Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)

Subscribe to Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) via RSS

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.

According to a recent report by WebRecon, court filings under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) rose by double digits while litigation under Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) trended down. Complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) were also down. Yet, everything is up YTD and looks like it will end that way.

In two recent litigation status reports, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) indicated that it is working to issue interim final rules for both Section 1071 and Section 1033 in light of an opinion from the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) concluding that the Bureau cannot lawfully draw funds from the Federal Reserve Board at this time. Specifically, as discussed here, the OLC concluded that the Federal Reserve System presently has no “combined earnings” from which the CFPB may lawfully draw funds under the Dodd‑Frank Act, and the CFPB has publicly stated it anticipates having sufficient funds to continue normal operations through at least December 31, 2025.

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.

As reported by Law360 on November 20, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) will hand off its remaining enforcement lawsuits and other active litigation to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) as the Bureau prepares for a potential funding lapse. CFPB staff were informed that DOJ will begin assuming matters from the CFPB’s enforcement and legal divisions in the coming weeks, with transfer logistics to be worked out. It remains unclear whether all pending cases will survive the transition or whether case schedules and continuity will be affected.

Yesterday, President Trump nominated Stuart Levenbach, an energy official at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), to serve a five-year term as permanent director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau). Levenbach’s experience is in natural resources and energy policy rather than financial regulation, and he would inherit an agency facing profound uncertainty after months of leadership turmoil, enforcement retrenchment, and dwindling finances.

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.