119-SJRES-128 Journalist Public Summary
A new Senate resolution would block the CFPB’s 2025 move that scrapped guidance warning that illegal fine print in consumer contracts can mislead people, effectively aiming to keep the 2024 guidance in place; backers frame it as restoring consumer protections, while opponents say it revives burdensome, nonbinding guidance; it’s been introduced and sent to the Senate Banking Committee. (govinfo.gov)
Headline Summary
Senate Joint Resolution 128 would overturn the CFPB’s May 12, 2025 withdrawal of guidance and keep in force the 2024 directive warning that unlawful or unenforceable contract terms in consumer finance can be deceptive. (govinfo.gov)
What It Does
In plain English: this Congressional Review Act (CRA) measure tells the CFPB it cannot withdraw its 2024 guidance (called Circular 2024-03). That circular said companies may mislead consumers if their contracts include terms that the law already makes illegal or void—for example, waiving certain rights. The resolution would nullify the 2025 withdrawal rule, with the practical goal of keeping that guidance available to enforcers and the market. (law.cornell.edu)
Why it matters: For consumers, it could discourage “gotcha” fine print that claims to waive rights that can’t legally be waived. For lenders and fintechs, it would restore a CFPB position that opponents say functions like regulation without going through full rulemaking, potentially raising compliance costs. (govinfo.gov)
Who’s For It
- Sponsor: Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D–NV), who has been vocal about maintaining CFPB consumer protections.
- Consumer advocates argue the 2024 guidance helps stop misleading fine print and should not have been withdrawn. (consumeradvocates.org)
- Democratic members who criticized the 2025 rollback at the CFPB frame the withdrawal as weakening oversight and data protections. (banking.senate.gov)
Who’s Against It
- CFPB leadership in 2025 withdrew dozens of guidance documents (including this circular), arguing many were inconsistent with statutes, created compliance burdens, and should not guide enforcement—signaling opposition to reinstating them. (govinfo.gov)
- Industry voices welcomed the rollback as a reset on “sub-regulatory” guidance they view as de facto rules without notice-and-comment, and would likely oppose this resolution. (morganlewis.com)
What’s Next
Status: Introduced in the Senate on March 17, 2026 and referred to the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee. Next steps typically include a committee vote, then consideration by the full Senate and House; if both pass it, the President must sign it (or Congress must override a veto) for it to take effect under the CRA. (law.cornell.edu)
Discussion