On July 1, the CFPB terminated two separate consent orders, one involving a federal credit union and the other involving a national mortgage servicer. Both orders stemmed from 2024 enforcement actions and involved alleged violations of the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA), with the mortgage servicing matter also receiving violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, the Truth in Lending Act, and the Homeowners Protection Act.
The CFPB terminated its consent order against the credit union after finding the institution had satisfied the requirements imposed in November 2024. The order had required more than $80 million in redress and a $15 million civil money penalty. The CFPB’s original findings included the assessment of overdraft fees on authorize-positive, settle-negative transactions, overdraft fees triggered by delayed credit postings, and the insufficient disclosure of posting practices.
The Bureau’s July 2025 order waived any allegations of noncompliance and terminated all remaining obligations under the original consent order, including consumer redress.
The CFPB also terminated its August 2024 consent order against the mortgage servicer, stating that the company had fulfilled its obligations, including payment of a $2 million civil money penalty and $3 million in consumer redress. The Bureau’s original order alleged the company engaged in improper foreclosure practices by allegedly initiating foreclosure proceedings while borrowers were eligible for assistance or in active loss mitigation review. In addition, the Bureau claimed that the conduct repeated violations addressed in a 2017 order involving the same servicer.
The Bureau confirmed that it will distribute redress funds to affected consumers consistent with the 2024 order and waived any allegations of noncompliance.
Putting It Into Practice: While the CFPB faces ongoing challenges to its regulatory authority, it has increasingly moved to close out lawsuits and consent orders initiated under prior leadership (previously discussed here and here). These terminations often reflect the completion of monetary and conduct obligations rather than a shift in the Bureau’s views on the underlying violations. Financial institutions should continue to treat consent orders as a roadmap for compliance expectations, even after termination, and should proactively audit similar practices to mitigate the risk of future enforcement.
