logo
Warren prods DOJ to sue to block Capital One-Discover deal

Warren prods DOJ to sue to block Capital One-Discover deal

Yahoo14-05-2025

This story was originally published on Banking Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily Banking Dive newsletter.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-MA, urged the Justice Department to sue to block Capital One's pending acquisition of Discover, according to a letter she wrote Tuesday to the agency's antitrust leader, Gail Slater.
Warren cited an address Slater gave in late April warning of the risks that consolidation could again – after the 2007-08 financial crisis – create institutions that are 'too big to fail.'
'This transaction will reveal whether you back your words with action,' Warren wrote Tuesday.
The DOJ has 30 days to sue after banking regulators approve a merger application, Warren noted. The Federal Reserve and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency gave a green light April 18 to Capital One's $35.3 billion proposed transaction. Warren wrote the Fed on May 1, urging the central bank to reconsider.
'Absent a rescission of the Fed's approval order, the responsibility to prevent this dangerous transaction now falls to the DOJ,' Warren wrote Tuesday.
Slater, however, determined there wasn't sufficient evidence to challenge the Capital One deal in court, publications reported last month, citing people familiar with the decision.
Nonetheless, Warren pressed that the DOJ 'does not need to have previously filed an adverse comment with regulators' about a deal to attempt to block it. The senator Tuesday expressed disappointment that the DOJ had not filed such a comment – 'despite reportedly finding competitive concerns with the deal.'
Warren urged Slater to lean on the Clayton Act – and the DOJ's own updated merger guidelines – to block the Capital One deal, citing that a merger may violate antitrust law if it 'significantly increases consolidation in a highly concentrated market' or 'eliminates substantial competition between firms.'
Warren noted that during its initial evaluation of the Capital One-Discover merger last year, DOJ reportedly 'told regulators that it was concerned, in part, about the deal's impact on potential credit card users who had no credit' and that agency representatives showed concern that the transaction 'would harm competition in the subprime sector.'
Warren asserted, in particular, that Discover 'offers interest rates two percentage points lower than Capital One' to borrowers with nonprime credit scores – but that that offer would likely go away once the firms combine.
'Less competition among those with lower credit scores could mean Capital One can raise credit card rates for vulnerable families with limited alternative options, which could be the difference between getting by month-to-month and entering a financial downward spiral,' Warren wrote Tuesday.
Warren repeated concerns that, by acquiring Discover, Capital One would carry more than 30% of the nonprime credit score market, driving the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index – a legacy measure of market consolidation – up by roughly 400 points. For new-to-credit customers, she added, the Fed's analysis found 'the post-merger HHI would increase by 766 points to 1971.'
The DOJ last year withdrew guidelines that leaned heavily on HHI on the idea that the gauge is outdated. But even using it, a transaction that boosts HHI by 200 points or scores above 1,800 generally has been flagged as anticompetitive.
'A merger that creates a firm with a market share over 30 percent and increases HHI by more than 100 points is presumptively illegal under antitrust law,' Warren reiterated Tuesday.
Warren added that DOJ 'has previously been skeptical of deals 'that would enable firms to avoid a regulatory constraint because that constraint was applicable to only one of the merging firms.''
Capital One has said it aims to convert its debit portfolio to Discover networks, Warren asserted.
'The reason is clear: Discover is not only a card issuer but also a card network, which means it is not subject to the limit on debit card interchange fees imposed by the Durbin Amendment to the Dodd-Frank Act,' Warren said.
While Capital One, before the merger, wouldn't be able to charge merchants more, Discover can, she said.
'And in case there was any doubt about whether Capital One plans to raise swipe fees, the company told its investors that converting its debit and some credit products to Discover networks would be worth an estimated $1.2 billion,' Warren wrote Tuesday.
By moving some of its credit card volume to Discover's network – but not all of it – Capital One would retain the leverage to negotiate interchange fees as a credit card issuer with Discover's largest competitors.
Warren labeled that 'a recipe for coordination' among Discover, Visa and Mastercard.
'The solution to an anticompetitive market is not to anoint a new giant, but to fight to level the entire playing field, like the DOJ is doing with its lawsuit against Visa for monopolization,' Warren wrote Tuesday.
Warren argued, too, that a Capital One-Discover combination would put a damper on existing innovation.
She noted that in the February 2024 call announcing the deal, Capital One CEO Richard Fairbank admitted that his bank's Quicksilver card was a direct response to Discover's It card.
'As Capital One absorbs a major competitor, fewer players in this market could … diminish incentives for remaining firms to offer more generous rewards,' Warren warned.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Two Men Indicted in Plot to Smuggle US Military Technology to China
Two Men Indicted in Plot to Smuggle US Military Technology to China

Newsweek

time3 hours ago

  • Newsweek

Two Men Indicted in Plot to Smuggle US Military Technology to China

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Two foreign nationals, including one with lawful permanent residency in the United States, have been indicted by a Wisconsin grand jury for attempting to smuggle U.S. military technology to China, including encrypted communications gear. Newsweek has reached out to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for comment via email on Saturday. Why It Matters The indictments raise serious allegations of foreign espionage, efforts to suppress free speech, and threats to national security. The U.S. and China have a tense diplomatic relationship, amplified by ongoing disputes over trade, technology, and military activity near Taiwan. Beijing's defense minister was notably absent from the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore over the weekend. The U.S. has the most powerful military in the world, backed by the largest defense budget and advanced technology. China, however, has the largest military by personnel, with an estimated 2.2 million active-duty members. What to Know Court documents reviewed by Newsweek allege that since 2023, John Miller, 63, and Cui Guanghai, 43, "knowingly conspired to stalk, harass, and intimidate a resident of the Central District of California who had publicly criticized PRC President Xi Jinping and the PRC government." Two separate grand juries, one in Wisconsin and one in California, indicted Miller and Guanghai over the matter. In Wisconsin, the grand jury alleges that the men conspired to "illicitly obtain and to export various defense articles from the United States to the People's Republic of China without the requisite licenses from the Department of State," as well as "smuggle defense articles" from the U.S. to China. The indictment states they solicited the procurement of "ReAlly Simply Key Loader (RASKL) KIK-30 Type 1 cryptographic device with Crypto Ignition Keys, missiles, air defense radar, and Black Hornet drones." It also notes that Miller sent a list of items to secure—including surface-to-air and anti-aircraft missiles and Predator drones—to an individual affiliated with the FBI. The DOJ press release states the Miller and Guanghai discussed the possibility of concealing and exporting the items in a blender and other small electronics. The California indictment focused more on the two men's attempts to prevent an individual from protesting Xi at the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in November 2023. The indictment alleges they devised an interstate scheme to surveil and track the individual, as well as paying around $36,500 to encourage two other people, both working with the FBI, to convince the dissenter to not publicly reveal "two new artistic statues of President Xi and his wife." The seal of Department of Justice U.S. Attorney's Office is seen during a news conference in Washington, D.C., on May 22. The seal of Department of Justice U.S. Attorney's Office is seen during a news conference in Washington, D.C., on May 22. AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana What People Are Saying Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said in the DOJ's press release: "This is a blatant assault on both our national security and our democratic values. This Justice Department will not tolerate foreign repression on U.S. soil, nor will we allow hostile nations to infiltrate or exploit our defense systems. We will act decisively to expose and dismantle these threats wherever they emerge." FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino said in the DOJ press release: "The defendants allegedly plotted to harass and interfere with an individual who criticized the actions of the People's Republic of China while exercising their constitutionally protected free speech rights within the United States of America. The same individuals also are charged with trying to obtain and export sensitive U.S. military technology to China. I want to commend the good work of the FBI and our partners in the U.S and overseas in putting a stop to these illegal activities." What Happens Next? If convicted, the two men face up to five years in prison for conspiracy, five years for interstate stalking, 20 years for violating the Arms Export Control Act, and 10 years for smuggling. The DOJ's press release states that the U.S. is coordinating with Serbian officials to extradite Miller and Guanghai from Serbia.

Opinion: The Secret Smoking Gun in Trump's ‘Big Beautiful' Budget
Opinion: The Secret Smoking Gun in Trump's ‘Big Beautiful' Budget

Yahoo

time6 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Opinion: The Secret Smoking Gun in Trump's ‘Big Beautiful' Budget

Among the multitude of horrors tucked into Trump's 'big beautiful bill' is a measure that lifts a $200 tax on gun silencers, while ending background checks and registration requirements for their purchase. If enacted, the impact of the SHUSH (Silencers Help Us Save Hearing) Act is more sociological than financial—the government might as well hand them out like candy. After all, RFK Jr.'s HHS has an eye on banning real candy soon enough. This follows on the heels of Trump's DOJ reaching a settlement with Rare Breed Triggers, a Texas-based company, to overturn a Biden-era ban on 'forced reset triggers' (FRTs) that turn semiautomatic weapons into rapid-fire machine guns. Unlike President Reagan, whose views on guns evolved after he was the victim of an assassin's bullet—he later supported the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act—Donald Trump's brush with death has seemingly spurred him to make it easier and cheaper for the bad guys to operate. 'Anything that makes guns more lethal or easier to conceal, either visually or audibly, helps criminals,' said Jim Kessler, Executive Vice President for Policy at Third Way, a progressive group founded in 2000 as Americans for Gun Safety to reframe the gun issue around reform. The $200 tax stamp on gun suppressors has been in place since the National Firearms Act of 1934. Ninety years ago, that was a decent chunk of change, and one that served to keep potentially lethal devices in check. Now these accessories are commonplace and gun rights groups jockeying for influence in the marketplace have made easier and cheaper access a cause. Republicans in the House and Senate this year introduced the Hearing Protection Act, arguing it would reduce 'overly burdensome' barriers for law-abiding citizens simply trying to obtain auditory protection they need when firing away at the gun range, on the deer hunt or during the getaway chase after a bank robbery. Wait, not the last one. If it were that innocent, if it were solely for people shooting target practice for recreation, the SHUSH Act would likely get some Democratic votes. But nobody believes that's what this is about. As a stand-alone bill, it could not get 60 votes in the Senate to avoid a filibuster—critics argue the legislation makes it too easy for people with malign intent to carry out gun crimes and even mass shootings without alerting others to the danger. And that's why now it's tucked into a massive piece of legislation that requires only a simple majority, where it can get a free ride. 'I don't think I've ever seen a weaker argument in my life—so that people with hearing issues could still fire weapons,' Gil Kerlikowske, a former commissioner of border control and protection under President Obama, told the Daily Beast. 'That's just not believable.' Kerlikowske is today on the board of the Giffords Center, the gun safety group founded by former Rep. Gabby Giffords after she was shot in the head at an outdoor rally in 2013. Of the measure, he added, 'The thing that troubles me the most is that it puts law enforcement in the crosshairs.' A more apt description than Hearing Protection Act would be Criminal Protection Act because silencers give them cover to evade detection. Law enforcement officers will be much more easily outmatched. 'And this is a president and group of Republicans who say they support law enforcement,' Kerlikowske said. (Police unions are so intertwined with the Trump administration and with the gun lobby, however, that they are largely silent in their acquiescence to such dangerous legislation.) Gun murders declined historically across the U.S. in 2023 and 2024. 2025 could have the lowest murder rate ever recorded. The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act of 2022 was the most significant piece of gun violence legislation in 30 years. It closed loopholes in federal law to increase the number of background checks, enhanced checks for buyers under 21, and allocated billions of dollars for mental-health support in schools. Now these gains are at risk. 'Trump has cut those grants… we're expecting schools to lay off social workers and school counselors by the end of the year,' said Nick Wilson, senior director of Gun Violence Prevention at liberal think-tank The Center for American Progress (CAP). Rare Breed Triggers sold at least 103,000 forced reset triggers—a product favored by mass shooters—in two years before Biden's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms ruled them illegal in 2022. The company challenged the ban in court; following the settlement reached with Trump's DOJ, it's now back to business as usual. The Trump administration has even established a process for owners to retrieve any seized devices, which cost a few hundred bucks each. 'Second Amendment absolutists have been gaining ground for the last 10 years,' Kessler added. 'It's happening particularly (at) the state level, with a proliferation of laws to make it easier to discharge a firearm if someone feels threatened.' Open carry, concealed carry and stand your ground laws are in place in 25 to 30 mostly red states, where people believe that more guns mean less crime and a safer society. Statistics don't back such claims up, but for gun safety advocates, it's even harder to change perceptions than to change reality. In this broader context, the gun silencer giveaway is just another dangerous piece in an already deadly puzzle. There are other things in the budget reconciliation bill that will have a greater, systemic influence on gun violence, explained CAP's Nick Wilson: People losing employment, losing their insurance, losing their food assistance and feeling angry and disaffected more broadly. 'When people lose their jobs and they're hungry, we know what happens,' he cautioned, leaving the rest to imagine. But you don't want to 'just' imagine—a better approach would be to prepare for the likely negative impacts ahead.

The Lone Star State — and Trump — versus BlackRock
The Lone Star State — and Trump — versus BlackRock

Yahoo

time9 hours ago

  • Yahoo

The Lone Star State — and Trump — versus BlackRock

The Trump administration has waded into a politically charged Texas-led legal fight to dilute US financial giants' alleged influence over corporate America. Last week, the US Justice Department and the US Federal Trade Commission filed a joint "statement of interest" siding with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and 10 other Republican-led states in an antitrust case against trillion-dollar asset managers BlackRock (BLK) and its rivals State Street (STT) and Vanguard. The charge: Using their substantial stock holdings, BlackRock and its rival financial firms coordinated a "left-wing ideological" attack on US coal companies, pressuring coal producers Arch Coal, Black Hills, and Peabody to cut coal production in the South Powder River Basin and thermal coal markets, the DOJ and FTC said in the court filing. The decreased output, they said, harmed US consumers by artificially inflating energy prices. "Carbon reduction is no more a defense to the conduct alleged here than it would be to price fixing among airlines that reduced the number of carbon-emitting flights," the DOJ and FTC said in the statement supporting the states' claims. The states allege that the financial firms agreed to reduce output through commitments to carbon-reduction organizations Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative and Climate Action 100+. They also say disclosures from the defendants and public statements show that they engaged directly with coal company executives in efforts to influence production levels, and they used their voting power when engagement fell short of meeting those goals. As large yet minority shareholders, the complaint claims, the defendants have more influence than their formal equity share. The actions extend beyond shareholder advocacy and passive investing by furthering their own "green energy" or net-zero goals, rather than the goals of the coal corporations, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and Section 7 of the Clayton Act, the challengers claim. The agencies' effort to have the administration's perspective considered in the case, despite not being a party to the dispute, has drawn criticism from the defendants and others. On Wednesday, Campaign for Accountability (CfA), a nonpartisan nonprofit watchdog organization, accused the administration of targeting the money managers for political rather than law enforcement reasons. The group filed a Freedom of Information Act Request asking the agencies to disclose communications underlying their decision to weigh in on the case. CfA was co-founded in 2015 by Anne Weismann, former head counsel for the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "This case isn't about antitrust law, but about conservative opposition to even recognizing the risks of climate change," CfA executive director Michelle Kuppersmith said. "Americans deserve to know who is influencing the FTC to use its antitrust authority to attack political opponents." Meanwhile, Derek Mountford, an antitrust partner at Gunster, said the lawsuit's rhetoric also signals political motivation. But, he added, it could ultimately answer an unsettled antitrust question over how competition law applies to the actions of asset managers with significant ownership interests in competing companies. Should asset managers and index fund providers, for example, be treated differently under the law than individuals and businesses that offer products and services and control multiple firms within a singular market? "If one individual owns a significant interest in three competing companies, alarm bells start going off in your head that there could be some anticompetitive conduct going on," Mountford said. Although the BlackRock scenario isn't as cut and dried, he said, concerns have been bubbling about the competitive role that institutional shareholders are allowed to play, compared to companies and suppliers that can more directly influence market competition. "This case is going to represent a much clearer answer to that question than I think we've gotten in any other case of its kind," Mountford said. BlackRock asked for a judge to dismiss the case and accused the administration of trying to "re-write" antitrust law under an "absurd" theory that the coal companies conspired with them to reduce production outputs. "Forcing asset managers to divest from coal companies will harm their ability to access capital and invest in their businesses and employees, likely leading to higher energy prices," the company said in a statement. BlackRock CEO Larry Fink made a series of disengagements from the company's environmental, social, and governance (ESG) initiatives as bipartisan concerns spread over the financial giant's power to sway US markets. Fink publicly stated in June 2023 that he would cease using the politically sensitive acronym "ESG" because it had been "weaponized" by both the ideological right and the left. In January, before President Trump took office, the financial giant cut ties with UN-backed Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative (NZAM), an environmental advocacy group that pledged net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. The administration's legal filing came roughly six months after a GOP-controlled House Judiciary Committee issued a report accusing the three money managers of using their financial clout to force US coal companies to "decarbonize" and reach net zero. According to the report, the money managers forced coal companies to disclose and reduce carbon emissions through negotiations, stockholder proxy resolutions, and the replacement of directors at "recalcitrant companies." Democrats have also criticized the financial firms' outsized influence over US markets, but for different reasons. Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.), a vocal critic of the megamanagers' influence, described the group's stock ownership in 95% of S&P 500 (^GSPC) companies an "oligarchy." Sanders, along with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) also criticized BlackRock for declining to use its weight to intervene in a coal mining labor dispute. Gunster's Mountford said the federal government's decision to weigh in on a state AG-initiated case is unusual but becoming increasingly more prevalent. "It's not something that courts have had to wrestle with, where you have the DOJ weighing in on these types of cases," he said. "It's a pretty new phenomenon, and it's one that Trump sort of pioneered ... and continued during the Biden administration." "I think," he added, "it's here to stay." Alexis Keenan is a legal reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow Alexis on X @alexiskweed.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store