This article was republished on insideARM on April 22, 2025.
Yesterday, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) released a memo to staff outlining its new supervision and enforcement priorities for 2025.
Monitoring the financial services industry to help companies navigate through regulatory compliance, enforcement, and litigation issues
This article was republished on insideARM on April 22, 2025.
Yesterday, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) released a memo to staff outlining its new supervision and enforcement priorities for 2025.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) agreed to vacate its controversial credit card late fee rule in a joint motion for entry of consent judgment filed in Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. CFPB yesterday. This significant move comes after the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas found that the rule likely violated the Credit Card Accountability and Disclosure Act (CARD Act). The consent judgment marks a pivotal resolution in the case, with the CFPB acknowledging that the rule failed to allow card issuers to impose penalty fees that are “reasonable and proportional” to violations, as required by the CARD Act.
On April 11, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued an order partially staying the district court’s preliminary injunction in the ongoing legal dispute between the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). This decision marks a significant development in the NTEU’s challenge against Acting Director Russell Vought’s actions, which the union claims are unconstitutional and violate the Dodd-Frank Act. The appellate court’s order addresses several key provisions of the district court’s injunction, setting the stage for an expedited appeal process.
On April 9, the House of Representatives passed two Congressional Review Act (CRA) joint resolutions aimed at nullifying certain Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) rules finalized in the final days of the Biden-Harris Administration. These resolutions, S.J. Res. 18 and S.J. Res. 28, target rules related to limiting the overdraft fees that may be charged by large financial institutions, and extending supervisory authority over certain providers of digital payments services, respectively. The CRA resolutions are now before President Trump for signature.
As federal agencies pull back on consumer protection regulations under the Trump administration, California is stepping up to fill the void. This shift was forecasted in January, when the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) released a report titled “Strengthening State-Level Consumer Protections” (discussed here), which provided a roadmap for states looking to bolster their consumer protection laws after the anticipated rollback with the new administration.
On March 28, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) was ordered by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to reinstate its employees and resume its operations. This decision comes after the CFPB allegedly attempted to shut down its activities, leading to the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) filing a lawsuit questioning the legality of the shutdown. The court held that the CFPB’s actions to halt its operations and terminate its employees were not consistent with its statutory obligations under Title X of Dodd-Frank. As a result, the court granted a preliminary injunction requiring the CFPB to reverse its shutdown efforts, reinstate its workforce, and continue performing its statutory duties. On March 29, the Bureau filed its notice of appeal of the preliminary injunction.
In a surprising turn of events, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) and Townstone Financial, Inc. (Townstone) have jointly moved to vacate the Stipulated Final Judgment and Order previously entered in the CFPB’s enforcement action against the mortgage lender alleging redlining practices. This motion, filed on March 26, 2025, comes after significant allegations by the CFPB regarding the Bureau’s own handling of the case, which began in 2020 under the first Trump administration and continued under the Biden administration.
On March 7, the Community Financial Services Association of America (CFSA) and the Consumer Service Alliance of Texas filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to overturn a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit held that in order to obtain judicial relief, a party challenging governmental action taken by an individual who remained in office against the President’s wishes due to an unconstitutional removal restriction must show that a hypothetical replacement officer would have taken a different action. The petitioners argue that this standard is unreasonably burdensome and inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Collins v. Yellen.
In a significant development in the credit card late fee rule litigation, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has filed a status report indicating that it is actively working towards a resolution. This update follows last month’s court’s order, which required the CFPB to explain its plans for proceeding with the case.
In a move that could significantly impact the auto retail industry, California has introduced Senate Bill 766, known as the California Combating Auto Retail Scams (CARS) Act. Introduced by Senator Benjamin Allen (D) on February 21, this bill aims to impose stringent new regulations on auto dealers in the state, many of which echo back to the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) own CARS Rule.
In addition to cookies that are necessary for website operation, this website uses cookies and other tracking tools for various purposes, including to provide enhanced functionality and measure website performance. To learn more about our information practices, please visit our Privacy Notice.