I have to admit, I have a hard time taking taskforces seriously. As in, do taskforces ever really accomplish anything?

And yet, consumer advocates are upset enough by the composition of the "Taskforce on Federal Consumer Financial Law" that they filed a lawsuit in the District of Massachusetts yesterday to shut it down.

The taskforce, which was created by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, is intended to provide the agency with recommendations about "ways to improve and strengthen consumer financial laws and regulations."

With such a mandate, you might expect the members to include one or two unequivocal consumer advocates.

Or not.

According to the lawsuit filed by the National Association of Consumer Advocates, United States Public Interest Research Group, and Professor Kathleen Engel against the CFPB and its director, "Defendants have appointed to the taskforce individuals who uniformly represent industry views."

They say the taskforce is overly secretive and violates the Federal Advisory Committee Act—a "sunshine law" designed to prevent special interest groups from exerting undue influence over the Executive Branch.

But it's not clear that it's quite as lopsided as they make it out to be.

The five-member taskforce is chaired by Todd Zywicki, a professor at George Mason University Antonin Scalia School of Law known for his expertise in commercial law and bankruptcy.

According to the complaint, Zywicki, who did not respond to a request for comment, has argued that the CFPB is a 'menace' 'guarantee[d]' to manifest "bureaucratic pathologies." He's also allegedly served as the director of the Global Economics Group—"a consulting firm hired by Visa, Bank of America, and Citigroup to influence the Bureau and other regulatory agencies."

In a 2015 article, Zywicki called the CFPB an "unaccountable super-regulator" and described its impact as "disastrous."

So…not a fan?

But not so fast. The complaint, which was signed by David Nicholas of Newton, Massachusetts-based Wolf Popper, overlooks some of Zywicki's other writing. For example, in a 2018 Wall Street Journal op-ed, he wrote that the CFPB "could be a force for good," and that "Its goals are worthy; consumer protection, fair markets, and a stable financial system."

Then there's Thomas Durkin, a retired senior economist at the Federal Reserve Board. The complaint dings him for co-authoring an article with Zywicki headlined "Why Everything Elizabeth Warren Told You About Consumer Credit Is Wrong."

On the left, Warren is the patron saint of the CFPB—she's the one who came up with the idea for its creation. Durkin and Zywicki's article criticizes "paternalistic regulation" and defends high-interest payday lenders.

But the op-ed also makes some valid points—like if there were no payday lenders, then even worse actors like loan sharks might step in to fill the need for short-term credit.

The third taskforce member is Howard Beales, a professor of strategic management and public policy at the George Washington University.

According to the complaint, Beales "recently provided his services to a payday lender in bankruptcy proceedings, who had previously been sued by the bureau for servicing and collecting on loans with interest rates up to 448% that were void under state law. In that capacity, he has argued that such loans were not 'predatory,' but were instead 'beneficial to consumers.'"

But Beales also has consumer protection bona fides—he was the director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection at the Federal Trade Commission from 2001 to 2004. Under his leadership, the bureau brought 258 federal district court cases and obtained orders for nearly $1.3 billion in consumer redress, including what were then the two largest consumer redress settlements in the bureau's history.

There's also William MacLeod, who chairs the antitrust and competition practice at Kelley Drye & Warren. While he represents industry clients adverse to the CFPB and other agencies (because that's how Big Law partners make a living), MacLeod too served as director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection from 1986 to 1990.

MacLeod referred a request for comment to a CFPB spokeswoman, who did not respond.

The only woman on the taskforce is Jean Noonan, a partner at Hudson Cook. She's another former top consumer protection official at the FTC.

The complaint criticizes her as a founding member of the American College of Consumer Financial Services Lawyers—"an association of lawyers who represent the financial services industry." I'm having a hard time seeing how this is damning experience.

Per the complaint, "Defendants have set up a taskforce that is comprised wholly of members who have either publicly criticized consumer protections as paternalistic and harmful to industry or who have historically represented industry interests. The makeup of the taskforce excludes any representation of advocates committed to ensuring that consumers are protected from dangerous financial products."

But here's my question: Does any of this even make a difference?

Let's say the taskforce was composed of Ralph Nader, Elizabeth Warren, Letitia James, David Vladeck and I don't know, Gandhi. That still doesn't mean the current CFPB leadership would listen to anything they had to say.

Because the CFPB under director Kathleen Kraninger is a shadow of its former self in the Obama administration. As the complaint notes, during Kraninger's first six months on the job, the CFPB obtained only $12 million in consumer relief. By comparison, the Obama-appointed director, Richard Cordray, raked in $200 million in a similar time frame.

Which makes me think that for consumer advocates, the real problem might not be who is on the taskforce but the fact that this is the Trump administration. Let's face it: Consumer protection isn't exactly job one.