This joint resolution disapproves, under chapter 8 of title 5 (the Congressional Review Act), a Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection rule that withdrew “Consumer Financial Protection Circular 2024–03: Unlawful and Unenforceable Contract Terms and Conditions.” The resolution directs that the withdrawal rule (published at 90 Fed. Reg. 20084 (May 12, 2025)) “shall have no force or effect,” which in practice preserves the status of Circular 2024‑03 (89 Fed.
Reg. 51955 (June 21, 2024)).
For practitioners, the resolution is a targeted use of the CRA to lock in a specific piece of CFPB guidance addressing contract clauses. If enacted, financial firms, servicers, fintechs, and in-house counsel will still need to account for the legal and compliance implications of Circular 2024‑03; regulators and consumer advocates will retain the guidance as part of the enforcement and supervisory landscape.
At a Glance
What It Does
The resolution disapproves the CFPB’s published rule that removed Circular 2024‑03 and declares that withdrawal null and void. It relies on the Congressional Review Act to treat the withdrawal rule as having no force or effect.
Who It Affects
The immediate legal effect touches the CFPB and firms subject to its supervision — especially banks, nonbank lenders, servicers, and fintechs whose contracts include disputed clauses. Litigation counsel and compliance teams managing contract language and disclosure policies will need to respond.
Why It Matters
This is a narrow but consequential CRA use: it preserves Bureau guidance that frames how contract terms may be judged unlawful or unenforceable, while also invoking the CRA’s bar on reissuing substantially similar rules without new statutory authority — constraining CFPB rulemaking options.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The joint resolution operates under the Congressional Review Act to undo a specific CFPB action: the Bureau issued a Federal Register notice withdrawing Consumer Financial Protection Circular 2024‑03; Congress, through this resolution, proposes to disapprove that withdrawal so it will have no legal effect. The text identifies the relevant Federal Register entries for both the original Circular and the subsequent withdrawal, and the operative clause makes the withdrawal null.
Practically, nullifying the withdrawal means the Circular remains part of the federal regulatory record as it stood before the 2025 withdrawal notice. That preserves whatever legal weight market participants and the CFPB have been treating the Circular as having — including its role in supervisory guidance, enforcement priorities, or as an interpretive statement about which contractual provisions may be considered unlawful or unenforceable.The resolution also carries the CRA’s procedural consequences: a disapproved rule cannot simply be reissued in substantially the same form without new congressional authorization.
That raises the stakes beyond this single step: even if the Bureau later wants to remove or revise the Circular’s effects, the agency faces a statutory constraint that could force a different approach (new rulemaking, statutory change, or a substantively distinct revision).For compliance teams, the immediate task is operational: review contract templates and consumer-facing terms that were changed in response to the Bureau’s 2025 withdrawal, determine whether to revert or retain those changes, and anticipate renewed enforcement risk where the Circular highlights problematic clauses. For counsel, the resolution also invites litigation and administrative questions about the Circular’s original legal character and the interplay between agency guidance and formal rulemaking.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The resolution disapproves the CFPB’s rule withdrawing Consumer Financial Protection Circular 2024–03 and declares that withdrawal to have no force or effect.
The resolution cites the Federal Register entries for the Circular (89 Fed. Reg. 51955, June 21, 2024) and for the withdrawal rule (90 Fed. Reg. 20084, May 12, 2025).
The authority used is chapter 8 of title 5 (the Congressional Review Act), which allows Congress to invalidate a rule via joint resolution of disapproval.
CRA consequences attached to disapproval include a statutory bar on reissuing the disapproved rule in substantially the same form absent new authorization from Congress.
If enacted, the practical outcome is that CFPB guidance addressing unlawful and unenforceable contract terms remains in the regulatory record and continues to influence enforcement and compliance choices.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Disapproval of the CFPB’s withdrawal rule
This is the operative text: Congress disapproves the CFPB rule that withdrew Circular 2024‑03 and states that the withdrawal rule “shall have no force or effect.” That language follows the standard Congressional Review Act formula for nullifying a published rule and making the nullification explicit and immediate.
Pins the action to specific Federal Register notices
The resolution identifies both the original Circular (89 Fed. Reg. 51955 (June 21, 2024)) and the withdrawal rule (90 Fed. Reg. 20084 (May 12, 2025)). By naming the exact Federal Register citations, it limits the disapproval to that published withdrawal rather than to broader CFPB policy or other guidance instruments.
Relies on the Congressional Review Act (chapter 8, title 5)
The resolution invokes the CRA as its legal vehicle. That matters because the CRA not only invalidates the specific rule but also creates procedural constraints on the agency: a disapproved rule generally cannot be reissued in substantially the same form without fresh statutory authority. This provision changes the agency’s options for undoing the Circular in the future.
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
- Consumer advocacy organizations — they retain a public, published Bureau statement that highlights contract terms the CFPB regards as problematic, which they can use in advocacy, complaint referral, and litigation support.
- Borrowers and consumers whose contracts contain aggressive or nonstandard clauses — preserving the Circular maintains a supervisory and interpretive instrument the Bureau can use to challenge such provisions.
- State attorneys general and enforcement partners — they keep a federal interpretive resource that can support coordinated enforcement or state-federal actions addressing abusive contract clauses.
- Plaintiff and consumer‑protection attorneys — they preserve an evidentiary and persuasive administrative document useful in settlement negotiations and litigation over contract enforceability.
Who Bears the Cost
- The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection — the disapproval limits the agency’s ability to implement its preferred change and restricts its capacity to reissue the same withdrawal without congressional authorization.
- Banks, nonbank lenders, servicers, and fintech platforms — these firms face continued compliance and potential enforcement exposure tied to the Circular’s interpretation of unlawful or unenforceable clauses.
- In‑house and outside counsel — increased compliance review, contract redrafting, and potential litigation defense costs will fall to legal teams that must respond to revived CFPB guidance.
- Trade associations and businesses that relied on the withdrawal to maintain or reintroduce certain contract terms — they may need to reverse product or contract changes made in response to the withdrawal and may incur operational costs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between preserving consumer protection through an established Bureau statement about unlawful or unenforceable contract clauses and respecting administrative flexibility: the CRA can lock the agency into guidance that some view as overbroad or insufficiently deliberative, while shielding consumers from a sudden regulatory retreat — a trade‑off between durable protection and adaptive rulemaking.
The resolution uses a blunt statutory tool to resolve a targeted administrative policy choice. That creates two implementation frictions.
First, the CRA was designed to overturn rulemaking through an up-or-down congressional vote; using it to preserve a published circular straddles the line between formal rulemaking and agency guidance. Courts and parties may litigate whether the Circular functioned as a binding rule or as non‑binding guidance, and those disputes will affect enforcement and judicial review strategies.
Second, the CRA’s reissue bar is a double‑edged sword. It protects consumers from immediate regulatory backtracking, but it also constrains the agency’s ability to refine or correct the Circular through later rulemaking without new statutory authorization.
That could lock the Bureau and regulated parties into a contested policy posture, raise the odds of protracted litigation, and increase uncertainty about the future shape of the law unless Congress provides further direction.
Operationally, the resolution forces firms to choose between reverting contract language changed after the withdrawal or maintaining changes that might now be inconsistent with the Circular — a choice that creates transitional compliance costs and potential consumer notification needs. Finally, because the resolution addresses a specific Federal Register notice, it leaves open questions about adjacent guidance, supervisory memoranda, or state regulatory responses that also shape contract enforcement outcomes.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.