To keep you informed of recent activities, below are several of the most significant federal events that have influenced the Consumer Financial Services industry over the past week.
Federal Activities:
On July 2, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Federal Reserve), and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) jointly issued Financial Institution Letter FIL-33-2026 announcing the Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income (Call Report) requirements for the second quarter 2026 reporting period ending June 30, 2026, with completed Call Reports due electronically to the Central Data Repository by July 30, 2026, or August 4, 2026, for institutions with more than one foreign office. The agencies noted two new data items in the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) 031 Call Report form this quarter, consistent with changes to the regulatory capital rule published December 1, 2025, modifying the enhanced supplementary leverage ratio standards applicable to U.S. global systemically important bank holding companies and their subsidiary depository institutions, while the FFIEC 041 and FFIEC 051 forms have no new data items or revisions this quarter. The agencies also indicated they are reviewing comments received on their December 2025 request for information on streamlining the Call Report and, in response to industry comments, Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996 review outreach, and results of the 2027 statutorily mandated full review, plan to publish proposed revisions to Call Report forms and instructions for public comment as appropriate. For more information, click here.
On July 2, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) published in the Federal Register a request for public comment on exchange-traded funds (ETFs) seeking to invest in innovative asset classes or engage in novel investment strategies — including crypto assets, commodity-focused instruments, single-stock strategies, heightened leverage, blockchain-enabled opportunities, private assets, and event contracts — with the stated goal of facilitating innovation in the ETF space while protecting investors, maintaining fair, orderly, and efficient markets, and facilitating capital formation. The request, which builds on the regulatory framework established by Rule 6c-11 adopted in 2019 and reflects the significant growth of the ETF market from more than $4 trillion to more than $12 trillion in total net assets between 2019 and 2025, seeks input on three principal areas: whether certain novel ETFs qualify as investment companies under the Investment Company Act of 1940; whether rule 6c-11 should be amended to address structural, operational, or investor protection questions raised by novel ETFs; and whether the registration process under rule 485 of the Securities Act of 1933 — including the automatic effectiveness periods, mechanisms for early staff engagement, competitive pressures driving rapid successive filings, and disclosure requirements — should be modified to better accommodate novel ETFs while preserving investor protection. Comments are due on or before August 31, 2026. For more information, click here.
On July 2, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) publicly released its priority open recommendations report for the Federal Reserve, noting that the Federal Reserve has not implemented any of the five priority recommendations the GAO identified in May 2025. The GAO highlighted three areas warranting timely and focused attention: strengthening bank supervision, to reduce the risk of insolvency at certain financial institutions and protect financial stability; analyzing regulations, to ensure that the Federal Reserve’s rules represent the most cost-beneficial option, achieve their intended effects, and avoid unintended economic consequences; and addressing blockchain technology risks, to enable the Federal Reserve to identify and respond to blockchain-related risks in a timely manner. For more information, click here.
On July 2, His Majesty’s (HM) Treasury published an update from the Payments Vision Delivery Committee (PVDC) setting out cross-authority thinking on roles, responsibilities, and interactions across the future UK retail payments ecosystem, building on the PVDC’s November 2025 strategy for future retail payments infrastructure and issued alongside the Retail Payments Infrastructure Board’s (RPIB) consultation on the design of that infrastructure. The document describes a layered ecosystem model comprising a centrally operated core infrastructure — providing shared clearing and messaging capability underpinned by final settlement in central bank money at the Bank of England — governed by a single core infrastructure scheme operator responsible for setting participation rules, technical standards, access, resilience, and risk management requirements; a competitive product layer in which multiple product level arrangements govern specific payment journeys such as account-to-account point-of-sale payments, batch payments, open banking, programmable payments, and cross-border payments; and a commercial sustainability framework in which the core infrastructure operates as a utility with fees funding resilience and long-term investment, while product level arrangements develop in a more competitive context with varied commercial models. The document also addresses consumer protection, fraud, and financial crime requirements across both the core infrastructure scheme and product level arrangements, and makes clear that while it is not a statement of policy or regulatory guidance, it is intended to inform responses to the RPIB consultation — which closes September 11, 2026 — and to support continued dialogue between HM Treasury, the Bank of England, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), and the Payment Systems Regulator as work on infrastructure design and PVDC strategy delivery progresses. For more information, click here.
On June 30, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that Amazon.com Inc. will pay $2.25 million in civil penalties to settle allegations that the company knowingly violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by routinely refusing to provide identity theft victims with application and business transaction records related to fraudulent transactions made using their personal information, as required by law within 30 days of a consumer’s request. The complaint, filed by the Department of Justice on referral from the FTC in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleged that Amazon had no written policy for responding to § 609(e) requests until early 2025 and that its customer service agents routinely denied requests citing “security” or “privacy” reasons, in some cases requiring consumers to identify the thief before records would be released, and even refused to provide records to law enforcement agencies authorized to submit requests on behalf of identity theft victims. In addition to the civil penalty, the proposed order prohibits Amazon from future noncompliance with § 609(e), requires the company to provide consumers with notice of their rights under the FCRA, and requires Amazon to contact consumers who requested records since April 2024 but did not receive them to inform them that additional records may be available upon request. For more information, click here.
On June 30, 2026, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the SEC jointly published a request for public comment on potential ways to further implement portfolio margining and cross-margining of securities and derivatives subject to the jurisdiction of either or both agencies, building on prior joint actions including conditional exemptive orders issued in April 2026 to facilitate cross-margining of U.S. Treasury securities and related futures. The request reflects the agencies’ recognition that current regulatory requirements may in some cases necessitate that related positions be maintained in separate accounts subject to different margin requirements — a structure that can prevent margin computations from recognizing offsetting exposures across securities and derivatives, potentially creating capital inefficiencies or increasing liquidity demands without necessarily enhancing market stability. The agencies are seeking input on a broad range of topics, including which securities and derivatives positions and account types should be considered for expanded portfolio margining, how to address differences in margin, segregation, and bankruptcy treatment across SEC- and CFTC-regulated accounts, how further implementation could affect market participants of varying sizes and registration statuses, what margin methodologies and risk management conditions should apply, and how expanded portfolio margining could affect competition between U.S. and foreign financial institutions. Comments are due by August 31, 2026.For more information, click here.
On June 30, the FDIC published a notice of proposed rulemaking that would significantly revise its resolution submission requirements for covered insured depository institutions (CIDIs), with the stated goal of focusing submissions on the operational information most directly relevant to the FDIC’s ability to execute a rapid and cost-effective resolution in the event of a large bank failure. The proposal would raise the asset threshold triggering coverage from $50 billion to $100 billion — removing the 16 current group B CIDIs from the rule’s scope — and implement an automatic triennial inflation adjustment using the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) index to prevent the threshold from eroding over time. All remaining CIDIs would be moved to a uniform three-year submission cycle, eliminating the current distinction between group A and group B CIDIs and the biennial filing requirement for global systemically important bank (GSIB)-affiliated CIDIs, and interim supplements would be eliminated entirely and replaced with a targeted notice of extraordinary event process for material changes between submission cycles. The proposal would eliminate more than half of the current rule’s content requirements, removing CIDI-generated hypothetical resolution analyses, strategies, valuation analyses, and failure scenarios — which the FDIC views as replicating work it would need to perform itself — while retaining and in some cases expanding requirements for core operational information including organizational structure, deposit activities, critical services, management information systems, key personnel, material loan portfolios, qualified financial contracts, and digital services and products. The proposal would also eliminate capabilities testing, credibility assessments, the public section of submissions, and board of directors approval requirements. The FDIC estimates the proposed changes would generate aggregate compliance cost savings of approximately $68 million over a 12-year period across all affected institutions. Comments are due August 31, 2026. For more information, click here.
On June 30, the FDIC published a notice of proposed rulemaking that would revise its deposit insurance assessment regulations in three principal ways: raising the asset threshold that distinguishes small from large institutions for assessment methodology purposes from $10 billion to $30 billion — a change that would shift approximately 76 institutions from the large bank scorecard pricing methodology to the small bank pricing methodology and is estimated to result in a net decrease of approximately $129 million in annual assessments — with automatic quadrennial inflation adjustments using the CPI-W index going forward; decreasing initial base assessment rate schedules by two basis points for small institutions and by one basis point for large and highly complex institutions, reflecting the Deposit Insurance Fund’s progress toward its 2% designated reserve ratio and the expiration of the 2023 Restoration Plan rate increase; and introducing a new voluntary resolution readiness adjustment (RRA) of up to one basis point for large and highly complex institutions that elect to participate in virtual data room testing (0.5 basis points) and/or provide the FDIC with prescribed data access to service providers and internal systems to support resolution readiness (0.5 basis points). The proposal also provides a one-time eight-quarter transition election for institutions reclassified from large to small as a result of the threshold change, removes the existing option for small institutions to elect large institution treatment, and includes technical amendments to remove obsolete provisions. Comments are due August 31, 2026. For more information, click here.
On June 30, the FDIC published a notice of proposed rulemaking that would comprehensively update its regulations governing the disclosure of confidential information — the first significant revision to these rules in approximately 30 years — by amending 12 CFR part 309, adding a new part 306 for service of process, and making conforming technical amendments to parts 303, 327, and 337. The most significant substantive change is the expansion of circumstances in which insured depository institutions may share FDIC confidential information with third parties without prior FDIC approval, permitting disclosure — for a business purpose and subject to a qualifying confidentiality agreement — to affiliates, external legal counsel, accountants and auditors, majority shareholders, qualifying service providers, prospective senior executive officer hires, and up to three potential merger counterparties over a five-year period, bringing the FDIC’s approach into alignment with the disclosure rules of other federal banking agencies. The proposal would also reorganize part 309 into four distinct subparts covering general provisions, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) procedures, discretionary disclosure of confidential information, and disclosure in nonparty legal proceedings; codify a “good cause” standard for FDIC-approved discretionary disclosures; add supplemental procedures for confidential commercial information consistent with Executive Order 12600; relocate service of process provisions to a new standalone part 306; and permit disclosure of confidential information created more than 25 years ago without prior FDIC approval. Comments are due August 31, 2026. For more information, click here.
On June 30, SEC Chairman Paul S. Atkins delivered remarks at the Economic Club of New York, using the occasion of the U.S.’s approaching 250th anniversary to articulate his vision for the SEC’s regulatory agenda, which he framed around a return to the founding principles of free markets, individual liberty, and limited government reflected in the works of Thomas Jefferson and Adam Smith. Atkins outlined what he described as the SEC’s “ACT strategy” — Advance, Clarify, and Transform — encompassing efforts to modernize the regulatory framework for digital assets through “Project Crypto,” improve jurisdictional clarity through a historic memorandum of understanding with the CFTC, and revitalize public markets by reforming initial public offering (IPO) and disclosure requirements, rescinding the prior administration’s climate disclosure rule, and recentering enforcement on fraud, market manipulation, and abuses of trust rather than using enforcement as a de facto policymaking tool. Atkins noted that initial submissions for firm-commitment IPOs surged 70% from January through early June 2026 compared to the same period in 2024, and highlighted the upcoming launch of Trump Accounts — a new investment account available to every U.S. child under 18, with a $1,000 federal government contribution for children born between January 1, 2025, and December 31, 2028 — as a practical application of the principles of saving and investment to benefit the next generation of Americans. For more information, click here.
On June 30, the GAO publicly released its priority open recommendations report for the OCC, identifying three areas that warrant timely and focused attention: analyzing regulations to assess whether OCC rules have had their intended effects and inform future rulemaking; addressing financial technology lending to provide lenders greater certainty about their compliance with fair lending and other consumer protection laws; and addressing blockchain technology risks to enable the OCC to identify and respond to blockchain-related risks in a timely manner. The GAO noted that as of the report’s publication, the OCC had not implemented any of the three priority recommendations that GAO identified in May 2025, and that taking action to implement all open priority recommendations would directly support the OCC’s mission. For more information, click here.
On June 30, the GAO publicly released its priority open recommendations report for the Department of the Treasury, noting that while Treasury has implemented four of the 32 priority recommendations GAO identified in August 2025, 28 recommendations remain open as of June 2026. The GAO highlighted three areas warranting timely and focused attention: reducing fraud and improper payments, including enhancing efforts to recover overpayments of COVID-19 Emergency Rental Assistance funds made by grantees; ensuring cybersecurity and information privacy, to improve the ability of Treasury and the financial services sector to address cyber-related risks; and improving federal financial management, to help ensure that Congress and the administration have ready access to complete and reliable financial information. For more information, click here.
On June 30, the Bank of England and the FCA published a joint consultation document setting out how they will apply the UK’s stablecoin regulatory regime to systemic stablecoin issuers — those determined by HM Treasury (HMT) to pose risks to UK financial stability — describing the allocation of supervisory responsibilities between the two authorities, the transition arrangements for issuers moving from solo FCA regulation to joint regulation, and the step-up approach for issuers recognized as systemic at launch (SaL). Under the framework, the FCA will regulate all UK-issued qualifying stablecoins and will serve as lead authority for consumer protection, conduct, financial crime, and market integrity matters, while the Bank will assume lead responsibility for prudential requirements including backing assets — which must comprise at least 30% central bank deposits and up to 70% in short-term UK government debt securities — capital and reserve requirements, safeguarding, redemption timeframes (within 24 hours, and in real time where possible), and a temporary issuance guardrail of £40 billion per systemic stablecoin. The document outlines a typical transition period of 12 to 36 months for issuers moving to joint regulation, during which the Bank may use its power of direction to temporarily waive or modify specific requirements, and describes a proportionate mobilization and scaling pathway for SaL issuers that allows them initially to hold up to 95% of backing assets in short-term UK government debt with the remaining 5% in unremunerated central bank deposits. The consultation closes on September 30, 2026. For more information, click here.
On June 30, the FCA published its landmark final rules for the regulation of cryptoassets in the UK, completing its crypto regulatory roadmap following legislation enacted in February 2026 that brought cryptoassets within the FCA’s remit for the first time. The new framework requires all crypto firms — including trading platforms, intermediaries, custodians, stablecoin issuers, and firms arranging staking — to obtain FCA authorization to operate in the UK, and introduces financial resilience requirements including capital standards and stress testing, market integrity rules covering insider trading and market manipulation, and specific standards for stablecoins designed to build trust in their use over time. Following consultation, the FCA simplified certain elements of the regime, including capital requirements for stablecoin firms and trading rules tailored to reflect how crypto markets operate, and drew upon international best practice and established financial services standards including the Consumer Duty where risks are comparable. The authorization gateway will open on September 30, 2026, with firms able to apply through February 28, 2027, ahead of the mandatory regime coming into force on October 25, 2027. Until that date, the FCA’s oversight of crypto will continue to be limited to financial promotions and anti-money laundering controls. Pre-application support meetings are available from July 2026. For more information, click here.
On June 29, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), ranking member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, sent a letter to National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) Chairman Kyle Hauptman raising concerns about the NCUA’s “Deregulation Project” — an initiative launched in December 2025 that has produced eleven rounds of proposed regulatory changes repealing or scaling back 31 rules — and questioning whether the project can lawfully proceed with only a single board member in place following President Donald Trump’s removal of the two Democratic board members. The letter identifies several specific proposals as particularly concerning, including the elimination of segregated deposit and collateral requirements for credit union guarantors, the removal of nondiscrimination requirements under the Fair Housing Act and Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the elimination of merger disclosure requirements for credit union members, the removal of the 30-day notice requirement before terminating supplemental share insurance coverage, and the elimination of post-election finance and accounting training requirements for new board members. Warren requested a briefing and written responses to nine detailed questions by July 13, 2026, covering topics including how rules were selected for elimination, whether career supervisory staff or political leadership initiated each proposal, what safety and soundness analysis was conducted, what cumulative impact assessment has been performed on the Share Insurance Fund, and what legal basis supports a sole board member’s authority to promulgate material policy changes given the statutory requirement that at least two of three board members must agree on any board action. For more information, click here.
On June 29, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in a landmark decision to strike down the federal law restricting the president’s ability to fire FTC commissioners except for cause, overruling its 91-year-old precedent in Humphrey’s Executor v. U.S. and delivering a sweeping victory for proponents of the unitary executive theory. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts held that the FTC exercises executive power — enforcing approximately 80 statutes, conducting investigations, adjudicating compliance actions, and filing civil suits on behalf of the U.S. — and therefore its commissioners must be removable by the president at will, rejecting the prior view of the FTC as a predominantly quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative body insulated from presidential control. The decision arose from Trump’s firing of FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, who had challenged her removal in federal court and obtained a reinstatement order before the Supreme Court froze that ruling pending appeal. The majority opinion clarified that its holding does not resolve all questions about presidential removal authority, specifically noting that the Federal Reserve — to the extent it follows the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the U.S. — and certain other entities may not be subject to the same rule. In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, argued that the decision reshapes the structure of government by subjecting dozens of independent agencies — including the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission — to complete presidential control, giving the president power “unknown even to the English Crown against which the Founders revolted.” For more information, click here.
State Activities:
On July 1, CFTC Chairman Michael S. Selig published an op-ed in the Washington Times arguing that Illinois’s newly enacted 0.2% tax on cryptocurrency asset transfers — which applies to a broad range of crypto transactions by Illinois residents based on the value of the asset transferred, even where no realized profit or economic gain occurs, and which has no equivalent for economically identical noncrypto transactions — threatens Illinois’ historic legacy as a global financial innovation hub and runs counter to the free market principles and private property rights on which the U.S. was founded. Selig contended that the law treats identical economic activity differently based solely on the technology used to conduct it, creates uncertainty that functions as a cost to market participants, and puts Illinois at a competitive disadvantage at precisely the moment when federal policymakers, including Congress through the pending CLARITY Act, are working to establish a clear and innovation-friendly national framework for crypto assets and blockchain technology. He warned that financial firms and exchanges with the flexibility to choose where to build, hire, and invest will increasingly favor states that offer predictable regulatory environments over those that penalize innovation, and suggested that the Illinois law may ultimately be remembered as a historic economic misstep for a state that once led the world in derivatives market development. For more information, click here.
On July 1, South Carolina enacted the Guarantee Banking Act, which adds Chapter 47 to Title 34 of the South Carolina Code of Laws and prohibits large financial institutions — defined as banks with total assets of more than $100 billion and payment processors, credit card companies, and payment networks that processed more than $100 billion in transactions in the prior calendar year — from taking adverse actions against customers based on their exercise of religion or First Amendment-protected speech, expression, opinions, or association, or based on any factor that is not a quantitative, impartial, and risk-based standard, including factors related to a customer’s business sector. The law requires covered financial institutions to provide a written statement of specific reasons within 30 days when a customer requests one following an adverse action, with the statement required to identify whether any of the prohibited criteria factored into the decision, and prohibits institutions from conspiring or coordinating with third parties to engage in such discrimination. Violations constitute unfair or deceptive acts or practices enforceable by the South Carolina attorney general, and the law includes safe harbors for good-faith business decisions based on profitability, legal compliance, or safety and soundness considerations that are not motivated by animus or a desire to discriminate. The act takes effect six months after the governor’s signature. For more information, click here.