On May 8, 2025, the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (“CSBS”) asked the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”)  to comply with Executive Orders 14129 and 14267 by reversing its regulations governing national bank preemption.[1] Executive Order 14129 directed federal agencies to rescind unlawful regulations,[2] and Executive Order 14267 directed federal agencies to reduce anti-competitive regulatory barriers.[3] If the OCC had adopted the position advocated by the CSBS, it could have opened the door to state-level oversight of national banks and federal savings associations, likely resulting in a more fragmented regulatory landscape, where national banks face varying rules across different states. But the OCC refused to change course. The federal government has recently pursued deregulatory policies on multiple fronts, and the OCC’s position on preemption effectively limits state banking regulators that might otherwise seek to apply stricter regulatory requirements on national banks and federal savings associations.

Continue Reading OCC Reaffirms that its National Bank Preemption Regulations are Lawful

On May 20, 2025, the Senate cleared procedural obstacles to consider the GENIUS Act on the Senate floor. Originally introduced on Feb. 4, by Senator Bill Hagerty, R-TN, along with Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Scott, R-SC, Kirsten Gillibrand, D-NY, and Cynthia Lummis, R-WY, the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins of 2025 (GENIUS) Act would define and regulate payment stablecoins. Payment stablecoins are digital assets designed to maintain a stable value relative to another asset. More than 99% of stablecoins tie their value to the U.S. dollar.

Read More

There has been much speculation that States will fill the void created by the Trump Administration’s drastic scaling back of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Congress authorized both state attorneys general and state regulators (like New York’s Department of Financial Services and California’s Department of Financial Protection and Innovation) to enforce the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA), except against national banks and federal savings associations.[1] Under that authority, States may enforce the CFPA’s prohibition on engaging in UDAAPs,[2] and they may also have authority to enforce the CFPA’s separate prohibition on violating “Federal consumer financial law,” a term that the statute defines to include “the enumerated consumer laws”: TILA, FCRA, the FDCPA, EFTA, RESPA, and others.[3]

Continue Reading States May Not Obtain Civil Money Penalties Under the Consumer Financial Protection Act

On May 7, 2025, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”) issued a follow up to its July 2020 Interpretative Letter 1170, which allowed national banks to provide cryptocurrency custody services to their customers.[1] The May 7 letter (Interpretive Letter 1184)[2] further clarified that banks can buy and sell cryptocurrency at the custody customer’s direction and outsource cryptocurrency custody and execution services.[3] But in contrast to the OCC’s clear confirmation that banks can provide cryptocurrency custody services, the guidance for safe and sound practices for those services remains murky.

Continue Reading Banks May Provide Cryptocurrency Transaction and Custody Services, but OCC Has Yet to Provide Clear Compliance Requirements

On March 17, 2025, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) announced that it conditionally approved a fintech business model for CenTrust Bank, N.A.’s (“CenTrust”), an Illinois based community bank chartered by the OCC.[1] CenTrust was acquired by SmartBiz Loans, which is a fintech company that provides an online platform to connect small business owners with lenders providing Small Business Administration (“SBA”) loans. Following the acquisition, CenTrust applied to change its business model to incorporate the SmartBiz Loans’ business model of providing SBA loans nationwide.

Continue Reading Another Fintech Company Acquires a National Bank Charter through Merger

On September 24, 2024, California enacted Assembly Bill 2863 (the “Bill”) to take effect on July 1, 2025.[1] The Bill updates California’s regulations governing automatic renewals and continuous services. An automatic renewal or continuous service (“auto renewal contract”) is defined as a contract that renews automatically at the end of a definite term or becomes a payable contract after a free trial period.[2] The Bill continues the state trend of expanding regulations to protect California consumers when enrolling in subscriptions.[3]

Continue Reading California Enacts New Bill to Strengthen Customer Protection on Automatic Renewals

On June 3, 2024, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau imposed a new set of regulatory obligations on nondepository consumer-financial companies that are subject to court or administrative orders enforcing federal or state consumer-protection laws. The Bureau’s new rule creates a public registry of such orders dating back to January 1, 2017. It requires covered entities to submit the orders and information about them to populate the registry. And it requires covered entities subject to CFPB supervision to also file annual statements about their ongoing compliance with these orders and to self-report any violations or noncompliance that the supervised entity identified during the prior year. The rule marks a new assertion of regulatory oversight by the CFPB with consequential implications, creating increased risks of investigation and enforcement by the Bureau and other regulators and the potential for increased public scrutiny. For supervised nonbanks, the rule may also increase the risk of examination by CFPB officials based on the nonbanks’ annual statements.

Continue Reading CFPB Establishes New Obligations for Covered Nondepository Institutions Subject to Judicial or Administrative Enforcement Orders

Yesterday, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau updated its process for designating a nonbank for supervision. Initially issued in 2013, the revised rule specifically establishes the CFPB’s procedures in determining whether a nonbank “poses risk to consumers” and is thus subject to the Bureau’s supervisory authority. The CFPB has had the authority to supervise such nonbanks since its creation. But it was not until 2022 that the CFPB announced that it would begin to use this so-called “dormant authority” to examine nonbanks. Last year, the CFPB initiated several supervisory-designation proceedings against nonbanks under that previously dormant authority, leading to the Bureau’s first-ever order in a contested matter establishing supervision over a nonbank. 

Continue Reading CFPB Updates Process to Designate Nonbanks for Supervision

On October 11, 2023, President Biden, Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chair Lina Khan, and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) Director Rohit Chopra announced the latest developments in the government’s efforts to tackle junk fees. Junk fees are hidden, surprise fees imposed on customers without clear disclosure.[1] The CFPB and FTC have taken several measures to crack down on junk fees since early 2022, including:

  • On January 26, 2022, the CFPB issued a request for information regarding fees that consumers believed to be covered by a baseline price, unexpected fees, and fees that seemed too high or unclear.[2]
  • On March 23, 2023, the FTC proposed a “click to cancel” provision requiring sellers to make it easier for consumers to cancel their recurring subscriptions and memberships.[3]
  • On June 22, 2022, the CFPB issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to address excessive credit-card late fees. [4] On February 1, 2023, the CPFB issued a proposed rule limiting and capping late fees.[5]
  • On June 29, 2022, the CFPB issued an advisory opinion affirming that “pay-to-pay” fees that are not authorized by the original loan violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). “Pay-to-pay” fees are those that are imposed on consumers who want to make a payment in a particular way.[6]
  • On July 23, 2022, the FTC proposed a rule to ban junk fees and bait-and-switch tactics for car buyers.[7]
  • On October 20, 2022, the FTC published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to crack down on junk fees, seeking comments on unnecessary charges, unavoidable charges, and surprise charges.[8]
  • On October 26, 2022, the CFPB issued guidance stating that imposing surprise bounced-check or overdraft fees are likely to be unfair and unlawful.[9]
  • On October 11, 2023, the CFPB published a Supervisory Highlights special edition covering junk fees in the areas of bank accounts, auto-loan servicing, and remittances that were identified during CFPB examinations between February and August 2023. The CFPB claims to have recovered and is refunding $140 million back to impacted customers.[10]

Earlier this week, the CFPB released an advisory opinion on fees related to consumers requesting information on products and services, and the FTC proposed a new rule banning hidden fees and bogus fees.

Continue Reading The FTC and CFPB Announce New Rules to Tackle Junk Fees

Much has been written about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s recent “Policy Statement on Abusive Acts or Practices,”[1] in which the Bureau analyzed the prohibition on abusive conduct in the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (CFPA). In response to the statement’s publication in the Federal Register, comments were submitted by banks, credit unions, debt collectors, and others.[2] But the Bureau’s policy statement should be of particular interest to another class of persons: real-estate agents who participate in joint ventures with mortgage or title companies.

Continue Reading Real-Estate Agents Who Participate in Joint Ventures Should Be Wary of the CFPB’s Recent Policy Statement on Abusive Conduct