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 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.
As discussed here, in February 2023, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) launched the auto finance data pilot and issued nine market monitoring orders to three banks, three finance companies, and three captive lenders. This initiative aimed to gather comprehensive data on auto lending portfolios. Yesterday, the CFPB issued a Repossession in Auto Finance report using the dataset to show that repossession assignments increased for certain consumers post-2020, but many consumers avoided repossession in parts of 2021 and 2022. The data also indicates that repossession forwarders were increasingly involved in repossession activity, potentially resulting in increased repossession costs passed on to consumers.
On January 15, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) issued a Compliance Aid to clarify the requirements under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA) and Regulation E. Electronic Fund Transfers (EFTs) are defined as “any transfer of funds that is initiated through an electronic terminal, telephone, computer, or magnetic tape for the purpose of ordering, instructing, or authorizing a financial institution to debit or credit a consumer’s account.” The Compliance Aid, presented in a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) format, addresses various aspects of EFTs, including coverage, financial institutions’ obligations, and error resolution processes.
Earlier this month, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) issued new policy statements regarding its Compliance Assistance Sandbox (CAS) and No-Action Letters (NAL) programs. These policies ostensibly aim to promote innovation, competition, ethics, and transparency in the consumer financial products and services market. However, the policies also introduce significant restrictions, particularly concerning applications from firms with prior federal or state enforcement actions and those represented by former CFPB attorneys.
As part of a flurry of last minute regulatory activity by the Biden administration’s Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau), on January 15, the CFPB published an advisory opinion in the Federal Register rescinding a previous advisory opinion which the Bureau issued during the first Trump administration in November 2020. The 2020 advisory opinion had described how a specific type of “earned wage” product did not constitute the offering or extension of “credit” under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and Regulation Z. The new advisory opinion is effective immediately.
Last week, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) released its latest Supervisory Highlights report, focusing on the use of advanced technologies in credit scoring models. This edition of Supervisory Highlights concerns select examinations of institutions that use credit scoring models, including models built with advanced technology commonly marketed as AI/ML technology, when making credit decisions. The report repeated the CFPB’s previous statements that there is “no ‘advanced technology’ exception” to federal consumer protection laws (which, to our knowledge, no industry participant has suggested to exist) and asserted that financial institutions will need to improve their practices to ensure compliance with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) and Regulation B. This includes actively searching for less discriminatory alternatives, critically evaluating the use of alternative data, and rigorously testing and validating adverse action reasons.
On January 15, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) released a blog post highlighting the growing efforts by financial institutions to serve consumers with limited English proficiency (LEP). However, according to the Bureau, despite these advancements, significant barriers remain for LEP individuals in accessing fair and competitive financial services.
This article was republished on insideARM on January 23, 2025, in their newsletter on January 27, 2025, and was mentioned in this insideARM article on February 3, 2025.
As the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) anticipates a shift in its leadership with the incoming administration of President Trump, the Bureau has released a report titled “Strengthening State-Level Consumer Protections.” This report appears to be a strategic move by the CFPB to influence state-level consumer protection laws before the anticipated shift in federal regulatory policy, and the Bureau’s recommendations appear to be items that would need to be the subject of legislation, if they are to occur. As detailed below, the changes advocated by the CFPB would strengthen the position of both state regulators and private plaintiffs in actions against industry participants.