Follow POL on Twitter Earlier this month, the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection and the Department of Justice brought an $80 million discriminatory lending action against Ally Financial. Ally, a major recipient of TARP bailout money, allegedly charged different rates based on the race or national origin of borrowers. The loans at issue do not include information about the race or national origin of the borrowers, but "the CFPB and the DOJ assigned race and national origin probabilities to the applicants" based on a geography-based and name-based methodology. In other words, the government's discriminatory lending action is rooted in its assumptions about whether or not borrowers were minorities. Illegal discrimination in lending is just as unacceptable as it is in other contexts, but punishing lenders based on government guesses about whether discrimination occurred is not the solution.
CFPB and Disparate Impact
Related Entries:
- Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection as State AG
- CEI, Cato, and PLF weigh in on Mount Holly
- Unaccountable CFPB Avoids Court Scrutiny
- von Spakovsky defends arbitration
- King Richard
- The Undirected CFPB
- New blog: Executive Branch Review
- The CFPB's Misleading Complaint Database
- "Worst FDNY class in the department's history"
- Senator Warren's Inconsistent Approach to Regulatory Accountability
- Today's NLRB Decision Casts a Shadow over the CFPB
- Where are the lawsuits on behalf of Asian-Americans?
- Hans Bader on disparate impact liability
- Does Fisher matter?
 |
| Isaac Gorodetski Project Manager, Center for Legal Policy at the Manhattan Institute igorodetski@manhattan-institute.org |
 |
| Katherine Lazarski Press Officer, Manhattan Institute klazarski@manhattan-institute.org |
Leave a comment
Once submitted, the comment will first be reviewed by our editors and is not guaranteed to be published. Point of Law editors reserve the right to edit, delete, move, or mark as spam any and all comments. They also have the right to block access to any one or group from commenting or from the entire blog. A comment which does not add to the conversation, runs of on an inappropriate tangent, or kills the conversation may be edited, moved, or deleted.
The views and opinions of those providing comments are those of the author of the comment alone, and even if allowed onto the site do not reflect the opinions of Point of Law bloggers or the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research or any employee thereof. Comments submitted to Point of Law are the sole responsibility of their authors, and the author will take full responsibility for the comment, including any asserted liability for defamation or any other cause of action, and neither the Manhattan Institute nor its insurance carriers will assume responsibility for the comment merely because the Institute has provided the forum for its posting.