For people like Levinson, who entered into what they believed was a "lifetime" arrangement with their eyes open and with a clear plan to remain financially prudent, the higher minimum represents a violation of the spirit if not the letter of the deal.
For others, it's a turning of the screws at a time when many people can't afford to part with more cash.
Burbank resident Shant Istamboulian, 29, said his mother recently received notice from Chase that her monthly minimum would rise to about $365 from $149.
"She's barely making ends meet," he said. "She charges groceries on her credit card. She pays her insurance with her credit card. This higher minimum payment will kill her."
Chase is no stranger to angry customers. In January, the bank started charging cardholders a $10 monthly fee if they'd carried a balance for too long.
Chase agreed in March to stop levying the fee after New York's attorney general questioned the legality of the practice. Chase also said it would refund more than $4 million to cardholders.
It looks like the higher minimum payments will withstand legal scrutiny. As Jacobson correctly observed, they're not the same as a rate increase. Not exactly.
But Chase is clearly earning a reputation as the bank that practices tough love with customers and isn't shy about shaking them down for extra cash.
I asked Jacobson whether she was comfortable with that rep.
She declined to comment.
Unlisted numbers
Sunday's column on monthly fees for unlisted numbers generated plenty of outrage from telecom customers. But none were as steamed as people who received phone service from cable heavyweight Charter Communications.
They scoffed at the 99 cents charged by Time Warner Cable, the $1.25 charged by AT&T and the $1.75 charged by Verizon.
Charter, with about 100,000 phone customers in Southern California, charges a whopping $5 a month for what the company calls its private number service.
That's $60 a year to not have your name and number in a phone book that the company doesn't even publish. Like Time Warner Cable, Charter piggybacks on the likes of AT&T and Verizon for its directories.
Anita Lamont, a Charter spokeswoman, was unable to explain why her company's fee was so high. Nor could she say why the fee was charged monthly, even though a customer's preference could be registered with a few simple keystrokes.
"This is the way all phone companies do it," Lamont said.
I suspect I'm not the only one who thinks that's a pretty lame excuse.
--
David Lazarus' column runs Wednesdays and Sundays. Send your tips or feedback to david.lazarus@latimes.com.
