Maybe the people are merely seeking ways to partially control these corporations and get them to negotiate. To me it's kind of like tying to boycott a particular gas station in hopes it would then have to reduce it's prices. Also it reminds me of contract negotiation between a fortune 50 company and a union, the members threatened to liquidate all their(401k/shares)holdings in the company which would have supposedly hurt the company, those workers where willing to(legally)hurt their employer with economic sanctions rather than give in to management over a simplest of things.
Is it possible that these corporations have more of a say than the majority of people when it comes to the way politicians act when voting and passing laws, if so then these people that are discussing taking(lawful)actions have every right to do so IMO, if congress won't regulate the banks let the people do it via economic sanction/boycotts/protests or whatever means they deem necessary so long as it's peaceful. I wonder why the free market wouldn't embrace the freedom for these consumers to gather and or protest when they are unsatisfied. If the bankers run this country as some people might say then the grievance should be taken to the banks for discussion.