Not The Onion

18646 readers

1187 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

Links to news stories from...
...credible sources, with...
...their original headlines, that...
...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

kescusay@lemmy.world

184

Commonwealth Bank Australia says repaying ‘excessive fees’ to low-income customers could be seen as taking shareholder money (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 1 day ago by resipsaloquitur@lemmy.world to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world

14 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/38973499

all 15 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] hanrahan@slrpnk.net 2 points 55 minutes ago

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-11-05/choice-shonky-award-commbank-temu-hcf/105964682

The Commonwealth Bank has been labelled the "shonkiest" company of all time by consumer group Choice after it won its infamous annual award again.

[–] Bot@sub.community 3 points 4 hours ago

Good time to buy in Commonwealth Bank stock?

[–] WatDabney@lemmy.dbzer0.com 52 points 1 day ago (1 children)

And they mean exactly what they say.

The class war is already underway - the financial elite are actively fighting it, and winning by forfeit because the rest of us are mostly split into those who don't see the attacks and those who see them but misassign the blame for them.

[–] resipsaloquitur@lemmy.world 23 points 1 day ago

But think of the widow and orphan shareholders. 😢

[–] foggy@lemmy.world 41 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Taking shareholder money back. Yes. That seems to be the point.

[–] SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today 8 points 1 day ago

Exactly. If this is stealing from shareholders to pay customers, it's because the original fees were stealing from customers to pay shareholders.

[–] P00ptart@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago

Burn the shareholders.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 19 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Then the shareholders shouldn’t hold shares in that bank. Simple as.

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 day ago

To me it's a legal argument that I can sue each share holder for their portion.

[–] recentSlinky@lemmy.ca 21 points 1 day ago

But the other way around is totally fine? It's okay to steal, but too much to return PART of what you stole?

[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 16 points 1 day ago

Yes, that's correct, crime should not pay.

[–] chosensilence@pawb.social 10 points 1 day ago

good, do it even more.

[–] crozilla@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago

Wow. Just wow.

[–] zout@fedia.io 8 points 1 day ago

They're not wrong, it could be, but the question is should it be?