Disapproving the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to "Defining Larger Participants of a Market for General-Use Digital Consumer Payment Applications".
- Bill Number
- H.J.Res. 64
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Finance and Financial Sector
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-02-27: Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
- Last Updated
- 2026-07-27T16:40:56Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose of the Legislation
This joint resolution (H.J. Res. 64) aims to disapprove a specific rule issued by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB), a federal agency that oversees consumer financial products and services. The rule in question defines certain companies in the market for general-use digital consumer payment applications (like digital wallets or payment apps) as "larger participants," which would subject them to CFPB supervision and regulations under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.
Key Provisions
- Disapproval of the Rule: The resolution explicitly disapproves the CFPB's final rule titled "Defining Larger Participants of a Market for General-Use Digital Consumer Payment Applications," published in the Federal Register on December 10, 2024 (89 Fed. Reg. 99582).
- Nullification: If passed, the rule would have no legal force or effect, preventing its implementation.
This resolution is introduced under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), a law that allows Congress to overturn certain federal agency rules with a simple majority vote and presidential signature (or veto override).
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- The resolution does not amend existing statutes but uses the CRA to block the CFPB rule before it takes effect.
- Without this disapproval, the rule would expand CFPB's authority to supervise non-bank digital payment providers (e.g., apps handling consumer payments) that meet certain size thresholds, such as processing a high volume of transactions. This disapproval would maintain the status quo, limiting CFPB's regulatory reach over these emerging digital markets.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: The CFPB would lose the ability to examine and enforce rules on designated "larger participants" in digital payments, potentially reducing its oversight of fintech (financial technology) innovations and shifting more responsibility to other regulators like the Federal Reserve or state authorities.
- On Citizens: Consumers using digital payment apps might face less federal protection against unfair practices, though existing consumer laws (e.g., against fraud) would still apply. This could lead to varied protections depending on state regulations.
- On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, but it could influence U.S. fintech competitiveness globally by easing regulations on domestic digital payment firms, potentially affecting cross-border payment services.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Federal Agencies: Primarily the CFPB, which proposed the rule to enhance consumer protections in digital payments.
- Private Sector: Digital payment companies and fintech firms (e.g., providers of apps like Venmo or similar general-use platforms) that would have been classified as "larger participants" and subject to CFPB exams; disapproval benefits them by avoiding additional compliance costs.
- Consumers: Users of digital payment applications, who may see reduced federal safeguards but potentially more innovation and lower fees from less-regulated companies.
- Congress and Policymakers: Introduced by Representatives Flood, Meuser, Kim, Downing, and Steil, it reflects congressional interest in curbing agency overreach in emerging tech sectors.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal: Invokes the CRA, a streamlined process for Congress to review and repeal agency rules within 60 legislative days of submission. If enacted, it sets a precedent for congressional intervention in CFPB's rulemaking on digital finance, potentially leading to litigation if affected parties challenge the disapproval.
- Constitutional: Reinforces the separation of powers by allowing the legislative branch to check executive agency actions, aligning with Article I of the U.S. Constitution, which grants Congress lawmaking authority.
- Political: Highlights partisan divides on financial regulation; disapproval could signal a pushback against expansive consumer protections under the current administration, influencing future debates on fintech oversight and the balance between innovation and consumer safety. No broader constitutional challenges are evident in the text.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Cosponsors (7)
Rep. Meuser, Daniel [R-PA-9], Rep. Kim, Young [R-CA-40], Rep. Downing, Troy [R-MT-2], Rep. Steil, Bryan [R-WI-1], Rep. Loudermilk, Barry [R-GA-11], Rep. Moore, Tim [R-NC-14], Rep. Barr, Andy [R-KY-6]
Recent Actions
- 2025-02-27: Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
- 2025-02-27: Introduced in House
- 2025-02-27: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- Disapproving the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to "Defining Larger Participants of a Market for General-Use Digital Consumer Payment Applications". — issued 2025-02-27 — PDF (2 pages)