Using descriptive words such as unsubstantiated, puzzlingly and unworkable, it didn’t take long for industry associations to question again the methodology of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which on Thursday finalized its policy involving its public-facing consumer complaint database.

Now that consumers have the option to share details of their complaint to the CFPB, the National Automotive Finance Association, the American Bankers Association, the Consumer Bankers Association and the American Financial Services Association each maintained reservations about the bureau making this move.

“While we can appreciate the CFPB’s desire to make consumer complaints available to the public we feel the way it is being done does not provide the public a balanced view,” NAF Association executive director Jack Tracey said in a statement sent to SubPrime Auto Finance News.

“Consumers are able to voice their complaints in their own words, but the financial institution is limited to the use of structured responses,” Tracey continued. “This approach will, in most cases, place the finance company in a poor light.  A truly transparent approach would allow both sides the opportunity to articulate their position in their own words.”

ABA president and chief executive officer Frank Keating isn’t so sure the bureau accomplished what it is tasked with doing by this latest move.

​“While the banking industry is committed to helping consumers make informed and responsible financial decisions, public disclosure of unverified consumer complaint narratives doesn’t advance that goal and raises significant consumer privacy issues,”   Keating said. “This risks turning the CFPB database into a questionable — even misleading — resource and risks tarnishing the reputation of individual companies without substantiation.”

While the CFPB indicated finance companies can choose a response to publish as well, Keating likewise isn’t sure that’s enough of an opportunity.

“The proposal offers no meaningful options for a bank to publically dispute an erroneous complaint,” he said. “Checking a standardized box will not provide valuable information to consumers, and banks will not choose to engage in a public disagreement with their customers. 

“Since the CFPB proposes to make no effort to ensure the accuracy of complaint data, the bureau becomes an official purveyor of unsubstantiated and potentially false information instead of fostering informed and responsible consumer choice,” Keating continued.

“For these reasons, Congress was wise not to authorize the bureau to publish and give its official government seal to individual consumer complaints,” he went on to say.

CBA president and CEO Richard Hunt shared a similar assessment of Thursday’s announcement, offering reaction that might trigger the common acronym in social media, SMH, for “shaking my head.”

Hunt said, “While we support the Bureau’s collection of complaint data to identify trends and understand consumer concerns, we are disappointed by (Thursday’s) decision.  The CFPB has the ability to demonstrate trends, allow for an appeals process, and normalize data — much like other regulators.

“Puzzlingly, they choose not to use any of these illuminating mechanisms. (Thursday’s) action does not reflect the principles of accountability, transparency, and data-driven decision making which the Bureau professes guides its work,” Hunt continued. “This agency can do better.”

Furthermore, AFSA executive vice president Bill Himpler didn’t hesitate when sharing his reaction to this CFPB policy, either.

“The CFPB’s policy on publishing consumer narratives in its public consumer complaint database is impracticable and unworkable,” Himpler said. “AFSA remains concerned that the CFPB’s consumer complaint database does not adequately protect consumers’ privacy.

“Because consumers are likely to assume a level of accuracy and validity in the complaints posted on a government website, the CFPB’s publicizing unsubstantiated consumer narratives could mislead consumers,” he continued. “In addition, publishing unverified and unfiltered claims could pose significant brand and reputational risk to financial services companies.”