Rule2025-08641

Authority of States To Enforce the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010; Rescission

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published
May 15, 2025
Effective
May 15, 2025

Issuing agencies

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Abstract

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau or CFPB) is rescinding its May 2022 interpretive rule regarding the scope of State enforcement under section 1042 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (CFPA) and related provisions.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 93 (Thursday, May 15, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 93 (Thursday, May 15, 2025)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20565-20567]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-08641]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

12 CFR Chapter X


Authority of States To Enforce the Consumer Financial Protection 
Act of 2010; Rescission

AGENCY: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

ACTION: Interpretive rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau or CFPB) is 
rescinding its May 2022 interpretive rule regarding the scope of State 
enforcement under section 1042 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act 
of 2010 (CFPA) and related provisions.

DATES: As of May 15, 2025, the interpretive rule published at 87 FR 
31940 (May 26, 2022) is withdrawn. This interpretive rule is effective 
on May 15, 2025.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Karithanom, Regulatory 
Implementation and Guidance Program Analyst, Office of Regulations, at 
202-435-7700. If you require this document in an alternative electronic 
format, please contact <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e4a7a2b4a6bba587878197978d86888d909da487829486ca838b92"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a6e5e0f6e4f9e7c5c5c3d5d5cfc4cacfd2dfe6c5c0d6c488c1c9d0">[email&#160;protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Pursuant to the CFPA, the Bureau is the Federal Government's 
primary regulator of consumer financial products and services. However, 
the CFPA recognizes that the States continue to play a significant and 
important role in overseeing the consumer financial marketplace. See 12 
U.S.C. 5552. On May 26, 2022, the Bureau issued an interpretive rule, 
see 87 FR 31940, ``to provide further clarity regarding the scope of 
State enforcement action under section 1042 and related provisions of 
the CFPA.'' Specifically, the Bureau clarified that: (1) section 1042 
``allows states to enforce any provision of the CFPA, including section 
1036(a)(1)(A)''; (2) ``the limitations on the Bureau's authority in 
sections 1027 and 1029'' of the CFPA ``do not constrain States' 
enforcement authority under section 1042''; and (3) ``section 1042 does 
not restrict States

[[Page 20566]]

from bringing concurrent enforcement actions with the Bureau.'' These 
interpretations were improper. The Bureau is accordingly issuing this 
interpretive rule to rescind the May 26, 2022, interpretive rule, 
``Authority of States to Enforce the Consumer Financial Protection Act 
of 2010,'' 87 FR 31940.

II. Analysis

A. Restoring Statutory Limits to States' Authority Under Section 1042

    Section 1042 of the CFPA generally authorizes the States to ``bring 
a civil action or other appropriate proceeding to enforce the 
provisions of this title or regulations issued under this title . . .'' 
12 U.S.C. 5552(a) (emphasis added); see id. (authorizing State 
attorneys general to ``enforce provisions of this title . . .''). The 
``title'' referenced is title X of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform 
and Consumer Protection Act, also called the CFPA. State authority 
under section 1042 is therefore limited to actions to enforce the CFPA.
    In the May 26, 2022, interpretive rule, the Bureau ignored this 
limitation and interpreted section 1042 to allow States to bring an 
action whenever ``a covered person or service provider violates any of 
the Federal consumer financial laws,'' not just the CFPA. Were this the 
case, however, the authorization under section 1042--that States may 
enforce this title and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto--would 
be surplusage. The Bureau believes a more appropriate interpretation of 
section 1042 is that it permits States, subject to the limitations 
imposed thereby, to enforce title X of Dodd-Frank (i.e., the CFPA) and 
the regulations issued pursuant thereto. If Congress had intended the 
CFPA to permit States to enforce any provision of any Federal consumer 
financial law, it would have said so explicitly.
    The Bureau emphasizes that, in rescinding the May 26, 2022, 
interpretive rule related to States' authority under the CFPA, it is 
not altering, limiting, or affecting the authority of States to take 
any action authorized by any separate provision of State or Federal 
law.

B. Preserving Limits on CFPA Enforcement Authorities

    The interpretive rule also claimed that States' enforcement 
authority under section 1042 is not subject to the limits on the CFPB's 
enforcement authority under sections 1027 and 1029 of the CFPA. Under 
those sections, the CFPB is subject to limits on its enforcement 
authority with respect to certain entities (e.g., merchants and motor 
vehicle dealers). 12 U.S.C. 5517, 5519. The limits under sections 1027 
and 1029 are generally directed to ``the Bureau'' or ``the Bureau's 
``Director.'' The interpretive rule concluded that because Congress 
applied these limitations only to the Bureau, they do not extend to 
States exercising their enforcement authority under section 1042.
    This is not the best interpretation of the CFPA. ``[A] statute is 
to be read as a whole, since the meaning of statutory language, plain 
or not, depends on context.'' King v. St. Vincent's Hosp., 502 U.S. 
215, 221 (1991). Sections 1027 and 1029 clearly limit the CFPB's 
enforcement authority over certain entities. Although section 1042 does 
not specifically address whether States are also subject to those 
limits, section 1042 authorizes States to enforce and seek remedies 
under the provisions of the CFPA. Because sections 1027 and 1029 
establish important limits on how the CFPA can be enforced, section 
1042 should be read consistently with those limits. Had Congress 
intended for State enforcement authority under section 1042 not to be 
subject to these limits (even though the Bureau is subject to those 
limits), it would have said so explicitly.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The May 26, 2022, interpretive rule made much of the fact 
that one of the exceptions in section 1027 applies expressly to 
States. See 12 U.S.C. 5517(a)(2)(E) (``To the extent that the Bureau 
may not exercise authority under this subsection with respect to a 
merchant, retailer, or seller of nonfinancial goods or services, no 
action by a State attorney general or State regulator with respect 
to a claim made under this titlemay be brought under [section 1042], 
with respect to an activity described in any of clauses (i) through 
(iii) of subparagraph (A) by such merchant, retailer, or seller of 
nonfinancial goods or services.''). According to the interpretive 
rule, because Congress did not similarly extend the other exceptions 
in sections 1027 and 1029 to States, those remaining limits do not 
apply to States. That was a strained reading of the CFPA. As noted 
above, the most natural reading of the entire statute is that the 
section 1027 and 1029 limits do apply to States. To be sure, there 
may be some redundancy introduced by section 1027(a)(2)(E), but 
``[r]edundancies across statutes are not unusual events in drafting. 
Connecticut Nat. Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 253 (1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Indeed, the enforcement scheme that Congress carefully crafted in 
section 1042 would make little sense if States were not subject to the 
limits in section 1027 and 1029. Before a State can bring an 
enforcement action under section 1042, it must notify the CFPB, which 
may intervene in the action as a party, be heard on all matters arising 
in the action, and appeal any order or judgment in the proceeding. 12 
U.S.C. 5552(b). However, if a State were to bring an enforcement action 
against an entity over which the CFPB lacks enforcement authority under 
sections 1027 and 1029, the CFPB would not be able to intervene in the 
action under section 1042.
    Because the most natural reading of the CFPA is that the limits in 
sections 1027 and 1029 apply to State enforcement under section 1042, 
the CFPB rescinds the portion of the May 26, 2022, interpretive rule 
that took the contrary (and incorrect) position.

C. Aligning State Action With Statutory Limitations

    The Bureau is also rescinding its prior interpretation of section 
1042 insofar as it permitted States to ``bring (or continue to pursue) 
actions under section 1042 even if the Bureau is pursuing a concurrent 
action against the same entity.''
    It is the policy of the Bureau to reduce regulatory and compliance 
burdens, and to eliminate wasteful, duplicative, and unnecessary 
regulatory and enforcement activity. Interpreting section 1042 to 
permit States and the Bureau to take parallel enforcement actions 
against the ``same entity'' is out of step with this policy.
    Further, this interpretation from the May 26, 2022, interpretive 
rule is not compelled by section 1042. Section 1042(b) contemplates 
joint, rather than concurrent, actions by States and the Bureau. 
Indeed, that subsection requires States to notify the Bureau of 
``administrative or regulatory proceedings'' taken pursuant to section 
1042 and provides that--upon notification of a State action--the Bureau 
may ``intervene in the action as a party.'' 12 U.S.C. 5552(b)(1). The 
Bureau accordingly believes its previous interpretation of section 
1042--that States ``may bring (or continue to pursue) actions under 
section 1042 even if the Bureau is pursuing a concurrent action against 
the same entity''--is improper. The notification and intervention 
provisions of the CFPA contemplate joint, not parallel, State and 
Bureau actions.
    This rescission does not affect States' ability to undertake 
independent enforcement or regulatory action when the Bureau has not 
initiated its own action against an entity.

III. Regulatory Matters

    This is an interpretive rule issued under the Bureau's authority to 
interpret the CFPA, including under section 1022(b)(1) of the CFPA, 
which authorizes guidance as may be necessary or appropriate to enable 
the Bureau to administer and carry out the purposes and objectives of 
Federal consumer financial laws, such as the CFPA.

[[Page 20567]]

    As an interpretive rule, this rule is exempt from the notice-and-
comment rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act 
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4)(A). Because no notice of proposed 
rulemaking is required, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, see 5 U.S.C. 
603, does not require an initial or final regulatory flexibility 
analysis. The Bureau has also determined that this interpretive rule 
does not impose any new or revise any existing recordkeeping, 
reporting, or disclosure requirements on covered entities or members of 
the public that would be collections of information requiring approval 
by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction 
Act.

Russell Vought,
Acting Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2025-08641 Filed 5-14-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-AM-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Indexed from Federal Register on May 15, 2025.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.