CFPB withdraws dozens of guidance documents in sweeping regulatory shift

Consistent with President Trump’s de-regulatory agenda, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) is withdrawing over five dozen of its guidance documents, including interpretive rules, advisory opinions, and policy statements.¹ This follows an April 11 directive from Acting Director Russell T. Vought instructing all CFPB divisions to conduct a comprehensive review of existing guidance.

Meanwhile, the litigation over Acting Director Vought’s downsizing of the CFPB staff is ongoing², with the next round of oral arguments scheduled for May 16, 2025, and there is currently no clarity on when or if more permanent leadership for the CFPB is on the horizon. The White House previously announced the nomination of Jonathan McKernan to lead CFPB, but his nomination stalled in the Senate, and concurrent with the CFPB’s release of the list of guidance materials, the White House has now announced Mr. Kernan’s nomination to a key role at the Treasury Department as the Undersecretary for Domestic Finance.³

While the CFPB has withdrawn a significant amount of guidance documents, the wide range of federal consumer protection laws underpinning those documents remain in effect, including the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (CFPA), Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), Truth in Lending Act (TILA), Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA), and Military Lending Act (MLA). Nonetheless, when coupled with the proposed 90% staffing CFPB cut, withdrawal of the guidance documents confirms the significant de-regulatory shift in the Bureau’s approach to supervision, regulation, and enforcement under the current administration. Whether or how other federal and state regulators will fill the void left by CFPB’s withdrawal remains an outstanding question.

Per Vought’s announcement, the CFPB intends to continue its comprehensive review of all existing guidance materials to determine whether they should ultimately be retained, replaced, or permanently rescinded. Regardless, Vought’s announcement confirms the Bureau will reduce “its own enforcement to … areas statutorily required.”⁴ Further, industry should not rely on the withdrawn guidance while this review is ongoing. The withdrawn documents include the following notable Bureau publications, some of which have been the subject of court challenges:

• Statement of Policy Regarding Prohibition on Abusive Acts or Practices, 88 FR 21883 (April 12, 2023). This policy statement has drawn significant attention for its clarification of the legal standard for "abusive" conduct under the Consumer Financial Protection Act. It is important to note that this CFPB guidance, like others over the years, was challenged in Court.⁵
• Consumer Financial Protection Circular 2024-06: Background Dossiers and Algorithmic Scores for Hiring, Promotion, and Other Employment Decisions, 89 FR 88875 (November 12, 2024) This circular has generated notable interest due to its implications for the use of AI and algorithmic decision-making in employment, intersecting with broader debates on data privacy and fairness.
• Fair Credit Reporting Act: File Disclosure (89 FR 4167), Background Screening (89 FR 4171), and Limited Preemption of State Laws (87 FR 41042). These interpretive rules and advisory opinions, among others, were issued emphasizing the CFPB’s concern over the accuracy and integrity of information in consumer credit files, consumers’ rights to know all the sources of information that make their way into consumers’ credit files, and the rights of states to enact laws going beyond the protections afforded consumers under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
• Consumer Financial Protection Circular 2024-05: Improper Overdraft Opt-in Practices, 89 FR 80075 (October 2, 2024). This guidance has received much attention in the banking and fintech sectors, particularly regarding its impact on overdraft fee practices.

The principle that federal agencies must impose obligations only through formal rulemaking or adjudication, as required by law, is one of Vought’s stated primary reasons for this broad-reaching rescission. Per the Bureau, their objective going forward is to issue guidance only when it is necessary and helps reduce, not increase, covered entities’ compliance burdens. The Bureau provides three specific reasons for the regulatory guidance it is withdrawing⁶.

1. Per the Bureau’s new policy, guidance will be issued only when it is deemed necessary and when it serves to reduce, rather than increase, compliance burdens. Vought has indicated that CFPB will no longer issue guidance without taking stock of its impact on regulated entities’ costs and obligations.
2. Second, the Bureau is curtailing its enforcement activities in line with President Trump’s deregulatory directives and to clean up a significant overlap between the Bureau’s enforcement functions and those of other federal and state agencies—such as the FTC, DOJ, and financial regulators. Vought pledges the Bureau will continue to reevaluate its published guidance to avoid overlap, redundancy and to ease unnecessary compliance burdens.
3. Third, the Bureau notes that all of the rescinded guidance is non-binding and does not create substantive rights. Without mentioning Loper Bright, the Bureau notes that when an agency’s guidance exceeds statutory or regulatory authority, it is unlawful and cannot prompt regulated entities’ reliance upon it. They further explain that they will not enforce in reliance on rescinded guidance and that even if it is not unlawful, the benefits of the CFPB withdrawing their guidance outweigh any asserted reliance interests.⁷

We continue to monitor developments related to this and other significant action affecting the CFPB and its work. The CFPB under acting Director Vought has also indicated it may take a look at revising the CFPB’s Personal Financial Data Rights regulations (sometimes called the “Open Bank” or “Section 1033” rule) finalized in October 2024. Court challenges of some of the now-rescinded CFPB guidance and advisory materials as well as involving CFPB formal rulemaking are ongoing related to pressing topics like open banking and medical debt.⁸ Further, while this action withdraws dozens of published pieces of interpretive guidance, regulated businesses may want to evaluate whether compliance strategies built around any of this guidance still reflect sound compliance practices, bearing in mind that in some cases the CFPB is stating other federal or state regulators have duplicative regulatory guidance and jurisdiction. As noted above, while the CFPB is stating it will not enforce the areas in the rescinded guidance, they are silent as to what they will enforce and as to what other state or federal regulators may enforce related to the subject matter of the rescinded guidance. Accordingly, regulated entities may need to evaluate what of this now withdrawn regulatory guidance in principle remains consistent with governing statutes and regulations or reflects sensible consumer-centric business practices. Entities interested in how this or other CFPB or federal regulatory actions may impact their businesses may contact any of the authors of this alert or their usual Eversheds Sutherland’s contact. We would be pleased to assist with any questions about federal regulators’ advisory actions, financial regulation or consumer protection more broadly.

1 The CFPB published the withdrawals in the Federal Register on May 12, 2025. See, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/05/12/2025-08286/interpretive-rules-policy-statements-and-advisory-opinions-withdrawal. On May 13, 2025, the CFPB will publish additional rescissions of amendments made to the Bureau’s Rules of Practice for Adjudication Proceedings. See, Federal Register document 2025-08344.

2 See, National Treasury Employes Union et al. v. Russell Vought, et al., 1:25 cv 00381 (D.C. District Court) and Case 25-5132, (DC Circuit Court)

3 See, https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sb0137.

4 See, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/05/12/2025-08286/interpretive-rules-policy-statements-and-advisory-opinions-withdrawal. 

5 See, Loper Bright Enterprises et al. v Raimondo, Secretary of Commerce at al., 603 U.S. 369,144 S Ct 2244 (2024), https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf. The UDAAP rule challenge was filed before the Supreme Court’s Loper Bright decision rolled back the Chevron deference doctrine, thus reining in the deference to which courts would give to federal agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous laws they are tasked to administer.

6 See, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/05/12/2025-08286/interpretive-rules-policy-statements-and-advisory-opinions-withdrawal. 

7 See, footnote 4.

8 See, e.g., Texas Bankers Association v. CFPB, No. 24-40705 (Fifth Circuit) and CFPB announcement that it would not be prioritizing enforcement or supervision actions related to the regulation titled Small Business Lending Under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (Regulation B).