The DMCA, with all its faults, outlines a challenge process performed largely outside the courts. Something similar could be done for banks: bank shuts down account for company, company appeals providing some proof, bank files proof somewhere and reinstates. If the bank is then sued by government or third party, it is "safe-havened" by such proof. If proof is found to be false, the company is responsible, not the bank.
Yes, that's sounds like a very reasonable system. I like that it shift burden of law enforcement from banks onto actual law enforcement system with proper checks and balances.
> Something similar could be done for banks: bank shuts down account for company, company appeals providing some proof, bank files proof somewhere and reinstates
You're describing your state banking regulator. Also, like a bajillion federal banking regulators.
> something clearly is not working in that process, if we're here
The article talks about credit card networks. I'm referring to banks. Banks are highly regulated, including with respect to account closures. Credit card networks are much less regulated.
If you want a non-court public venue to dispute your bank on something, anything, you have several such venues. Depending on your state, they can be quite toothsome.
