Treat politically motivated refusals to deal (debanking) as potential unfair trade practices
Mandate argues publicly traded, highly regulated, privileged, market-powerful firms that refuse lawful customers over political/social views (fossil fuels, guns) can commit unfair trade practices when advancing political agendas unrelated to branding.
Mandate
Mandate Ch. 30 (FTC) — Cancel Culture, Collusion, and Commerce: when banks or internet platforms refuse customers based on political or social views, forgoing profits, this can rise to an unfair trade practice when the business is (1) publicly traded; (2) highly regulated; (3) enjoys legal privileges; (4) enjoys market power; and (5) appears to engage in its own political or social agenda unrelated to branding; businesses should not replace democratic decision-making with their own judgment on controversial matters.
Undo plan
1) Preserve firms’ rights to set risk-based and brand-based customer policies within fair-lending and public-accommodation law.
2) Rescind unfair-practice theories that compel service to controversial clients absent monopoly essential-facility findings.
3) Address true government jawboning of platforms/banks via First Amendment and APA remedies.
4) Separate banking safety-and-soundness risk from political viewpoint discrimination claims.
5) Verify: UDAAP complaints alleging political debanking; dismissal rates lacking market-power proof.