October 11, 2016
Financial Product Legalese – it’s on You
agreement and to a Phoenix healthcare company that offers discounts to low-income customers – but first, they must decipher the confusing chart that explains who qualifies.
The person who nominated the healthcare company for an award said its discount information “seems like a classic case of the 0.2% who understand this chart will receive 85% of the Medical Financial Assistance, but they are clearly 400% above the average American who just got out of the hospital and has 0% of a clue as to what they’re talking about.” [Oddly, this chart seems to indicate that customers with higher incomes get larger discounts.]
In 2010, the Center for Plain Language started by awarding Clearmark Awards to government agencies, businesses and non-profits that successfully conveyed complex information to consumers – the CFPB and financial companies like Aetna and Sun Life have been winners.
More recently, said Susan Kleimann, chair of the Center for Plain Language, it has been fairly easy to give out bad writing awards to the financial industry. The large text and bold language in ads that tout cash-back credit cards or new-customer discounts are in stark contrast to the legal fine print in the same ads that serve advertisers in a different way, said Kleimann. “The information tends to be written from the perspective of protecting the company as opposed to communicating clearly with the customer,” she said.
(Full disclosure: Kleimann owns a company that helps governments and companies simplify their documents. But she does not vote on the Center for Plain Language awards, which are submitted by fans and voted on by the center’s all-volunteer judges.)
In the worst cases, obscure financial language is very harmful to consumers.
One example was unclear wording in subprime mortgage documents about the increase in homeowner’s monthly payments that would occur at the two-year mark. In May, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) argued that arbitration clauses buried in credit card agreements, which bar card holders from disputing card charges in court, allow banks to “sidestep the legal system, avoid accountability, and continue to pursue profitable practices that may violate the law and harm countless consumers.”
The score so far: lawyers – 1; consumers – 0.