SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Two lawsuits filed in Los Angeles allege major home insurance companies have colluded to limit coverage in California communities at high risk for wildfires and force homeowners onto the state's last-resort insurance plan that offers basic coverage and high premiums.
Insurers, including State Farm and 24 other companies that hold 75% of California's home insurance market, were part of an “illegal scheme” in violation of California's antitrust and unfair competition laws, according to one of the lawsuits, filed last week.
The lawsuit said the companies worked together in 2023 to “suddenly and simultaneously” drop coverage or halt writing new policies in fire-prone areas, including in neighborhoods like Pacific Palisades and Altadena that were leveled in the January wildfires that destroyed nearly 17,000 structures and killed at least 30 people. That has forced hundreds of homeowners onto the FAIR Plan that offers limited coverage capping at $3 million, leaving them underinsured and now struggling to rebuild after the fires, says the lawsuit filed by a group of homeowners who lost their houses in the LA fires.
The other lawsuit includes all policyholders who obtained the FAIR Plan after January 2023, when the conspiracy allegedly began, the suit says.
“Insurance is a product that homeowners hope never to need, but rely on for peace of mind in normal times and for critical help rebuilding after a catastrophe,” Michael J. Bidart, who represents the homeowners, said in a statement. “The complaints allege that, by colluding to push plaintiffs and so many like them to the FAIR Plan, the defendants have reaped the benefits of high premiums while depriving homeowners of coverage that they were ready, willing, and able to purchase to ensure that they could recover after a disaster like January’s wildfires.”
The lawsuits come as California is struggling with an ongoing insurance crisis, where companies are boosting rates, limiting coverage or pulling out completely from regions susceptible to wildfires and other natural disasters. In 2023, several major insurance companies either paused or restricted new business in the state, saying they can’t truly price the risk on properties as wildfires become more common and destructive due to climate change.
The American Property Casualty Insurance Association, the largest national trade association representing home, auto and business insurers, said it complies with the state's antitrust laws and monitors its members to ensure they do the same.
“These suits defy logic, advance meritless claims, and we are going to focus on solving the challenges in the insurance market in California,” said Stef Zielezienski, the group's chief legal officer.
The state Department of Insurance said it is not involved in the suits but said its focus is on protecting consumers.
“Californians deserve a system that works — one where decisions are made openly, rates reflect real risk, and no one is left without options,” department spokesperson Gabriel Sanchez said in a statement.
State Farm, the largest home insurer in California with roughly a million policies, didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.
The FAIR Plan is an insurance pool that all the major private insurers pay into. The plan issues policies to people who can’t get private insurance because their properties are deemed too risky to insure. The plan, with high premiums and basic coverage, is designed as a temporary option until homeowners can find permanent coverage, but more Californians are relying on it than ever. There were more than 555,000 home policies on the FAIR Plan as of March, more than double the number in 2020.
The complaints also allege that insurers were pushing policyholders onto the FAIR Plan because companies wouldn't have to shoulder all financial responsibility to sustain the plan. When the state's top insurance regulator in February ordered insurers to provide $1 billion to the FAIR Plan to help it pay out claims related to the LA wildfires, he allowed for half of the cost to be recouped from policyholders statewide. Another lawsuit was filed last week to block the cost-shifting regulation.
California has been in the process of implementing various new regulations to give insurers more latitude to raise premiums in exchange for issuing more policies in high-risk areas. That includes regulations allowing insurers to consider climate change when setting their prices and allowing them to pass on the costs of reinsurance to California consumers.
FILE - Beachfront properties are burned by the Palisades Fire, Jan. 12, 2025 in Malibu, Calif. (AP Photo/Mark J. Terrill, File)
FILE - An aerial view shows the devastation left by the Palisades Fire in the Pacific Palisades section of Los Angeles, Jan. 27, 2025. (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong, File)
FILE - An aerial view shows the devastation from the Palisades Fire on beachfront homes Wednesday, Jan. 15, 2025 in Malibu, Calif. (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong, File)
NEW YORK (AP) — Reviving a campaign pledge, President Donald Trump wants a one-year, 10% cap on credit card interest rates, a move that could save Americans tens of billions of dollars but drew immediate opposition from an industry that has been in his corner.
Trump was not clear in his social media post Friday night whether a cap might take effect through executive action or legislation, though one Republican senator said he had spoken with the president and would work on a bill with his “full support.” Trump said he hoped it would be in place Jan. 20, one year after he took office.
Strong opposition is certain from Wall Street in addition to the credit card companies, which donated heavily to his 2024 campaign and have supported Trump's second-term agenda. Banks are making the argument that such a plan would most hurt poor people, at a time of economic concern, by curtailing or eliminating credit lines, driving them to high-cost alternatives like payday loans or pawnshops.
“We will no longer let the American Public be ripped off by Credit Card Companies that are charging Interest Rates of 20 to 30%,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform.
Researchers who studied Trump’s campaign pledge after it was first announced found that Americans would save roughly $100 billion in interest a year if credit card rates were capped at 10%. The same researchers found that while the credit card industry would take a major hit, it would still be profitable, although credit card rewards and other perks might be scaled back.
About 195 million people in the United States had credit cards in 2024 and were assessed $160 billion in interest charges, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau says. Americans are now carrying more credit card debt than ever, to the tune of about $1.23 trillion, according to figures from the New York Federal Reserve for the third quarter last year.
Further, Americans are paying, on average, between 19.65% and 21.5% in interest on credit cards according to the Federal Reserve and other industry tracking sources. That has come down in the past year as the central bank lowered benchmark rates, but is near the highs since federal regulators started tracking credit card rates in the mid-1990s. That’s significantly higher than a decade ago, when the average credit card interest rate was roughly 12%.
The Republican administration has proved particularly friendly until now to the credit card industry.
Capital One got little resistance from the White House when it finalized its purchase and merger with Discover Financial in early 2025, a deal that created the nation’s largest credit card company. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which is largely tasked with going after credit card companies for alleged wrongdoing, has been largely nonfunctional since Trump took office.
In a joint statement, the banking industry was opposed to Trump's proposal.
“If enacted, this cap would only drive consumers toward less regulated, more costly alternatives," the American Bankers Association and allied groups said.
Bank lobbyists have long argued that lowering interest rates on their credit card products would require the banks to lend less to high-risk borrowers. When Congress enacted a cap on the fee that stores pay large banks when customers use a debit card, banks responded by removing all rewards and perks from those cards. Debit card rewards only recently have trickled back into consumers' hands. For example, United Airlines now has a debit card that gives miles with purchases.
The U.S. already places interest rate caps on some financial products and for some demographics. The Military Lending Act makes it illegal to charge active-duty service members more than 36% for any financial product. The national regulator for credit unions has capped interest rates on credit union credit cards at 18%.
Credit card companies earn three streams of revenue from their products: fees charged to merchants, fees charged to customers and the interest charged on balances. The argument from some researchers and left-leaning policymakers is that the banks earn enough revenue from merchants to keep them profitable if interest rates were capped.
"A 10% credit card interest cap would save Americans $100 billion a year without causing massive account closures, as banks claim. That’s because the few large banks that dominate the credit card market are making absolutely massive profits on customers at all income levels," said Brian Shearer, director of competition and regulatory policy at the Vanderbilt Policy Accelerator, who wrote the research on the industry's impact of Trump's proposal last year.
There are some historic examples that interest rate caps do cut off the less creditworthy to financial products because banks are not able to price risk correctly. Arkansas has a strictly enforced interest rate cap of 17% and evidence points to the poor and less creditworthy being cut out of consumer credit markets in the state. Shearer's research showed that an interest rate cap of 10% would likely result in banks lending less to those with credit scores below 600.
The White House did not respond to questions about how the president seeks to cap the rate or whether he has spoken with credit card companies about the idea.
Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan., who said he talked with Trump on Friday night, said the effort is meant to “lower costs for American families and to reign in greedy credit card companies who have been ripping off hardworking Americans for too long."
Legislation in both the House and the Senate would do what Trump is seeking.
Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Josh Hawley, R-Mo., released a plan in February that would immediately cap interest rates at 10% for five years, hoping to use Trump’s campaign promise to build momentum for their measure.
Hours before Trump's post, Sanders said that the president, rather than working to cap interest rates, had taken steps to deregulate big banks that allowed them to charge much higher credit card fees.
Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., have proposed similar legislation. Ocasio-Cortez is a frequent political target of Trump, while Luna is a close ally of the president.
Seung Min Kim reported from West Palm Beach, Fla.
President Donald Trump arrives on Air Force One at Palm Beach International Airport, Friday, Jan. 9, 2025, in West Palm Beach, Fla. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson)
FILE - Visa and Mastercard credit cards are shown in Buffalo Grove, Ill., Feb. 8, 2024. (AP Photo/Nam Y. Huh, File)
