Bank Groups Question CFPB's Legal Basis for New Rule Regulating Overdraft Fees
ABSTRACT: A new Consumer Finance Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) rule adopted on Dec. 12, 2024, sought to impose a $5 cap on overdraft fees charged by very large banks and credit unions. On the same day the rule was issued a group of banks filed a Petition for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief in Mississippi federal court arguing, among other things, its reliance on the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) runs afoul of regulatory precedent and implementation of the rule would cause irreparable harm to Very Large Financial Institutions (defined as $10 billion or more in total assets) that come under its purview.
A group of banks are attempting to block and invalidate a new CFPB rule by arguing that it lacks authority under TILA, and that the costs for banks to implement the rule cause irreparable harm. The banks also argue that overdraft fees provide liquidity to consumers that lack access to traditional credit cards when they experience an unexpected expense and are short on cash. The banks also argue overdraft services prevent these same consumers from using more harmful financial instruments such as payday or title loans when experience cash shortages.
The CFPB Rule
The CFPB Rule, officially titled Overdraft Lending: Very Large Financial Institutions (“CFPB Rule”), bases its authority for this Rule under TILA. The CFPB Rule starts by stating overdraft services provided by banks fall under the TILA definition of “credit”. It then adds a new subsection to Regulation Z that covers “overdraft credit” and defines it generally as when a customer’s bank extends consumer credit from a checking (or similar account) when the customer has insufficient or unavailable funds. The CFPB Rule then re-writes Regulation Z to include overdraft fees as “finance charges” which in turn requires the overdraft services to be “previously agreed upon in writing” if the fee is generally above $5 or an amount above the bank’s “breakeven” which is a complex definition including revenue and costs.
The Banks’ Arguments
First, the banks argue that the CFPB Rule’s statutory authority from TILA is not supported by legal or regulatory precedent. Specifically, before regulatory authority was transferred to the CFPB, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System had consistently interpreted TILA over several years to conclude that discretionary overdraft services are not credit transactions and are excluded from TILA's credit disclosure requirements because customers lack any right to overdraw their account. The Complaint also alleges Congress did not authorize the agency to rewrite TILA or render statutory terms meaningless, so the CFPB has exceeded its authority by issuing this rule. Finally, the Complaint argues TILA is only a disclosure statute for defined charges related to traditional loans and credit extended to consumers and not for implementing fees caps on deposit accounts.
Analysis
related services

CFPB Rule Precluding Reporting of Consumer Medical Debt On Hold Until June or Later ...

About Financial Services Law Blog
Baker Sterchi's Financial Services Law Blog explores current events, litigation trends, regulations, and hot topics in the financial services industry. This blog informs readers of issues affecting a wide range of financial services, including mortgage lending, auto finance, and credit card/retail transactions. Learn more about the editor, Megan Stumph-Turner, and our Financial Services practice.
Subscribe via email
Subscribe to rss feeds
RSS FeedsABOUT baker sterchi blogs
Baker Sterchi Cowden & Rice LLC (Baker Sterchi) publishes this website as a service to our clients, colleagues and others, for informational purposes only. These materials are not intended to create an attorney-client relationship, and are not a substitute for sound legal advice. You should not base any action or lack of action on any information included in our website, without first seeking appropriate legal or other professional advice. If you contact us through our website or via email, no attorney-client relationship is created, and no confidential information should be transmitted. Communication with Baker Sterchi by e-mail or other transmissions over the Internet may not be secure, and you should not send confidential electronic messages that are not adequately encrypted.
The hiring of an attorney is an important decision, which should not be based solely on information appearing on our website. To the extent our website has provided links to other Internet resources, those links are not under our control, and we are not responsible for their content. We do our best to provide you current, accurate information; however, we cannot guarantee that this information is the most current, correct or complete. In addition, you should not take this information as a promise or indication of future results.
Disclaimer
The Financial Services Law Blog is made available by Baker Sterchi Cowden & Rice LLC for educational purposes only as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. Your use of this blog site alone creates no attorney client relationship between you and the firm.
Confidential information
Do not include confidential information in comments or other feedback or messages related to the Financial Services Law Blog, as these are neither confidential nor secure methods of communicating with attorneys. The Financial Services Law Blog should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.