Defense and Compliance Attorneys
Two recent actions by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) have been criticized for weakening, rather than strengthening, consumer protections. Both involve pulling back on rules that would have limited abusive contract terms and unwanted marketing calls or texts.
What the CFPB did
The CFPB recently rescinded a 2022 interpretive rule that had broadly encouraged and affirmed state authority to enforce a wide range of federal consumer financial laws, including statutes like the Truth in Lending Act and Equal Credit Opportunity Act. By withdrawing that interpretation, the Bureau is now signaling that states may only enforce the Consumer Financial Protection Act’s unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices (UDAAP) provisions, which narrows the scope of clear, encouraged enforcement and may chill state efforts to police harmful practices.
The same CFPB update describes how the Bureau also withdrew a proposed rule (related to Regulation AA–style unfair contract terms) that would have expressly barred certain fine‑print clauses in consumer financial contracts, such as waivers of legal rights and restrictions on consumer speech. Without that rule, the battle over such terms is left to case‑by‑case actions under existing Federal Trade Commission rules or state law, making protections more fragmented and potentially weaker in practice for many consumers.
What the FCC did
In July 2025, the FCC eliminated its “one‑to‑one consent” rule under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), which had required consumers to give specific consent to be contacted by each individual seller, rather than allowing broad, bundled consent via lead‑generation or comparison websites. The Commission characterized the rule as a “new and burdensome” requirement and deleted it following an Eleventh Circuit decision and a broader deregulatory initiative to remove rules seen as unnecessary.
Consumer and small‑business advocates had supported the one‑to‑one consent approach, arguing it was needed to curb abusive robocalls and texts that exploit vague or bundled consent, particularly from online forms. With the rule rescinded, consumers are more exposed to aggressive telemarketing campaigns premised on broadly worded consent, and future TCPA disputes will increasingly play out in court rather than being constrained by a strong, pro‑consumer FCC rule.
How these actions weaken protections
Together, these steps narrow clear regulatory shields that consumers previously had or were about to receive. On the financial side, fewer explicit CFPB‑backed tools for states and the withdrawal of a rule targeting unfair contract clauses mean more reliance on uneven enforcement and litigation to challenge harmful terms.
On the communications side, deleting the one‑to‑one consent rule makes it easier for telemarketers and lead generators to argue that generic or bundled consent authorizes high volumes of robocalls and texts, even when consumers do not reasonably expect such outreach. The net effect is a regulatory landscape that gives industry more flexibility but leaves consumers with weaker, more piecemeal protection against abusive financial fine print and intrusive marketing practices.
Upcoming Events
Defense and Compliance Attorneys