Updated at 6:30 p.m. ET: Rep. Carolyn Maloney doesn’t want you to unwittingly fork over $35 for a cup of coffee.

Maloney, D-N.Y., Wednesday introduced the "Overdraft Protection Act," a bill that aims to crack down on overdraft fees. The bill aims to limit when and how banks charge consumers who try to spend more money than they have in their bank account. 

If approved, the House bill would also: 

• Require overdraft fees to be “reasonable and proportional” to the cost of the transaction.
• Limit the quantity of fees that can be charged to one per month and six per year.
• Ban banks from manipulating the order in which transactions are posted. Critics say this is done deliberately to maximize overdraft fees.

The bill proposes a major expansion of consumer rights by extending the opt-in requirement to paper checks, ATMs and recurring monthly payments. 

“With the rise of debit cards and the constant presence of swipe-card terminals to pay for everything from a  tank of gas to a candy bar, it’s easier than ever to overdraw an account and incur an overdraft fee,” says Maloney, a senior member of the House Financial Services Committee. “That’s how a $5 cup of coffee can become a $35 cup of coffee faster than you can say ‘overdrawn!’ " 

As I reported earlier this week, many people who have overdraft coverage for point-of-purchase debit card transactions and ATM withdrawals don't know they signed up for their service from their bank. If they are about to overdraw, the transaction will be approved and they'll get hit with a $35 fee. 

A Federal Reserve rule which took effect in August 2010 requires customers to affirmatively opt-in to this for-fee service. But a recent study from the Pew Charitable Trusts found that many people don't understand how the system works. They think if they opt-in they won't pay a fee if they're about to overdraw the account. It’s just the opposite. 

Most said they would prefer for the transaction to be declined and no fee charged. 

Maloney says the Fed rule isn't working, and "it's clear more need to be done in the area of consumer disclosures" to help people avoid multiple overdrafts. 

To their credit, some banks, including Citibank and Bank of America, have responded to consumer outrage over overdraft fees by changing their policy. They now deny debit card transactions that would overdraw an account. 

But the chief banking industry lobbying group opposes the bill.

“Overdraft protection is a service customers freely elect to have and they value their payments being covered," American Bankers Association spokesman Jeff Sigmund said in a statement. "They know the fee in advance and can opt out of overdraft protection at any time.”

Consumer groups support the bill. 

"Overdraft protection can work against consumers when banks use tricks and traps to make it easy for consumers to trigger their overdraft or when banks engage in confusing marketing for expensive overdraft programs,” says Pam Banks with Consumers Union. “This bill is an attempt to curb some of those abuses." 

Susan Weinstock, director of Pew’s Safe Checking in the Electronic Age Project, agrees. "Pew's research shows that there's rampant consumer confusion about overdraft and we think this bill takes a lot of really important steps in clearing up a lot of that confusion." 

Here's a look at the main provisions of the "Overdraft Protection Act." 

• Requires consumer consent before banks can permit overdraft fees to paper checks, automated clearinghouse (ACH) charges and debit card swipe-terminal transactions on consumer accounts, and defines overdraft fees as finance charges subject to the Truth in Lending Act disclosures.  Current Federal Reserve rules require opt-in to overdraft fees only for debit card transactions. 
• Prohibits banks from manipulating the sequence in which checks and other debits are posted if it causes more overdrafts and maximizes fees paid to banks. 
• Requires that fees be ‘reasonable and proportional’ to the amount of the overdraft. 
• Caps the number of fees that can be charged at one per month and six per year. 
• Enhances disclosures to consumers both at the point of opt-in (disclosing alternatives to overdraft protection, including linked accounts or lines of credit) and when an overdraft fee is charged (if consumers choose to opt in). 
• Requires the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau (CFPB) to study prepaid debit card overdraft fees and grants rulemaking authority over those fees to CFPB. 

The Consumer Financial Protect Bureau (CFPB) is already investigating checking account overdraft protection programs to see how they are impacting customers. 

As part of that process, the CFPB wants feedback on a prototype “penalty fee box” it designed for bank statements. This box would highlight how much you paid in overdraft fees and why. Comments are being accepted until the end of June. 

The CFPB also issued a consumer advisory about overdraft coverage. It’s short, simple and should help you figure out your overdraft status. 

U.S. consumers swiped their credit cards more often in March after cutting back during the previous two months. The increase helped drive overall borrowing up by the most in more than a decade. 

The Federal Reserve says total consumer borrowing rose $21.4 billion in March — more than twice the $9.8 billion rise that Wall Street economists surveyed by Reuters had forecast. It marked the seventh straight monthly increase and the biggest since November 2001, when it climbed by $28 billion, according to the Fed's statistics. 

A measure of auto and student loans increased $16.2 billion. A separate gauge of mostly credit card debt rose $5.2 billion after declining in January and February. 

The increase pushed total borrowing up to a seasonally adjusted $2.54 trillion. That's slightly below the all-time high of $2.58 trillion reached in July 2008, eight months after the Great Recession began. Borrowing then plunged for more than two straight years before resuming its current upward trend. 

The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report. 

The new U.S. consumer financial watchdog said on Wednesday it will aggressively pursue discriminatory lending practices, including those that may not be intentional but wind up penalizing minorities or women.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on Wednesday sent a notice to banks and other lenders emphasizing that enforcing anti-discrimination laws is a priority.

The agency has also drawn up a tip sheet to help borrowers determine if they are being discriminated against that will be posted on its website.

"Our economy is in the process of recovering from the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression," CFPB Director Richard Cordray said in remarks prepared for a speech to the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, which focuses on lending discrimination. "We cannot afford to tolerate practices that either price out or cut off segments of the population - such as women, the elderly, or communities of color - from the credit markets."

The agency emphasized that it views discrimination as going beyond practices that are obviously designed to treat minorities and women differently.

If a lending policy over time results in any group being treated differently, even if that is not the intent, the agency will crack down on the lender, Cordray said.

"It is important to recognize that this subtle but powerful form of discrimination creates damages that are no less direct than the kind of overt and blatant discrimination that, we hope and assume, is increasingly a relic of a bygone era," he said.

As an example Cordray offered a scenario in which lending officers have wide discretion to determine interest rates and fees for borrowers, resulting in minority groups or women being charged more.

The agency, which was created by the 2010 Dodd-Frank law to police lending products like credit cards and mortgages, also said it would pursue practices that result in a lower availability of loan products for minorities or women.

The agency has been heralded by supporters as an antidote to the lending abuses that occurred in the run up to the 2007-2009 financial crisis.

Banks have been wary of the new watchdog, warning that too many restrictions will constrain lending and prevent many consumers from being able to get loans for buying a home or other products.

Cordray on Wednesday again emphasized his point that the agency can help banks through its power to oversee competing lenders that had not previously been overseen by a federal regulator.

"The bureau will be supervising these entities in a tough but fair manner to single out the silent pickpocket and stop discrimination in its tracks," he said.

A maid service in Texas is offering something a little more than just a clean house: nude maids.

Fantasy Maid Service of Lubbock bills itself as offering "nude or topless maid service." It charges $100 a hour for one maid and $150 an hour for two. ("We also do parties!" It recommends hiring at least two maids for that.)

It also prominently crows about offering discounts for the police. ("Ask about our law enforcement discount!")

Which is probably a good thing because, as the Associated Press reported, police in Lubbock are keeping close tabs on the business. Police Sgt. Jonathan Stewart told the AP that Fantasy Maid Service does not have a permit to operate a sexually oriented business in the staunchly conservative city and could get a $2,000 fine for any violations.

Fantasy Maid Service takes great pains on its website to make it clear that it "is not a sexually oriented business."

"DO NOT ATTEMPT TO SOLICIT A MAID FOR SEXUAL SERVICES," the website states, in ALL CAPS, so that you can't miss it.

Further down it also exhorts customers to remain clothed, unless you are a nudist.  

Wells Fargo is ending free checking in six more states, expanding a $7-per-month account charge that went into effect in other parts of the country last year.

Existing customers in Georgia, New Jersey, Delaware, Connecticut, New York and Pennsylvania will be required to pay the monthly fee for the "Essential" checking account, unless they keep a $1,500 minimum daily balance or make direct deposits of $500 each month, a Wells Fargo spokeswoman said Thursday.

For customers, the fees add up. NerdWallet, a personal finance site, said it found that customers who can't meet the minimum balance and other requirements are charged an average of $110 a year by the five largest banks.

At a time when the country is struggling with 8.3 percent unemployment, the fees have consumer advocates outraged.

"Banks don't realize they are going to lose much more in the way of lost customers than they are going to make on these ridiculous fees," said John Tschohl, a customer service expert who consults with banks.

After converting existing accounts in 24 Western states last year, the San Francisco-based Wells Fargo is working on accounts in Eastern states, where it gained its first branches through its 2008 acquisition of Wachovia Corp. Accounts in its remaining East coast states will eventually be converted, spokeswoman Richele Messick said.

Wells Fargo, the fourth-largest U.S. bank by assets, began notifying customers in the six states of the change this week. The fee will appear in June bank statements. Customers can get a $2 discount by eschewing paper statements.

In recent years, banks have been doing away with free checking accounts as new regulations curb fees on overdrafts and other charges. Banks typically charge customers monthly fees, unless they choose to do more business with the bank.

Wells Fargo ended free checking for new customers in July 2010. It expects 80 percent of its customers to waive monthly maintenance fees by keeping minimum balances and taking other actions.

The Essential account is not available to new customers, who must pay $5 per month for a basic account, unless they keep a $1,500 minimum daily balance or have a direct monthly deposit of at least $250 in one lump sum.

This year, Wells Fargo also eliminated one of the ways customers could avoid monthly maintenance fees on its premium $10- and $15-per month accounts. Customers can no longer waive this fee by setting up a monthly automatic transfer to a savings account.

Messick, the Wells Fargo spokeswoman, said the bank wants customers to contact it. "We can talk to them about their needs and make sure they are in the right accounts," she said.

Wells Fargo has 6,200 bank branches in 39 states and the District of Columbia. 

Reuters and the Associated Press contributed to this report.

The Mitsubishi Outlander Sport was ranked as the most toxic vehicle base on chemical testing of the interior.

Love that new car smell? Well, it doesn’t love you back, according to a new study of toxic materials released by the flame retardants and plastics that sometimes coat the interior parts of a car.

The study by Ecology Center, an Ann Arbor, Mich.-based environmental organization, found the Mitsubishi Outlander Sport was the "most toxic" vehicle among more than  200 popular 2011 and 2012 vehicles tested for group's annual list.

The car's interior was found to contain bromine and antimony-based flame retardants in the seating and center console, chromium treated leather, and seats containing large amounts of lead. Who’s up for a road trip now?

Mitsubishi was not immediately available to comment.

On the other end of the spectrum, the 2012 Honda Civic ranked as the "least toxic" model with an interior (including fabrics and trim) that’s completely devoid of both bromine-based flame retardants and PVC. It also has “low levels of heavy metals and other metal allergens.” The 2011 Toyota Prius and 2011 Honda CR-Z ranked as Nos. 2 and 3 on the least toxic side of the ledger.

Overall, Ecology Center has rated Honda as the top automaker with respect to healthy car interiors every year since 2007, while Hyundai-Kia was ranked the lowest during the last two years, according to the study.

The Ecology Center says the fumes that create the new-car smell that so many people find pleasant actually come from a chemical cocktail of bromine, chlorine, lead and other heavy metals used in automotive interiors.

“Since these chemicals are not regulated, consumers have no way of knowing the dangers they face," said Ecology Center research director Jeff Gearhart in a statement. "Our testing is intended to expose those dangers and encourage manufacturers to use safer alternatives.”

Its report, Toxic at Any Speed, says that driver and passenger exposure to these materials has been linked to allergies, birth defects, liver toxicity and cancer, and says the linkage is corroborated by a two-year study conducted by Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Australia’s national science agency.

The potential toxicity of automotive interiors hasn't received much attention from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, although the U.S. agency does acknowledge the phenomenon of harmful building materials. A separate study from the Technical University of Munich in Germany conflicted with Ecology Center's findings, showing that the compounds in “new car smell” weren’t toxic but could aggravate allergies in some people.

Either way, the amount of plastics used in vehicles grew from 22 pounds in 1960 to over 250 pounds today, according to the group's website, HealthyStuff.org, although some 17 percent of new vehicles now have PVC-free interiors, and 60 percent are produced without bromine-based flame retardants in the interiors.

HealthyStuff.org says that it “only tests for a limited set of chemical hazards."

Lucas Jackson / Reuters

Andrea Jung, CEO of Avon Products.

By msnbc.com news services

Updated at 6:38 p.m. ET. to reflect that company's salespeople are independent contractors and scope of layoffs.

Cosmetics giant Avon Products reported a fourth-quarter net loss Tuesday amid declining sales and rising commodity costs. Chief Executive Officer Andrea Jung said the company doesn’t expect its margins -- the revenue the company keeps after paying its costs -- to improve this year.

The downbeat forecast comes amid a Bloomberg News report that says the company is planning to restructure its global operations with the help of consulting firm McKinsey. On a conference call with investors Tuesday, executives said they see “immediate” potential savings through reducing headcount.

The company's independent salespeople, who number some 6.5 million according to the company's website, will not be affected,  Avon spokersperson Jennifer Vargas said.

The company markets to women in 100 countries.

Once a thriving cosmetics company, Avon is now seeking to right the ship of its sinking operations after years of tepid earnings and declining profit.

In December it announced the departure of longtime chief executive Jung as soon as a replacement could be found. Additionally, Avon has been hurt by an internal bribery investigation that began in China, and its stock has come under pressure over the past year because of the company’s poor performance in countries like Brazil.

Shares of Avon have declined some 60 percent since hitting a high in 2004.

Bloomberg News reports that a company overhaul will include cutting costs in Avon’s North American unit, where sales have dropped every year since 2007 and slid about 7 percent in the third quarter.

Bloomberg interviewed one analyst who was skeptical of the plan's potential success.

“This is a rudderless ship right now, and trying to turn it massively may not get you anywhere,” said Ali Dibadj, an analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein in New York. “The problem with Avon isn’t that it needs a restructuring, it’s that it has been in perpetual restructuring, literally for the past 15 years.”

Can Avon be beautiful again? Discuss on our Facebook page.

How deep is your love? Florists like ProFlowers.com are hoping enough to spend big time.

February 14th, the day of obligatory romantic gestures otherwise known as Valentine's Day, inspires bad ensemble movies, splashy Victoria’s Secret commercials and gaudy drugstore displays rife with teddy bears. And consumers to plunk down their cash as early as January. 

The National Retail Federation predicts that the average person will shell out $126.04 on Valentine's Day this year, up more than 8.5 percent over the $116.21 spent by the average person in 2011 (though the gender breakdown is a bit tougher on the gents’ wallets — men will spend an average of $168.74, versus the women, who’ll spend just $85.76). PriceGrabber’s survey shows more conservative shopping numbers, with 68% of those polled indicating that they’ll spend less than $100, and most preferring to spend between $25 and $50.

Regardless of whether a shopper goes big or sticks to a budget, every man who has clicked on 1-800-FLOWERS.com knows that roses don’t come cheap. Retailers are aware that consumers are scrambling to purchase gifts and book romantic dinner reservations for Valentine’s Day, so who are they to not try to make some sort of profit?

Which begs the question: Do restaurants and retailers risk alienating customers in the long term by gouging them with high prices on Valentine's Day, in the vein that airlines do before Thanksgiving? While they'll want to take advantage of the shopper who'll open up his wallet to romance that new girlfriend or prove to his wife that he's not a cheapskate, is there a certain tipping point where shoppers will say, enough?

Among the experts, reviews are mixed. Alex Chernev, a consumer behavior expert and professor of marketing at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management, says Valentine’s Day pricing strategies really depend on the retailer as well as the consumer. “What a retailer should do is a function of what they are selling and how unique is that product as related to everywhere else,” he said.

Florists or chocolatiers, for example, would be wise not to raise their prices too high in anticipation of the Valentine’s Day rush, and instead should try to undercut competitors’ prices and make up for the margin loss by selling in high volume. “For those commodity products, or flowers, which don’t have very unique loyal customer base, you’ll see a lot of price competition,” Chernev said. (He also noted, on the other hand, that Valentine's Day is "the Black Friday of florists.")

The exception, of course, could be a product that consumers perceive as unique or a brand they’re particularly loyal to — that’s when they may be willing to spend a little more. Raise the price too high, though, and retailers risk disgruntling their customers. 

But for a purchase like a romantic dinner for two, restaurants have a little more wiggle room when it comes to charging a bundle, because “it’s the function of capacity constraint, or the anticipation of the capacity constraint,” said Chernev. Translation: There are only a certain number of seats at the waffle house, so if you want one, you’d better be prepared to pay for it. “Airlines do it all the time,” he said.

Other experts say that retailers like florists ought to cement customer loyalty by offering special deals that may encourage a repeat purchase but which still hits margins. Accenture senior analyst Cecilia Nguyen, co-author of the recent book “Contextual Pricing: The Death of the List Price and the New Market Reality,” gave the example of a wholesale florist that offered retailers a discounted bouquet of roses for $75 if they ordered early, versus the regular price of $99.

But convenience is also part of the equation when it comes to retailers’ pricing for Valentine’s Day gifts. Grocery stores will charge even less for Valentine’s Day bouquets in order to capture the time-crunched (or perhaps less romantically-inclined) shopper who is already there to buy something else. “They’ll put the flowers by the register for convenience, so you don’t have to think about them,” said Chernev. “Which is very important to men,” he added. (Because nothing says “I’m thoughtful” like a hastily-purchased grocery store bouquet.)

Restaurants may take a different tack because what they offer is indeed limited in terms of capacity. While they won’t necessarily charge more outright for an a la carte menu item on Valentine’s Day than they will on a regular day, they will offer special Valentine’s Day menus or price fixe deals in which each item is slightly discounted, but the deal makes customer spend more overall than he or she normally would. “They’ll make it special, bundle it, or maybe throw in something extra like wine of flowers, and then price accordingly,” said Ron Paul, president of the food and beverage industry research firm Technomic (not to be confused with the Republican presidential candidate).

But will that work this year, when the economy is still down? “I think it will work just as well this year as it will any year,” he said. (Of note, even fast food restaurant-cum-stoner heaven White Castle takes advantage of the trend by offering a reservation-only Valentine’s Day special that includes table service and free dessert).

Perhaps ITG restaurant analyst Steve West best summed up the spending attitude of consumers -- and thus the inflated pricing of some retailers -- on Valentine’s Day when he said, “Valentine’s Day is one of those days where, if you’re a guy and you have a girlfriend, you’ve got to pony up. You have to spend money in order to make her happy.”

He added, “That’s just one of those occasions where consumers will make it happen whether they have the money or not.”

By msnbc.com news services

Americans may be keeping a close watch over their consumption habits because of the uncertain economy, but when it comes to their pets they’re still splashing out.

With the 136th Westminster Kennel Club dog show set to begin Monday, CNBC's Jane Wells took a look at the business of pet care, which Bank of America estimates costs Americans more than $40 billion each year -- not only in life, but also in death.

At the Los Angeles Pat Memorial Park, where around 50,000 animals are buried, the cost of a funeral can start at over $600, Wells reported. And headstones can sometimes cost as much as $4,000.

When it comes to stock investments, PetSmart may be top dog, Wells said, noting that the retail chain has reported same-store sales growth in each of the past 16 quarters, and its share price is up 37 percent over the past six months.

How much do you spend on your pet? Discuss on our Facebook page.

By msnbc.com staff

Shares of Diamond Foods fell off a cliff Thursday after the company removed its top management and said it would restate its financial statements for the fiscal years 2010 and 2011 due to improper accounting of payments to walnut growers.

CNBC has more on the company’s announcement: