Some of the larger lenders may not have this flexibility.
If only 1% of the population actually votes, elected representatives will tend to represent that 1%. If you cede the centre ground you get extremists.
Say what you like about Trump, he managed to get his target demographic fired up and out to vote. $boring_reasonable_politician doesn't have the same ability by their nature to get people fired up, but we still need to vote for them.
Not voting is not a solution.
If what Trump did last election was getting them fired up, then this election they are going nuclear. Check out the massive waves of people at his rallies versus the trickles at the Dem's gatherings.
1) They didn't follow company procedure of which big banks insist employees follow otherwise the employees risk 'liability for not picking the 3 credit agencies'. Or
2) They lied and followed company procedure, and not tell you the outcome from them.
3) Your lender probably passed the request and got 1) or 2) later in the chain.
4) They insist they have to use Equifax, lose the deal, and note why in their records.
You can log reasons for bad business outcomes all day long, millions and millions, and it won’t change corporate behavior.
For instance, it might suggest that championing a grassroots boycott effort is a waste of time, and that perhaps putting that effort to lobby for laws by which these types of privacy breaches result in automatic prison time or high personal fines is a better option? Also not likely to succeed, but perhaps much more likely than asking rando consumers to not defect in their personal prisoner’s dilemma game with an unmoving corporate behemoth.
That outcome is academic, as the parent specifically said it wasn't an issue.
you realize you can say the wildest most unsophisticated things and they’ll just punch the numbers into a machine and get a “lend to this guy or not” result either way right?