Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
This resolution would use the Congressional Review Act to disapprove a final rule issued by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. If both chambers of Congress pass the joint resolution and the President signs it (or Congress overrides a veto), the rule would be void and have no force or effect. The law also prevents the agency from issuing a new rule that is substantially the same without a new law from Congress.
The final rule titled "Defining Larger Participants of a Market for General-Use Digital Consumer Payment Applications" (published at 89 Fed. Reg. 99582 on December 10, 2024).
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB)
As a Congressional Review Act disapproval, it would get expedited consideration in the Senate and is not subject to a filibuster, so a simple majority is sufficient in both chambers. After passage by both the House and Senate, the joint resolution must be presented to the President for signature or veto.
This joint resolution, submitted under the Congressional Review Act, disapproves the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s December 10, 2024 final rule titled “Defining Larger Participants of a Market for General‑Use Digital Consumer Payment Applications” (89 Fed.
Reg. 99582).
If enacted, the resolution would declare that the CFPB rule has no force or effect.
Narrow and administratively simple but politically contested; Senate supermajority and executive approval present major obstacles.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise, conventional Congressional Review Act–style disapproval resolution that clearly identifies and nullifies a single agency rule.
Progressives emphasize consumer protections and agency oversight.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize consumer protections and agency oversight.
Likely opposed.
This persona generally supports strong CFPB oversight of large digital payment platforms to protect consumers and ensure accountability.
They would see disapproval as a rollback of consumer protections and regulatory oversight of big technology firms.
Mixed to cautious.
This persona weighs consumer protection benefits against regulatory costs and legal clarity.
They want evidentiary justification for CFPB authority over digital payment apps and clearer cost/benefit analysis before choosing sides.
Likely supportive.
This persona tends to view CFPB expansion into digital payment apps as regulatory overreach that can stifle innovation and impose burdens on businesses.
They would favor using the resolution to halt the rule's implementation.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow and administratively simple but politically contested; Senate supermajority and executive approval present major obstacles.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize consumer protections and agency oversight.
Narrow and administratively simple but politically contested; Senate supermajority and executive approval present major obstacles.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise, conventional Congressional Review Act–style disapproval resolution that clearly identifies and nullifies a single agency rule.
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.