Elizabeth Warren ramps up attacks on Apple Card over gender bias claims

Apple Card completely rethinks everything about the credit card. It represents all the things Apple stands for. Like simplicity, transparency, security, and privacy. You can buy things effortlessly, with just your iPhone. Or, if Apple Pay is not yet supported by the merchant, use the Apple‑designed titanium card anywhere in the world.
The physical Apple Card

Elizabeth Dexheimer for Bloomberg:

U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) (photo: SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images)
U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) (photo: SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images)
Democratic Senators Elizabeth Warren and Sherrod Brown want the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to examine allegations of bias against women who applied for an Apple Inc. credit card underwritten by Goldman Sachs Group Inc.

Warren, a top candidate for her party’s presidential nomination, and Brown, the ranking Democrat on the Banking Committee, wrote to Kathy Kraninger, director of the consumer agency, asking for more information about how the agency is monitoring Goldman’s lending practices.

“Public reports raise questions on whether there is a pattern of sex discrimination in the underwriting of the Apple Card, and underscore the importance of the CFPB adequately monitoring the lending practices of financial institutions, including those like Goldman Sachs, that are new to the consumer lending space,” Warren and Brown said in the letter, which was dated Nov. 25.

Warren has also been feuding with former Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein after targeting him in a campaign ad. Blankfein shot back saying “maybe tribalism is just in her DNA,” a mocking reference to the controversy over her claims of Native American heritage. Blankfein took another swipe at Warren in recent days, saying he has “buried the hatchet” with the senator.

MacDailyNews Take: We’d call it silliness, if it weren’t such a transparently obvious attempt to widen the gender gap and stoke class division.

You can’t wake a person who is pretending to be asleep. – Native American proverb

As we wrote earlier this month, this has nothing to do with gender and everything to with Goldman only issuing individual accounts (which, of course, allowed family members to be assigned significantly different credit lines):

This is a case of Apple Card accounts being individual and independently evaluated. It has nothing whatsoever to do with gender or martial status or whatever nefarious claptrap the Twitterati concoct in order to work themselves up into a spittle-spewing lather, as they are so wont to do while cloistered inside their twisted outrage machine.

23 Comments

    1. Most, most, politicians are liars, or bend their “ideology” for the sake of power. But not all. Don’t lump everyone in the same bucket or you will quickly become very cynical and give up on anything noble and good.

      The framers of the Constitution noted our country needed to be run by people of virtue and understanding Christian ethics (not that they need be Christians but have that moral framework) or the republic would not sustain itself.

      As we crumble, sadly, politicians are a reflection of society as a whole, and we are falling as a nation. Eventually, we will go bankrupt (morally already there) and that will the end of a wonderful 250 year experiment.

      What comes out of the ashes is almost never good for liberty and freedoms.

      Until that day comes, have a Happy Thanksgiving. Enjoy the Pilgrims, Charles Standish, Samoset and all the things that are good.

  1. Of all the hundreds of various type credit cards that are out there, she has to go after AppleCard. I suppose no other company offering a credit card ever had a gender bias. Wasn’t the bias quickly corrected and the person got a higher credit line? Doesn’t that count for something?

    1. There was no gender bias. It was a false claim, made by a Warren supporter on Twitter (David Heinemeier Hansson), with no facts to back up his assertions.

      Just as if he planted it there for Warren to take up as an issue.

      Then echoed by Woz who hasn’t been right since he hit his head too hard in his plane crash in February 1981.

      Elizabeth Warren is a serial liar and schemer. She’ll do anything to benefit herself. She’s cast in the mold of Hillary Clinton.

        1. credit limit is not always based on credit rating.

          It also depends on what you have spent in the past.

          I have joint assets with my wife including bank accounts etc. And a joint VISA account.
          But for the last 30 years practically all the major spending is done on my card: furniture, all apple stuff, renovation work etc. We just find it easier as I keep track of all the warranties etc.

          I suspect if I applied for an Apple Card I would have a higher spending limit.

          Banks don’t just on check on income but amount you’ve borrowed in the past and paid back.

          When I wanted to start a small business wiser businessmen told me to borrow small amounts of money from the bank even if I don’t need it and pay back the loans promptly. If I did that for a few years the bank would mark me as a good credit risk. I would be then more likely to be approved for bigger loans if I need to in the future.

          Another person who has no debts , good income , maybe even better income than me but no borrowing track record probably wouldn’t have been able to borrow as much from the bank .

          I’m semi retired for years already. As I’ve fully paid of house etc I can live on little, on shares dividends etc. My “income” is really small yet recently the bank wanted to UP my credit card limit by another $6000 dollars (because I’ve always paid off my debts promptly for years).

  2. To gain click bait publicity Elizabeth Warren , Bernie Sanders etc are continually attacking American businesses like Apple , often baselessly.

    Bernie Sanders attacks Apple by saying Apple secretes USA profits overseas. Which is totally false. Apple pays all taxes owed on USA sales in USA as Tim Cook has repeatedly explained. (perhaps Sanders is confusing overseas earnings like EU sales).
    That shows he’s either dumb about the USA’s biggest corporation or lying, either way it’s bad.

    As for Warren , she attacks Apple at every opportunity. Goldman sachs card, monopoly etc (“I want to break Apple up” is her go to ‘click bait’ stump spiel ).

    Apple is the last significant cell phone manufacturer from the USA, with something like 20% worldwide market share, the rest owned by foreigners. Already USA tech is falling behind in some areas, like it has little strength in 5G Networking server products (Huawei, Nokia etc dominate it) — yet people like Elizabeth Warren want to dismantle tech companies like Apple.

    Meanwhile European governments bend over backwards to support their own companies, and does anybody think Chinese politicians will stand on a soapbox and whack Huawei? (“We should break Huawei up to give Apple a chance !! ” )

  3. The CFPB should examine ALL credit card issuers to see if the awarding of different credit limits when spouses each sign up for their own accounts is exclusive to Apple. I can tell you with great certainty that it is NOT. If Goldman had allowed joint accounts from the beginning, no one would have been able to tell what was going on. The Apple Card is the first credit card where both members of a couple WANT one, and where the issuer didn’t allow authorized users. Spouses often have wildly different credit scores, but it’s an artifact of the way credit information is developed. Most people get credit cards with a primary account holder (usually the husband) and an authorized user (usually the wife), instead of an account with joint authorized users. Being an account holder is worth more than being an authorized user. If the CFPB found this to be the case, that would end the debate around Goldman and the Apple Card, and they would actually be doing the consumer a favor which could allow for more protection and equality of treatment. Going after Goldman and Apple is a waste of time because they are not where the problem originated.

  4. Doesn’t our Government have anything better to do? What a freaking waste of taxpayers money. How about take care of something that affects al of us like health care cost.

    1. In our perfect capitalistic system, you will always pay the highest the “market will bear”.

      So the game then shifts to how may lobbyists can gerrymander the market and literally write themselves legislation through corrupt representatives so that there is no real competition. Corporate power consolidates into duopolies and, wink wink, the consumer choice is: “take it or leave it”. The consumer has no pricing power, nor do they have equal information to the powerful corporations to make wise consumer decisions. People don’t even know what chemicals are in the food they eat, let alone complex medical stuff. To the HMO, outcome isn’t what matters. Maximization of profit is the goal. Is it wiser to keep your elderly relative in misery on life support for months or pull the plug as soon as the body is no longer to sustain life on its own? The first choice offered to the family is ALWAYS based on profit potential. Got good insurance? We can keep the body alive for a long, long, long time! Got poor insurance? Sit in the emergency room waiting for us to calculate the next best profit option. Got no insurance? Well we have financial rape plans for that.

      When a person interested in the long term good of all citizens proposes to enact anything that harms sacred corporate profits, then the might of the corporate- run media will label that person a “socialist” and worse, and will drag them through the mud in-between televised ads for little blue pills with long lists of side effects in minuscule print. After all is said and done, the healthcare consumer still doesn’t know what anything costs, what kickbacks are paid between which middlemen, nor what is covered under his patchwork of insurance. One thing is certain however: Americans have been well brainwashed into believing that the option to have a stable, basic, low cost preventative healthcare plan with risks and costs fairly shared among the largest possible pool of people (all citizens) would for some unknown reason be un-American. It is so much more patriotic to have tens of millions of people ignorant, uninsured, and stacking up in emergency rooms that we all pay for to treat easily preventable diseases. Then we wonder why US healthcare costs so much…

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.