Regulatory: The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
The bureau issues its first regulation.
June 08, 2011 at 10:14 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
This column is the fourth in a series of articles on the coming of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the direction it is likely to take in the regulation of consumer financial products and services.
We know that the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will have significant regulatory authority under Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act, but precisely what does that mean? On May 31, 2011, the bureau itself took the first step toward answering that question when it published in the Federal Register its first rule for public comment.
The Act provides that the seven existing federal agencies currently tasked with oversight of various consumer financial services protection laws – (1) the Board of Governors; (2) the Federal Deposit Insurance Company (FDIC); (3) the Federal Trade Commission (FTC); (4) the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA); (5) the Office of Comptroller of the Currency (OCC); (6) the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS); and (7) the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) – must transfer their consumer protection functions to the bureau on the designated transfer date – July 21, 2011. Beginning on that date, the bureau will have the authority to enforce the rules and orders issued by these seven transferor agencies under the enumerated consumer laws, a term defined in a previous installment.
Section 1063(i) of the Act specifically requires the bureau to consult with each of these transferor agencies to identify the rules and orders that the bureau will enforce and publish that list in the Federal Register. Hence, the May 31st proposed rule. So what does the rule say?
First, the rule states a few prefatory facts. The bureau has, for instance, consulted with each of the transferor agencies as Section 1063(i) requires. Additionally, the bureau and the transferor agencies identified only rules, not any orders, that will be enforced by the bureau.
Second, the rule sets forth a few general pronouncements. Specifically, the bureau (which is acting through the Secretary of Treasury until the designated transfer date) proclaims that the rule does not have any substantive effect, and disclaims that “the inclusion or exclusion of any rule or order would not alter the [bureau's] authority.” Further, the rule purportedly is not subject to the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), so notice and comment are not even required according to the bureau. Read: do not rely on the rule and, if you do, there is no remedy under the APA.
Finally, the rule lists the rules that the bureau will, subject to certain limitations in the Act, begin enforcing on the designated transfer date. The list includes substantially all the big regulations issued under all the major consumer financial protection acts.
For instance, the bureau will enforce Regulations B, C, E, P, V, and Z, which had been within the province of the Board under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, the Electronic Funds Transfers Act, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and the Truth in Lending Act, respectively. The bureau will take over enforcement of a series of rules on the privacy of consumer financial information that, up until the designated transfer date, were enforced by the FDIC, OCC, OTS, NCUA, FTC, and HUD.
In addition, the bureau will take over enforcement of large swaths of the regulations previously enforced by these agencies addressing mortgage disclosures and the like. Indeed, the bureau has already designed new disclosure forms and sought feedback from the public on them via its website.
The bottom line is that the bureau will be overseeing— enforcing—virtually all of the day-to-day regulations that impact the consumer financial services industry. To the extent these regulations impact you, start looking away from the old regulator and toward the bureau. To keep up, follow the bureau on Twitter, or “friend” the bureau on Facebook. The bureau has so far been prolific in its use of social media.
In the final two installments of this series, we will take a look at the bureau's enforcement powers and the Act's new unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices provisions.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllWhat to Know About the New 'Overlapping Directorship' Antitrust Development
4 minute readTurning Over Legal Tedium to AI Requires Lots of Unglamorous Work on Front End
6 minute readKhan Defends FTC Tenure, Does Not Address Post-Inauguration Plans
Best Practices for Adopting and Adapting to AI: Mitigating Risk in Light of Increasing Regulatory and Shareholder Scrutiny
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'It's Not Going to Be Pretty': PayPal, Capital One Face Novel Class Actions Over 'Poaching' Commissions Owed Influencers
- 211th Circuit Rejects Trump's Emergency Request as DOJ Prepares to Release Special Counsel's Final Report
- 3Supreme Court Takes Up Challenge to ACA Task Force
- 4'Tragedy of Unspeakable Proportions:' Could Edison, DWP, Face Lawsuits Over LA Wildfires?
- 5Meta Pulls Plug on DEI Programs
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250