Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)

Subscribe to Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) via RSS

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.

As reported by Bloomberg here, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) is moving to withdraw a 2023 Biden-era joint statement with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) that warned lenders against overbroad use of immigration status in credit decisions. The notice, submitted to the White House’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), ties together two hallmark priorities of the current Trump administration: a harder line on immigration and a continued effort to scale back fair lending enforcement. While the underlying Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) remains unchanged, the move signals a sharp shift in how the CFPB and DOJ are likely to interpret and enforce its protections for noncitizen borrowers.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) released a new market “data spotlight” on Buy Now, Pay Later (BNPL) that uses actual transaction data from six large providers of “pay-in-four” BNPL loans. The report paints a picture of growing adoption paired with improving credit performance: late fees fell and charge-off rates declined in 2023, even as the number of loans and users rose.

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.