House Republicans are proposing a rewrite of the statutory framework that governs how the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau makes rules, supervises financial institutions and brings enforcement actions.
The Consumer Financial Protection Accountability and Reform Act of 2026, introduced Monday (Aug. 31) as H.R. 10184 by Rep. Andy Barr of Kentucky and Rep. French Hill of Arkansas, covers several broad areas, spanning CFPB governance, legal standards, consumer financial products, supervision and enforcement.
The House Financial Services Committee formally unveiled the bill Tuesday (Sept. 1). Hill, who chairs the committee, said the legislation is intended to establish what he called “durable guardrails” for the CFPB. That is the sponsors’ rationale for the bill. The legislation itself shows where they want those guardrails placed.
The first is around the CFPB’s institutional structure.
The bill would bring the bureau into the regular congressional appropriations process, replacing its existing funding mechanism. It would also establish a dedicated CFPB inspector general and change the treatment of money remaining in the Civil Penalty Fund after payments to victims.
Rulemaking would face additional requirements. The CFPB would have to conduct cost-benefit analysis that considers compliance costs, competition, small businesses, credit availability, and the price and availability of consumer financial products. The Office of Management and Budget would periodically review major CFPB regulations, with the first review required no later than eight years after a rule takes effect.
The provisions would affect the process by which the CFPB develops regulation. The legislation is, arguably, more sweeping when it gets to supervision.
The CFPB has supervisory authority over banks, thrifts and credit unions with more than $10 billion in assets, in addition to specified nonbanks and larger participants in designated consumer finance markets. H.R. 10184 would raise the bank threshold to $30 billion, with adjustments beginning in 2031 based on nominal U.S. gross domestic product.
Who Conducts the Examination
Eligible banks, savings associations and credit unions above $30 billion generally could elect to have their consumer compliance supervision conducted under the framework applicable to institutions below the threshold, placing primary supervisory responsibility with their prudential regulator.
The legislation sets out a process for enforcement referrals as well. If the CFPB identifies a possible violation at an institution being supervised by its prudential regulator, it could refer the matter to that regulator. The bureau could pursue the matter itself if the regulator hasn’t initiated an enforcement action within 120 days.
For nonbanks, the bill changes the statutory language governing CFPB supervision.
Language in the legislation replaces “risks to consumers” with “substantial injury to consumers” in Section 1024 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act. It also requires at least a 90-day opportunity for a company to respond when the CFPB seeks to bring it under supervision through its risk-based designation authority.
The same section would limit the scope of CFPB supervision of a covered nonbank or service provider to activities, operations, records, personnel and systems “directly related” to the consumer financial product or service that gives the bureau supervisory jurisdiction. It also defines a market for purposes of that section around products that share the same primary consumer purpose and are “reasonably interchangeable by consumers.”
In terms of the impact to payments and other financial services companies whose businesses can contain both covered consumer financial products and activities outside the CFPB’s jurisdiction, the proposal specifies how far an examination could extend within such a company rather than leaving that question solely to supervisory practice.
The bill separately rewrites portions of the CFPB’s enforcement authority.
It adds a statutory definition of “substantial injury” and changes the conditions under which conduct can be considered abusive.
Market monitoring gets its own restriction. The CFPB could continue collecting information to monitor consumer finance markets, but information obtained through that authority couldn’t be used to initiate, or in connection with, an enforcement investigation, enforcement action or supervisory examination. It also establishes a safe harbor from certain monetary penalties and damages for qualifying small-dollar credit products offered by insured banks and credit unions, subject to conditions in the bill.
Earned wage access is one area of focus. A provider that charges a fee would have to make the same amount of earned wages available through a no-cost option. The bill prohibits interest, late fees and other penalties for nonpayment and restricts furnishing EWA activity to consumer reporting agencies.
It also amends the Truth in Lending Act so that qualifying earned wage access services aren’t included in the definition of credit and EWA providers aren’t considered creditors under TILA.
By now, pay later (BNPL) is handled differently. Rather than establish a new federal regulatory classification, the legislation directs the Government Accountability Office to study the market and report to Congress on issues including fees, disputes, credit reporting, consumer understanding of payment schedules and repayment performance.
The post House Bill Would Rewrite CFPB Supervision and Enforcement Rules appeared first on PYMNTS.com.