Suppose you got an unsolicited email spam with the following offer. You deposit money in the bank account of some unknown website owner and he'll use that money to pay your bills. Naturally, there's an attractive convenience. But I suspect very few individuals would accept the offer.
Now suppose the same entrepeneur approaches your bank. As part of their deal, your bank agrees to brand the service. When you log into online banking, there's an offer to "use our online bill paying system". The link goes to a website that displays your bank's logo, and everytime you fill out a short form, money is withdrawn from your account.
I discovered with my local Credit Union that other than the superficial appearances, there is no difference between these two scenarios. $450 is missing from my account. My Credit Union says I approved the transaction and any problems are my responsibility. As part of the discussion, the CU now acknowledges a 3rd party bill paying service that is completely independent. But otherwise, none of my persistent questions were answered.
Ultimately, there's a credible explanation, I expect to recover the money, and there's no evidence of anything illegal. But I'm not satisfied. Because I believe this enterprise depends on deception in order to succeed. As my original scenario indicates, I doubt there'd be much participation if CU members were aware of the true risk. Any resulting profits originate from this deception. And although my losses are small (time, inconvenience, and loss of access to my funds), the cumulative loss to users is likely to be significant, whether it's realized or not.
The whole episode raises lots of questions about the changing relationships between business and consumers; the gradual erosion of financial controls and protection; and ultimately, how are we affected by the cumulative effect of barely perceptible losses. For most, this is merely a narrative of unlikely, maybe even absurd back luck. But maybe there's a real story here.