Regulatory Enforcement + Compliance

Subscribe to Regulatory Enforcement + Compliance via RSS

On April 9, the White House issued a memorandum directing federal executive departments and agencies to repeal regulations deemed unlawful pursuant to certain U.S. Supreme Court decisions. This directive aims to address regulatory barriers that the Trump administration believes hinder economic growth and innovation. The memorandum implements Executive Order 14219, issued on February 19, 2025, which ordered the heads of all federal agencies to identify unlawful and potentially unlawful regulations within 60 days and begin plans to repeal them. Now, the administration is directing agencies to prioritize that review under 10 watershed Supreme Court cases, and to repeal regulations that are considered unlawful under those cases without public notice and comment, if possible.

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.

Last month, the Texas legislature introduced two companion bills, S.B. No. 2677 and H.B. No. 700, to regulate sales-based commercial financing. For purposes of the proposed legislation, sales-based financing is a transaction that is repaid as a percentage of sales or revenue, or according to a fixed payment mechanism that provides for a reconciliation process to adjust payments to an amount that is a percentage of sales or revenue. These bills propose significant changes to the regulatory landscape for sales-based financing transactions, including the imposition of a usury cap on such transactions and disclosure requirements that only extend to financing of over $500,000. The bills are currently pending before committees.

On April 7, DailyPay, LLC, an employer-integrated earned wage access (EWA) provider, filed a lawsuit against New York Attorney General Letitia James, seeking declaratory relief to prevent the enforcement of state and federal laws that the company argues do not apply to its business model. The case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, centers on the classification of DailyPay’s on-demand pay (ODP) product, which allows workers to access their earned wages before the traditional payday.

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.

The Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS), a nationwide organization of state banking and financial regulators from all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories, has raised significant concerns regarding the current draft of the Stablecoin Transparency and Accountability for a Better Ledger Economy (STABLE) Act.

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.

Last Friday, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) announced the rescission of Financial Institution Letter (FIL-16-2022) and issued new guidance clarifying the process for FDIC-supervised institutions to engage in crypto-related activities. The new Financial Institution Letter (FIL-7-2025) represents a 180 degree turn from the prior Chairman’s position, which required prior notification and relevant information by banks seeking to engage in crypto-related activities.