The National Fair Housing Alliance and three co-plaintiffs have amended their federal lawsuit seeking to vacate the CFPB’s 2026 overhaul of Regulation B. The revised complaint preserves the coalition’s substantive attack on the rule but adds a new allegation that the Bureau failed to complete consultation required by Dodd-Frank before proposing it.jdsupra

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA), Rise Economy, BLDS LLC and SolasAI filed an amended complaint on Aug. 11 in their challenge to the CFPB’s revisions to Regulation B, the rule implementing the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA).

The lawsuit, National Fair Housing Alliance et al. v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau et al., was initially filed May 27 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. It challenges the CFPB’s April 2026 final rule, which removed disparate-impact liability from Regulation B, narrowed the rule’s prohibition on discouraging prospective applicants, and curtailed certain special purpose credit programs (SPCPs) offered by for-profit institutions.nationalfairhousing+1

The amended pleading does not materially retreat from those underlying arguments. Instead, it adds a more targeted procedural claim grounded in the administrative record the CFPB produced in late July: that the Bureau did not adequately consult with prudential regulators and other designated federal agencies before it issued the proposed rule.

New Dodd-Frank consultation claim

The plaintiffs’ new theory relies on Section 1022(b)(2)(B) of the Dodd-Frank Act, codified at 12 U.S.C. § 5512(b)(2)(B). That provision directs the CFPB, before proposing a rule and during the public-comment period, to consult with appropriate prudential regulators and other federal agencies regarding consistency with the prudential, market, or systemic objectives those agencies administer.jdsupra

According to the amended complaint, the CFPB’s November 2025 notice of proposed rulemaking said the Bureau had “offered to consult” with relevant agencies—not that it had done so. The final rule later stated that the CFPB had “consulted or offered to consult” with other agencies and considered feedback received. NFHA argues those formulations do not establish that legally required consultations actually took place.jdsupra

The plaintiffs say the administrative record contains an email from an Office of Management and Budget employee listing federal-agency email addresses under the subject line “Interagency circulation for CFPB NPRM Regulation B.” But they contend that neither that email nor other materials produced by the Bureau show the required substantive consultation occurred.jdsupra

That distinction may matter in an Administrative Procedure Act challenge. A court reviewing agency action generally focuses on the record before the agency; if the record does not demonstrate compliance with an express procedural command from Congress, the CFPB may face a more concrete rulemaking-process challenge than the one asserted in the original complaint.

Existing challenges remain

The amended complaint continues to argue that the Regulation B amendments are arbitrary and capricious, conflict with ECOA, exceed the CFPB’s authority, and were promulgated through defective procedures. The plaintiffs also maintain that the CFPB failed to conduct an adequate cost-benefit analysis, did not comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act requirements, provided insufficient time for comment, and failed to respond meaningfully to significant comments.jdsupra

NFHA has argued that the rule dismantles longstanding fair-lending protections by eliminating disparate-impact liability under ECOA, constricting the scope of prohibited discouragement, and chilling the use of SPCPs. In its announcement of the original suit, the organization also criticized the CFPB’s 30-day comment period, which fell over the Thanksgiving holiday, and said the agency made no material change after receiving more than 64,500 public comments.nationalfairhousing

The CFPB, meanwhile, characterized its proposed Regulation B amendments as clarifying ECOA obligations involving disparate impact, discouragement of applicants and prospective applicants, and SPCPs.consumerfinance

Director challenge updated

The amended complaint also substitutes Acting CFPB Director Mark Paoletta for former Acting Director Russell Vought, who was named in the initial lawsuit and was replaced on Aug. 1. The plaintiffs continue to challenge Vought’s authority at the time the proposed and final Regulation B rules were issued, and now allege that Paoletta likewise lacks lawful authority because he has not been Senate-confirmed as CFPB director.jdsupra

The replacement does not alter the core chronology of the case: the plaintiffs’ appointment-related allegations continue to focus on the authority exercised when the Regulation B rulemaking occurred, rather than asserting that Paoletta participated in issuing the rule.jdsupra

Compliance significance

For creditors, servicers, collectors that extend or arrange credit, and other consumer-finance firms, the amended complaint reinforces that Regulation B’s future remains unsettled even though the final rule took effect July 21.

The CFPB’s rule changed the agency’s Regulation B position on disparate impact under ECOA, but it did not amend the Fair Housing Act. Thus, mortgage lenders in particular remain exposed to fair-lending risk under the FHA, while state fair-lending laws and existing ECOA disparate-treatment prohibitions may also continue to require robust controls.hklaw+1

The new consultation allegation also has broader significance. If the plaintiffs can establish that the CFPB omitted a statutorily required procedural step, the court could evaluate the rule not only on its interpretation of ECOA, but also on whether the agency followed the process Congress prescribed for CFPB rulemaking. That question could become a central issue as the litigation moves into merits briefing.