On February 4, Senators Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) introduced bipartisan legislation aimed at immediately capping credit card interest rates at 10% for a period of five years. This initiative follows a recent Forbes report indicating that the average credit card interest rate stands at 28.6%.

Hours before a scheduled hearing yesterday, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) filed an “Emergency Notice” in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit with respect to the ongoing litigation challenging the CFPB’s Small Business Lending Data Collection final rule under Section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act (the 1071 Rule), discussed here. The notice announced that, with the removal of CFPB Director Rohit Chopra over the weekend, “Counsel for the CFPB has been instructed not to make any appearances in litigation except to seek a pause in proceedings.” The notice is in line with an email that went to all CFPB staff yesterday, directing staff to halt most all of the CFPB’s activities in connection with the appointment of Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to serve as the agency’s Acting Director (as discussed here). The CFPB is also seeking a “pause” in other litigation and, presumably, is halting non-public enforcement proceedings as well.

After two and a half years, Coinbase, Inc. (Coinbase) and other crypto market participants may finally get an answer for why the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has declined to promulgate rules clarifying how and when federal securities laws apply to digital assets like cryptocurrencies.

In a significant and highly anticipated move, President Donald Trump has fired Rohit Chopra, the Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau). Rohit Chopra, who had been serving as the Director of the CFPB since 2021, confirmed his departure in a letter to President Trump dated February 1, 2025. Chopra’s tenure was characterized by aggressive efforts to curb what he termed as “junk” fees and regulate Big Tech’s financial services.

On January 30, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) released its updated list of consumer reporting companies for 2025. The list includes nationwide consumer reporting companies as well as several other companies that focus on specific market areas, consumer segments, and types of users. According to the CFPB, consumers can use the list to know about the kinds of personal financial information that is collected for credit and other consumer reports, request their consumer reporting data, dispute inaccuracies, and block access to their credit reporting data through security freezes. 

On January 10, the Alaska Legislature introduced Senate Bill 39 that aims to amend the state’s Small Loan Act. This proposed legislation seeks to implement significant changes, including the introduction of a predominant economic interest test, the repeal of Alaska’s payday loan law, and amending the maximum interest rate that can be charged on loans up to $25,000.

On January 29, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) released a report analyzing the auto lending market’s impact on servicemembers. This report indicates that servicemembers face heightened financial challenges in the auto lending market, including higher loan amounts, interest rates, and monthly payments. Despite these challenges, servicemembers were less likely to experience vehicle repossessions.

This week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued a decision reversing a summary judgment order in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) case. The court found that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the defendant debt collector knew or should have known that the plaintiff disputed the debt, and whether the defendant exercised reasonable care in reporting the debt.

Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an opinion denying class certification in a case under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) finding common issues did not predominate the individual inquires. The decision further clarified the application and constitutionality of the statute to unsolicited fax advertisements.