I am seeking Citibank Credit Card holders who have had their credit reduced, shutoff, had a restriction put on one or more of their accounts or a combination of these in the time period from 2007 to present. This action taken by Citibank can not be at direct fault of your own as in a bankrupcy, default, failure to pay, etc. or other matter that would have created a negative mark on your credit bureau report. Basically, you were in good shape, had a good payment history and without warning they closed everything down or extremely limited credit. You must be in the USA. I have 3 people so far and to meet the requirement of numerosity of Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a), I need to hear from at least 37ish more people in the country that have experienced this unfair business practice. Less people still might allow me to get a judge to certify it, but I would prefer to have more to be safe.

I am not a lawyer, but I am preparing the claim to proceed in pro se and if there are enough simularly situated folks, then a lawyer is more likely to pick this up on contingency and carry it forward as a class.

Do NOT put any credit card numbers, account info or anything personal in your reply to me. Just tell me that you exist and a summary of what happened. In the discovery phase of the case, the court might ask so be prepared to get a response in some way so you can give your two cents.

Thank you for the post about me, and my site, ChangeInTerms.com. I know it’s very frustrating, and of course, that was my motivation for “letting it all hang out,” by telling my personal story. I do think that there are ways to fight back. Chase is playing games under the law, which essentially, does not exist with respect to any protections that may be afforded to consumers.

Nevertheless, what Chase is doing is flat-out wrong on any ethical basis whatsoever, and sooner or later, these despicable individuals who are behind Chase’s actions will have their day in the “court of public opinion.”

As a professor by virtue of my current employment, I found it very ironic that the Thunderbird School recently had Gordon Smith (CEO of Chase Card Services) deliver a lecture on leadership. As I said in my post concerning that appearance, lying before Congress (Chase Executives’ testimony argued that the company treated customers “fairly,” by providing opt outs) is certainly not an example of leadership.

These tyrants will fall, at the hands of consumers and an outraged public, before regulators (who have a very cozy relationship with banks) ever get around to protecting consumers. I admit, I am often tired, holding a “day job,” and fighting credit card company abuses at all other times. But, I am also inspired, and your understanding post gives me the energy to fight back.

The BIG issue in my opinion w/the Chase terms changes, is the fact that they offered NO opt-out. How can such a unilateral, change-it-to-whatever-they-want-to terms change be legal?

==== WHAT CHASE HAS DONE: ====

Essentially, they have told (from what I can gather), between 400,000 and 700,000 account holders (who generally have NOT MISSED A PAYMENT, and otherwise have GOOD CREDIT HISTORIES, *BUT* are carrying a less-profitable-than-Chase-would-like balance (i.e. < 5%)) than they (the account holders) have one of two options:

A) Multiply their minimum payment by 2.5x, and add a $10 out-of-nowhere new finance charge (which remains even when there is no balance).

OR

B) Keep their existing (already established, and I would think contractually binding) minimum payment, but DOUBLE THEIR ANNUAL PERCNETAGE RATE.

There is no opt-out offered, regardless of whether the account remains open or is closed (I have confirmed this); it’s A, or B.

As well, if the account holder takes offer “B” (essentially under duress / coercion, for many folks, due to cash flow constraints), Chase will make NO guarantees that they won’t just shaft you again in 60 days, or whenever they feel like it. (Also confirmed).

==== IF THAT IS LEGAL, WHAT *ANY* CREDIT CARD COMPANY *COULD* DO: =====

I’ve been a fine-print-reading credit card holder for 20+ years, and have NEVER before seen a unilaterl, no-opt-out-available (even if you close your account!) terms change. EVER.

If this IS legal (unilateral, no-opt-out terms changing), then:

1) What is to prevent the options above from being:

A) Minimum payment of 5x its current amount, and a new “finance charge” of $100/month.

OR

B) Quadruple the APR

From a legal perspective (in terms of what is allowable), I see no difference. What Chase is doing seems to be, at its essence, nothing more than this: Reneging on an existing, already-negotiated / agreed-upon / accepted / binding contract, and unilaterally changing it.

2) What can possibly be done by credit card holders (w/existing balances) to ensure that the terms of their cards remains as initially agree-upon?

As far as I can tell, the answer to the above two quesitons is simple: Nothing.

…and that isn’t just flat-out WRONG, it’s heinous. True, mafia-backed loan sharks are likely more ethical.

These folks need to be corporately body-checked, and quick. If not, the economic implications to the greater economy is just, well…. stunning. All the credit counseling in the world can’t help if this kind of one-sided, unethical power-grab becomes the norm.

P.S. See ChangeInTerms.com for more info on this specific situation. I have no affiliation w/the guy, but his story is transparent, and his experience base (College prof who testified before Congress) makes his point of view more credible than most, IMO.