Photo of Stefanie Jackman

Stefanie Jackman

Subscribe to Stefanie Jackman's Posts

Stefanie takes a holistic approach to working with clients both through compliance counseling and assessment relating to consumer products and services, as well as serving as a zealous advocate in government inquiries, investigations, and consumer litigation.

Follow:Read more about Stefanie JackmanStefanie's Linkedin Profile

In this episode of FCRA Focus, co-hosts Dave Gettings and Kim Phan are joined by partner Stefanie Jackman to unpack the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) evolving interpretation of Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) preemption. They trace the timeline from the CFPB’s July 2022 interpretive rule, through its withdrawal in May 2025, to the October 2025 confirmation and new guidance embracing a broader view of preemption under 15 U.S.C. § 1681t(b)(1). The team discusses how the CFPB’s latest stance could impact state laws regulating consumer reports beyond “credit” — including medical debt, rental information, and criminal background checks — and why interpretive rules, despite being helpful and persuasive, are not binding on courts. They also explore practical implications for litigation and compliance, the current judicial environment for agency deference, and the ongoing tension between the need for nationwide uniformity and the growing patchwork of state-by-state mini-FCRA laws.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) has proposed an unprecedented, far‑reaching rewrite of Regulation B (Reg B) under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA). If finalized, the proposed rule would eliminate disparate‑impact liability under ECOA, significantly narrow the scope of “discouragement” to focus on explicit statements directed at applicants or prospective applicants, and prohibit or tightly restrict the use of certain protected‑class criteria in Special Purpose Credit Programs (SPCPs) offered by for‑profit organizations. Existing SPCP‑originated credit would be grandfathered.

Comments are due 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, with a proposed effective date 90 days after publication.

Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) notified the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and the D.C. Circuit in the matter of National Treasury Employees Union v. Vought that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) anticipates exhausting its currently available funds in early 2026. The filing attaches a November 7 opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) to Acting Director Vought concluding that the CFPB’s statutory funding stream — quarterly transfers from the “combined earnings of the Federal Reserve System” under 12 U.S.C. § 5497(a)(1) — is unavailable while the Federal Reserve operates at a loss. The Bureau expects to continue operating, including in compliance with an existing district court injunction, through at least December 31, 2025, but absent congressional action may face a funding lapse thereafter, which would trigger Antideficiency Act constraints.

On October 29, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) officially rescinded its rule requiring nonbank entities to register certain agency and court orders with the Bureau. This decision follows a proposal made earlier this year (discussed here), which highlighted concerns about the regulatory burden and costs imposed on nonbank entities, which could ultimately affect consumers.

On October 28, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) issued a new interpretive rule replacing its 2022 interpretive rule (withdrawn in May 2025) concerning the scope of preemption under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). This new interpretive rule clarifies that the FCRA broadly preempts state laws related to consumer reporting, reinforcing Congress’s intent to establish national standards when information is used to determine a consumer’s eligibility for credit, insurance, employment and the like. This move replaces the previous rule, which was criticized for its potential to create regulatory confusion.

In a recent decision, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, upheld the dismissal of a class action lawsuit filed against First National Collection Bureau, Inc. (FNCB). In an unpublished opinion, the court affirmed the lower court’s ruling that the plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). This decision clarifies the scope of third-party communications under the FDCPA, particularly in the context of using third-party vendors for mailing collection letters.

On August 29, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) announced updates to its Consumer Compliance Examination Manual, marking a pivotal shift in how potential discrimination under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and Fair Housing Act will be evaluated. The FDIC will now focus solely on evidence of disparate treatment, removing all references to disparate impact analysis from its examination procedures. This action follows on the heels of the OCC’s announcement on July 14 that it had removed all references to disparate impact analysis from the Fair Lending booklet of the Comptroller’s Handbook and directed examiners to cease examining banks for disparate impact liability, discussed here.

On August 15, Illinois Governor JB Pritzker approved Public Act 104-0383. This legislation, effective immediately, amends the Student Loan Servicing Rights Act and introduces Article 7, focusing on Educational Income Share Agreements (EISAs).

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) is taking a significant step to modify its supervisory approach to nonbanks by publishing a proposed rule advancing a more stringent definition of “risks to consumers” in the context of § 1024(a)(1)(C) of the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA) when designating nonbanks for supervision. This move aims to limit the Bureau’s oversight of nonbanks to cases where there is a high likelihood of significant harm to consumers, thereby narrowing the scope of its supervisory authority.

On August 8, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) published a series of proposed rules aimed at redefining what constitutes a “larger participant” in several key financial markets. Under § 1024 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act, the Bureau’s supervisory authority extends to “larger participants” offering consumer financial products or services. The proposed rules seek to amend existing thresholds in the consumer reporting, auto financing, consumer debt collection, and international money transfer markets to better align with current market conditions and regulatory priorities. The Bureau is accepting comments on these proposals until September 22, 2025.