bureau also wants public comments on the possibility of a 15-day grace period beyond the due date before late fees can be assessed. Rathfelder noted in its public comment on the rule change, his credit union endorsed the idea.
"We pushed a little bit harder and said if consumers had a grace period, and the companies who could do automation around messaging and notification, getting people after the first day that it's due a notice saying, 'Hey, you missed this, but you have nine more days,' that would probably resolve a lot of the scenarios," Rathfelder explained.
Rathfelder added some enclaves of the financial services industry have already adopted grace periods, including for auto loans and mortgages.
Disclosure: Coastal Credit Union contributes to our fund for reporting on Budget Policy and Priorities, Civic Engagement, Community Issues and Volunteering, and Consumer Issues. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
New research shows Nevada's small-business owners say hospital consolidation in the state is exacerbating high health-care costs and want action to be taken.
More than one thousand business owners participated in Small Business for America's Future's most recent survey, and 94% of them reported hospital consolidation has made the overall availability and quality of health care in their communities worse.
Co-chair of the group Shaundell Newsome said they want to see more "fairness and equity" when it comes to accessible health care.
"When it goes from bad to worse, that is very tough on our small businesses," said Newsome. "And nearly half of the small-business owners say that hospital consolidation leads to a lack of competition, and makes hospital services more expensive for our employees."
According to the report, almost half of small-business owners say the lack of competition has made hospital services more expensive, while eating away at employees' pay.
Newsome - a small business owner himself - said he would love to be able to provide better health-care options to his employees, which he says cultivates a better workforce.
Newsome said Nevada is in need of more diverse providers, but not through consolidation.
He added that Nevada's recent progress in expanding access to health care is under threat - and said rather than reversing the progress that has been made, small business owners would like to see policy and lawmakers "double down" on making health care more affordable.
Newsome said this report reaffirms that sentiment.
"The rising cost of health care," said Newsome, "just basically limits an entrepreneur's ability to invest in the growth and the financial health of our businesses."
A majority of those surveyed in Nevada say it's time for the federal and state governments to intervene in the consolidation of health systems.
get more stories like this via email
Dollar-store chains are rapidly growing across the country, with more locations than McDonald's, Starbucks, Target and Walmart combined, according to a new report, which claims their rapid growth is due in part to targeting low-income communities.
The report from the Institute for Local Self-Reliance claimed Dollar General and Dollar Tree -- which owns Family Dollar -- choose disenfranchised areas, and Black and Latino neighborhoods in or near urban centers, to set up shop.
Aaron Weber, a concerned citizen in Micanopy, said he fought a dollar store entering his community, based on what he argued are plaguing America with increased risks of obesity, diabetes and cancer.
"They are a public health disaster from what they sell," Weber stressed. "I'd rather have a liquor store in my community than a dollar store, because liquor stores only sell alcohol, and dollar stores sell alcohol plus a lot of processed foods, a lot of stuff that's high in sugar, cigarettes too."
The chains have become a go-to grocery destination for cash-strapped shoppers, though Dollar Tree recently announced it will no longer sell eggs because the cost skyrocketed during the fall. In a statement, the Dollar General Corporation said the Institute "is not a reliable source for information regarding Dollar General, or our efforts to meet the value and convenience needs of millions of Americans for nearly 85 years."
Kennedy Smith, senior researcher at the Institute, said its investigation indicates the stores are a threat to existing businesses, especially food stores.
"And the concern there is that, by edging out stores that provide good, healthy food options for communities, they are actually creating food deserts, or exacerbating food deserts that may already exist," Smith explained.
Dollar General said it offers fresh produce in more than 3,000 stores, with plans to do so in about 2,000 more this year. The company added its stores are often in locations other retailers have chosen not to serve.
Smith, however, describes tactics used to drive local grocers and retailers out of business. The report said since 2019, people in 75 cities and towns have organized to block new locations being built.
get more stories like this via email