The line between protecting consumers and telling businesses how to run their operations continues to get fuzzier and fuzzier.

When Bank of America tried to impose a $5 monthly fee on customers using debit cards, there was an entirely predictable – and largely warranted – national backlash against it. This wasn’t a simple monthly maintenance fee (nobody seemed too concerned by those), but rather a charge for using a service we’ve all become accustomed to. Increasingly, folks carry less cash these days, knowing they can slide their card and be on their way without the hassle and insecurity of forking over some greenbacks.

So charging for what has become, arguably, an essential service in our modern economy seemed obtuse. It also seemed designed to force us back to an earlier age when cash was king, and not into the glorious, electronic future.

We understand that. We were no fans of the proposed fee either.

But what we understood, and continue to understand, is that in instituting this fee – or any other fee – Bank of America wasn’t taking away consumer choice, or breaking any laws. They weren’t threatening consumers to the point where anyone would need to come in and stand up on these poor customers’ behalf.

There was always the option for consumers to expand their relationship with Bank of America to qualify for fee reductions – or, barring that, to simply take their business elsewhere.

Tens of thousands did just that. And they didn’t need a government watchdog to tell them to do so, nor to ensure they were free and able to do so.

On a lesser scale, we’re seeing the same thing today. Bank of America is still tinkering with its fee structure, trying to find the perfect balance between actually – God forbid – making money off of its checking services and finding ways to make money through other channels.

And it is being met with shock – shock! – that it would even attempt such an outrageous and egregious moneymaking scheme.

Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin has filed legislation demanding the bank offer free checking to those under 19 and over 65 years of age. State-chartered banks already have to follow this rule, and Galvin now wants nationally chartered banks operating in Massachusetts to follow the same rule.

It’s Galvin’s right to propose whatever legislation he wants. But it is also Bank of America’s right to politely tell him to mind his own business.

Let’s be honest here – BofA has every right to make money from its customers. It is a business, after all, and that’s how business works. Clearly, it is trying to implement a strategy aimed at deepening its ties to its existing checking customers. The latest fees are almost all largely avoidable if certain other conditions are met – if credit cards are used, minimum balances are met, direct deposit is implemented or other accounts are established.

This isn’t a new strategy. Checking accounts have long been used as a means of getting customers in the door and trying to construct deeper relationships. It used to begin with a toaster oven, now it begins with a conversation – “You know, you can avoid these fees if you try any of these other excellent products…”

If the customer isn’t interested in those other services from Bank of America, well, they pay the fee. Or they go somewhere else. As Greg McBride, an analyst at Bankrate.com, told The Boston Globe recently, “If free checking is important to you, you can still get it.”

Demanding that Bank of America alter its own strategy in the name of consumer protection isn’t just anti-business – it’s belittling to consumers themselves. If consumers don’t like it, we’re confident Bank of America will find out soon enough on its own.

That’s how it worked the last time. And that’s how it ought to work this time.