On January 9, the defendants in National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) v. Vought filed a notice and exhibit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia confirming that the Acting Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) has now requested funding from the Federal Reserve Board (Federal Reserve), as required by Judge Amy Berman Jackson’s December 30, 2025 order.
On January 6, the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau issued an order further extending the effective date of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) “revoke-all” requirement in 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(10) to January 31, 2027. That provision would require callers to treat a revocation of consent made in response to one type of informational call or text message as applying to all future calls and text messages from that caller on unrelated matters. The Bureau found good cause to continue the waiver while the FCC reviews comments filed in response to its 2025 Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which specifically asks whether the revoke-all rule should be modified or replaced to give consumers more tailored control over unwanted calls. The FCC also noted that requiring companies to implement costly, enterprise-wide changes now could result in unnecessary compliance expenditures if the rule is later revised.
On December 19, 2025, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed into law the Fostering Affordability and Integrity through Reasonable (FAIR) Business Practices Act. The FAIR Act, which was proposed by Attorney General (AG) Tish James, represents the first major update to the state’s primary consumer protection law in 45 years and significantly broadens the statute’s reach.
Today, another significant decision was issued in the ongoing battle over the fate of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau). In National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) v. Vought, the D.C. federal district court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to clarify the existing preliminary injunction and squarely rejected the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel’s (OLC) interpretation of the CFPB’s funding statute. In so holding, the ruling makes clear that the CFPB cannot justify noncompliance with the court’s existing preliminary injunction by declining to request funds from the Federal Reserve.
On December 19, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed Senate Bill S1353A creating a new General Business Law article on “actions involving coerced debts.” The law is aimed squarely at survivors of domestic violence, trafficking, and other forms of economic abuse who find themselves saddled with credit card balances, loans, or other consumer debts they never truly agreed to incur. Once effective (90 days after signing), it will prohibit creditors from enforcing certain coerced consumer debts against victims, create a structured process for disputing those debts, and establish robust private rights of action and defenses against collection. New York becomes the eighth state to enact protections of this kind.
As we discussed in our prior post on National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau), on August 15 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued a decision vacating the district court’s preliminary injunction, which had previously restricted the CFPB’s actions to halt the Bureau’s operations and terminate its employees. The court of appeals held that most of the employees’ claims belonged in the Civil Service Reform Act regime and that the remaining claims did not target reviewable final agency action or equitable claims.
Three nonprofit organizations have filed a complaint in the Northern District of California seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent what they describe as a de facto shutdown of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau). Their suit targets Acting Director Russell Vought’s refusal to request funding for the Bureau from the Federal Reserve Board (Fed), arguing that Congress designed a statutory provision that provides stable, standing appropriation to support the CFPB’s mission and that the Director’s recent interpretation of the statute — which is being used to support the refusal to request funding — unlawfully cuts off those funds. The plaintiffs ask the court to compel the CFPB to fulfill its statutory duty by requesting funding immediately.
As reported by Bloomberg, the Democratic Attorneys General Association (DAGA) has hired Rohit Chopra, former Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau), to lead a new Consumer Protection and Affordability Working Group within DAGA’s policy arm. The move was announced as a coordinated, state-led response to rising living costs and widespread fraud, with a policy agenda that spans financial services, technology, and health care.
On November 24, the plaintiffs in National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) filed a motion to clarify the existing injunction, asking the court to confirm that the CFPB may not justify noncompliance by declining to request funds from the Federal Reserve Board (Fed) and that “combined earnings” under 12 U.S.C. § 5497(a)(1) refers to the Federal Reserve System’s total earnings, not a net figure reduced by interest expense. In response, Judge Amy Berman Jackson issued a minute order directing the parties to file submissions by November 26 identifying which provisions of the preliminary injunction they believe remain in force and addressing the court’s authority to enforce those provisions in light of the D.C. Circuit’s August 15 opinion and the pending petition for rehearing en banc.
On November 21, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) notified staff that it will restart supervision and require examiners, beginning with the 2026 examination cycle, to open each review by reading to the supervised entity a Humility in Supervisions Pledge. The pledge signals a notable shift in tone and execution that is in line with the CFPB’s Memorandum on Supervision and Enforcement Priorities from April 2025. Specifically, examinations will now have tighter alignment to the CFPB’s statutory authority, narrower and more clearly scoped exams (with a focus on “identified priority markets”), greater transparency and predictability, and an express preference to remediate issues in Supervision rather than escalate to Enforcement. It also formalizes a renewed focus on tangible consumer harm, especially to service members, their families, and veterans, and aims to minimize duplicative oversight where states or other regulators are already active.