Recently, House Republicans, led by Representative Andy Barr, introduced the Consumer Financial Protection Accountability and Reform Act of 2026 (HR 10184). The bill would make broad changes to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) funding, governance, rulemaking, supervision and enforcement authorities, while also adding provisions addressing select consumer finance products and CFPB data practices.
Key provisions
The bill proposes the following changes:
1. Change CFPB funding and governance
The bill would fundamentally alter the CFPB’s governance and funding. Currently, the CFPB receives its funding through direct transfers from the Federal Reserve. The bill would eliminate this funding mechanism and replace it with congressional appropriations. It also would create a new stand-alone CFPB inspector general appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
2. Expand rulemaking requirements and external review
Proposed rules providing material discretion to the CFPB would be required to include more fulsome analyses of statutory authority, costs and benefits, effects on small entities, competition and credit access, and alternatives. They would also need to disclose of the CFPB’s supporting data and assumptions, subject to confidentiality protections.
The Office of Management and Budget, rather than the CFPB, would review major rules and orders within eight years and non-major rules within 10. If a major rule failed to demonstrate net benefits, the CFPB generally would have one year to propose amending or repealing it.
Before publishing rules affecting insured banks or credit unions, the CFPB would have to circulate them to relevant regulators, publish the comments and address substantive issues. Covered federal guidance also would have to state prominently that it is not legally binding.
3. Modify unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices (UDAAP) standards
Within 180 days, the CFPB would be required to define “abusive act or practice” by rule and pause abusiveness-based supervision and enforcement until the rule took effect. It would redefine and significantly narrow what acts or practices could be deemed abusive. For example, the modified “abusive” standard would add an “intent” requirement to the interference prong, eliminate one of three independent bases for “unreasonable advantage,” convert the remaining two bases from alternative theories into cumulative requirements, and narrow “reliance” to require an affirmative inducing act by the covered person – all of which raise the bar to establish that conduct is “abusive.”[1]
4. Enforcement powers
The bill would curb the CFPB’s enforcement powers and ability to seek civil monetary penalties. For UDAAP matters, a company demonstrating a good-faith compliance effort would be protected from civil monetary penalties, though the CFPB could still seek damages or restitution for identifiable injury. A company that self-identified an issue would receive 180 days to cure after notice. More broadly, the bill would eliminate the lowest civil penalty tier, reduce the maximum for “knowing” violations and treat self-reporting as a mitigating factor. After victims are compensated, unused amounts tied to a civil penalty would be transferred to the US Treasury’s general fund.
The bill would also bar the CFPB from using its market-monitoring authority, or data obtained under it, for enforcement investigations, actions or supervisory examinations – and from making that data public.
Finally, the bill would bar a state attorney general from bringing a UDAAP-type enforcement action once the CFPB has given notice it has brought or intends to bring an action against the same entity for the same conduct and would subject state attorney general actions to the same authority limitations that apply to the CFPB.
5. Reallocate portions of bank and nonbank supervision
The bill would raise the threshold for direct CFPB supervision of banks and credit unions from $10 billion to $30 billion, with gross domestic product-based adjustments every five years beginning in 2031. Eligible institutions above the threshold generally could still choose supervision by their prudential regulator; however, the CFPB could refer possible violations to the prudential regulator and pursue enforcement directly if the regulator did not act within 120 days.
For nonbanks, the bill would focus supervision on “substantial injury to consumers,” exclude qualifying small businesses from supervision required under Section 1024 of the Dodd-Frank Act, and limit examinations to records and operations tied to the relevant product or service.
6. Reform small dollar credit and earned wage access regulation
Qualifying loans and lines of credit of $3,500 or less would receive a limited Truth in Lending Act (TILA) safe harbor if creditors met specified product, underwriting and disclosure requirements. The safe harbor would protect against TILA civil penalties and damages arising from private rights of action with TILA claims, but not cease-and-desist orders, restitution or enforcement under other laws.
The bill would also set federal standards for earned wage access (EWA), including a no-cost option, disclosures, dispute procedures and limits on collection, credit reporting and data usage. Compliant EWA services – and related fees and tips – would not be treated as credit, debt or finance charges. The federal bill would also preempt any state statutes or regulations regulating EWA services. It also would direct the Government Accountability Office to study “buy now pay later services” and report to Congress within one year.
Looking ahead
Concurrent with its introduction, the bill was referred to the House Financial Services, Judiciary, Small Business, and Oversight and Government Reform committees. We will track the progress of the bill as it moves through the legislative process.
[1] As stated in the bill, the revised “abusive” standard would be the following: “(d) Abusive.—
“(1) IN GENERAL.—The Bureau shall have no authority to declare an act or practice of a covered person or a service provider abusive in connection with the provision of a consumer financial product or service, unless the act or practice—
“(A) intentionally and materially interferes with the ability of a consumer to understand a term or condition of a consumer financial product or service; or
“(B) takes unreasonable advantage of—
“(i) a lack of understanding by the consumer with respect to the possible impact, material risks, costs, or conditions of the product or service, or the likelihood of the risks, costs, or conditions of the product or service negatively affecting the consumer; and
“(ii) the reasonable reliance the consumer places on an affirmative action or representation of such covered person or service provider to induce such consumer to rely on such action or representation.
“(2) ABUSIVE ACTIONS.—
“(A) IN GENERAL.—Conduct of a covered person or service provider shall be considered abusive if—
“(i) the act or practice causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers which is not reasonably avoidable by consumers; and
“(ii) such substantial injury is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition.”