Chase also refused to process payments for Lovability, a company that sells condoms and promotes female sexual empowerment, because condoms are “adult-oriented material” and thus a “reputational risk”. Thing is, this is completely a reaction on the bank's part, not a regulation set by the feds.

Here's what's happening: The Dodd-Frank reform says "don't deal with sketchy businesses." There's guidelines for sketchy business. The FDIC has laid one out here, the relevant one in this case, called reputation risk:

Reputation risk is the risk arising from negative public opinion. Dissatisfied customers, breaches of an institution’s policies or standards, and violations of law can potentially harm the reputation of a financial institution in the community it serves. Negative publicity involving the third party, even if it is not related to the specific third-party arrangement, presents reputation risk to a financial institution.

Does that sound like it says, "don't deal with anybody that might damage your reputation, based on public moral reservations," or is it more like, "don't deal with anybody who has a lot of pissed off customers and a bad history with the law?" To me, it sounds like the second thing. But they interpreted that clause to mean, "We now have to discriminate based on moral reservations of our customers."

And as a big "Thanks, Obama," the porn stars went down first. They're not the only ones though.

I think they're doing this because now they have to actually care about who they're doing business with. That costs them money. Before, after their client turned in that fudged report, they could sit back, kick their feet up and call it a day. Now they have to pay somebody to make sure the transaction records aren't consistent with any known schemes.

With the regulations really getting Chase down, I think they booted porn stars to stir up the pot for publicity, and to try to get a rollback on this reform, as big banks have so desperately wanted since it was first mentioned.

Well shit. This is getting really creepy and totalitarian.

Wait what? Is this a real thing or a joke?

Well, exercise your right to purchase legal arms while you still can.

Diagram , abridged excerpt about what this actually is:

In early 2013, unbeknownst to Congress and the American public, the Justice Department issued 50 subpoenas to banks asking for information on their relationships with Third Party Payment Processors (TPPPs). TPPPs process payments for a number of types of small businesses.

The purpose of the subpoenas was to notify the banks that they are now full-time regulators in the fight against money laundering and other types of financial fraud. Although banks have always had to report suspicious transactions to authorities they now have to “Know their Customers” like never before.

In much the same way that FATCA has turned every international financial institution into de facto IRS agents, Operation Choke Point is turning every domestic bank into the president’s own secret morality police force. And just as international banks are now refusing to service American customers due to the high cost of compliance, many domestic banks are closing the accounts of companies, which have been with them for years, because of the new compliance costs.

tl;dr: When you pay back a loan online, the guys who transfers the money between your bank and your lender's bank might be involved in some sketchy shit . Therefor, govt. wants to make banks keep an extra close eye on these guys. It costs money to do that, so this increases the compliance cost of doing business with the banks. And that rightfully concerns some, especially smaller banks.

My opinion: Government regulation is always a concern. Especially when it comes to small businesses and their small banks. But with propaganda currently being aimed at small banks in order to reform the very act this guy refers to (Dodd-Frank), I'm taking this guy's opinion with a grain of salt.