The bill would terminate unused authorities of the Securities and Exchange Commission that were created under the Dodd-Frank Act. Specifically, it repeals the SEC’s authority to restrict mandatory predispute arbitration and removes certain fiduciary duties and standards of conduct authorities that were previously in place.
It also repeals related provisions in the Investor Protection and Securities Reform Act of 2010 and updates the Investment Advisers Act framework. The effect is to roll back a subset of post-crisis regulatory tools that regulators never fully relied on in practice.
The change is framed as eliminating dormant powers to simplify the regulatory landscape for financial services firms while preserving core market protections elsewhere. For practitioners, the bill signals a shift away from expanding SEC-imposed constraints on dispute resolution and fiduciary expectations toward a leaner, more flexible regime.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill repeals unused authorities within the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and related statutes that governed predispute arbitration, fiduciary duties, and standards of conduct, effectively removing specific regulatory constraints that have not been actively used.
Who It Affects
Regulated entities such as broker-dealers and registered investment advisers, compliance teams, and financial services firms that rely on arbitration agreements or are subject to SEC standards.
Why It Matters
By retiring dormant powers, the bill aims to reduce regulatory friction for business operations and disputes, potentially affecting investor protections and the SEC’s oversight posture.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Business Owners Protection Act of 2025 targets a narrow set of SEC authorities that were never actively deployed after the Dodd-Frank reforms. The measure removes dormant tools that limited predispute arbitration and narrowed certain fiduciary and conduct obligations.
The core mechanics are straightforward: repeal the specific subsections in the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and related statutes, and adjust parallel provisions in the Investment Advisers Act. The practical effect is a pared-down framework that minimizes the SEC’s prescriptive powers in these areas while maintaining the core purpose of investor protection through existing law.
For compliance professionals, this means fewer explicit SEC-driven requirements to monitor in those particular areas, and a reminder that some post-crisis tools may no longer exist as backstops. The bill does not introduce new duties or new regulatory programs; it simply eliminates dormant authorities that regulators never leveraged.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill repeals subsection (o) of Section 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o).
It repeals subsection (a) of Section 921 of the Investor Protection and Securities Reform Act of 2010.
It amends the second subsection (l) of Section 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by removing a portion and simplifying the text.
It removes subsection (h) of Section 211(h) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (by striking paragraph (2)).
It repeals the second subsection (k) of Section 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 related to Standards of Conduct.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Repeal of unused authority to restrict predispute arbitration
Section 2 repeals subsection (o) of Section 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which had authorized the SEC to restrict mandatory predispute arbitration. By repealing this unused authority, the bill removes a dormant regulatory constraint and reduces the regulatory tools available to influence how disputes are resolved through arbitration. The practical effect is to roll back a specific SEC prerogative that never played an active role in enforcement or rulemaking, aligning regulatory power with a leaner post-Dodd-Frank framework.
Removal of authority related to fiduciary duties
Section 3 amends the Securities Exchange Act by altering the second subsection (l) of Section 15 with changes intended to remove certain fiduciary duties and related obligations. It also modifies the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 by striking related language in Section 211(h). The combined effect is a reduction in explicit SEC-imposed fiduciary duties and a narrowing of the breadth of the “Other matters” as previously contemplated, thereby limiting the SEC’s ability to prescribe or enforce fiduciary and related standards in these areas.
Repeal of unused authority related to standards of conduct
Section 4 repeals the second subsection (k) of Section 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which related to the Standard of Conduct. Removing this authority eliminates an existing SEC standard-of-conduct framework that had defined some expectations for market participants. The change contributes to a simpler, less prescriptive regulatory structure in the areas covered by the repealed provisions.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Finance across all five countries.
Explore Finance in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Broker-dealers and registered investment advisers that seek regulatory clarity and reduced prescriptive requirements.
- Compliance teams at mid-sized and small financial services firms seeking to minimize overlapping or duplicative regulatory obligations.
- Employers that rely on predispute arbitration agreements, who may prefer greater flexibility in dispute resolution arrangements.
- Arbitration platforms and private dispute-resolution providers could benefit from a regulatory environment that does not impose additional SEC-led limitations on arbitration practices.
Who Bears the Cost
- Retail investors who rely on fiduciary duties and standardized conduct regimes for protection may face reduced explicit protections.
- Market participants who rely on SEC standards of conduct to enforce fair dealing could see reduced investor safeguards.
- The SEC and its enforcement resources may see a reduced mandate, potentially altering budgetary needs and strategic priorities.
- Public interest and consumer protection advocates concerned about maintaining robust investor protections in the absence of certain dormant authorities.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
Balancing the reduction of dormant regulatory authorities against the risk of diminished investor protections and market integrity in a post-Dodd-Frank landscape.
The bill’s focus on dormant, unused authorities means the direct policy shifts are limited in scope, but they carry implications for investor protection, dispute resolution practices, and regulatory posture. By removing these powers, the legislature signals a preference for a leaner set of SEC authorities, potentially reducing regulatory friction for financial firms.
The practical effects depend on how other laws and continued SEC oversight operate in practice, and whether the market adapts to a framework with fewer explicit fiduciary and conduct mandates. Questions remain about how existing protections would be maintained or replaced, and whether other statutes would fill any gaps left by these repeals.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.