The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has withdrawn nearly 70 guidance documents, effective May 12, 2025. Acting CFPB Director Russell Vought announced the decision following a review of existing guidance since the agency’s inception in 2011.
The rescinded documents include interpretive rules, policy statements, and advisory opinions covering various consumer protection regulations. Over 40 of these were issued under former Director Rohit Chopra, who faced criticism for allegedly overstepping the CFPB’s authority. The move signals a shift away from regulation by guidance towards more defined supervisory and enforcement priorities.
Vought noted that nonbinding policy guidance often led to interpretations “inconsistent with statutory text,” imposing compliance burdens without adhering to the Administrative Procedure Act’s notice and comment requirements. He emphasized that new regulatory obligations should only be imposed when consistent with applicable law and after appropriate procedures are followed.
Vought outlined three main reasons for withdrawing the guidance: reducing compliance burdens, minimizing duplicative enforcement activities with other regulators, and addressing reliance interests on nonbinding guidance. He stated that “the benefits to withdrawing the guidance outweigh any reliance interests.”
Key rescinded documents impact federal consumer financial protection laws such as the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Truth in Lending Act. Examples include policy statements on abusive acts or practices and expanded information on the CFPB’s consumer complaints database.
Notably, the withdrawal includes an interpretive rule on “buy now, pay later” (BNPL) products amid ongoing litigation by a fintech industry group. This rule would have classified BNPL providers as “card issuers” under Regulation Z.
Vought left open the possibility of reissuing some guidance if deemed statutorily prescribed and consistent with relevant statutes or regulations. Future ambiguities may lead courts to resolve interpretive questions following last year’s Loper Bright ruling by the US Supreme Court.
