The conversation covers the CFPB’s deregulatory agenda, the FTC’s intensified enforcement of “Made in the USA” claims, the expansion of state junk fee and pricing transparency laws, the reemergence of open banking, and Connecticut’s click-to-cancel law. Each topic is explored in detail, providing insights into the impact on compliance programs and regulatory obligations.
Key Takeaways
- CFPB’s deregulatory agenda and its impact on lenders
- FTC’s intensified enforcement of “Made in the USA” claims
- Expansion of state junk fee and pricing transparency laws
- Reemergence of open banking and its potential impact
- Connecticut’s click-to-cancel law and the state-by-state nature of subscription compliance
Chapters
- 01:08 CFPB’s Deregulatory Agenda
- 05:32 FTC’s “Made in the USA” Enforcement
- 10:04 State Junk Fee and Pricing Transparency Laws
- 12:09 Reemergence of Open Banking
- 14:53 Connecticut’s Click-to-Cancel Law
Show Notes:
- For the full article: https://performline.com/blog-post/regulatory-compliance-roundup-07-29-26/
- Connect with Ashley Cianci on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashley-cianci/
- Subscribe to PerformLine to stay connected to resources and updates: https://lp.performline.com/subscribe-to-performline
Subscribe to COMPLY: The Marketing Compliance Podcast
About COMPLY: The Marketing Compliance Podcast
The state of marketing compliance and regulation is evolving faster than ever. On the COMPLY Podcast, we sit down with the biggest names in marketing, compliance, regulations, and innovation as they share their playbooks to help you take your compliance practice to the next level.
This podcast is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice; consult your own compliance or legal counsel.
Episode Transcript:
Ashley Cianci : Hey there COMPLY Podcast listeners and welcome back. I’m Ashley Cianci and this is a special format for us, the first-time audio edition of the PerformLine Regulatory Compliance Roundup. If you follow the written Roundup on our blog, you know the drill. We pull the regulatory news that actually matters for your marketing, cut out the noise, and tell you why it matters for your compliance program. Today I’m gonna walk you through the July edition, story by story. And it’s a big one.
This month we’ve got a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that keeps deregulating even while its own leadership is still up in the air, an FTC that’s leaning hard into Made In the USA enforcement, a growing patchwork of state junk fee laws, open banking coming back around, and a new click to cancel law in Connecticut. So grab your coffee and let’s get into it.
Before I do, if you want to read along or share any of this with your team, the full written Roundup is on our blog at preformline.com. You can subscribe there to get it in your inbox the day it drops, and I will absolutely link it in today’s show notes. Alright, let’s start where I think the biggest story is. First up is the CFPB’s deregulatory agenda is still moving at
Full speed ahead, even though the Bureau’s own future is genuinely unresolved right now. And I want to spend a minute here because this is the one that most directly touches the lenders and financial institutions listening. So here’s what actually happened: the Bureau’s revised ECOA, that’s the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and Regulation B rule took effect on July 21st. And this is not a small tweak. The revised rule effectively eliminates disparate impact as a theory of liability under ECOA.
If you’ve been in fair lending for any length of time, you know disparate impact has been one of the core theories regulators use. The idea that a policy can be discriminatory in effect even without discriminatory intent. Taking that off the table at the federal level is a structural change to how fair lending liability works.
And the Bureau followed through on the pieces around it. Back on June 17th, the CFPB rescinded a 2020 advisory opinion on special purpose credit programs, SPCPs, to line up with the new rule. So the practical upshot there, for-profit SPCPs can no longer use race, color, national origin, or sex as eligibility criteria. And these programs now have to show they actually serve applicants who would genuinely be denied credit, not just applicants who might be.
That’s a meaningfully higher bar.
Then on July 6th, the Bureau put out its 2026 regulatory agenda and it confirms more deregulatory rulemaking on the way. Even with the dramatically smaller staff, which is the theme we keep coming back to on this podcast and in the Roundup, a smaller, less active CFPB is still reshaping the rules of the road. Fewer people, the deregulation keeps happening. Now, on the leadership side, this is the part that’s still up in the air. The mass firing litigation at the Bureau, the reduction force case, is on hold.
On July 10th, Judge Amy Bourbon Jackson granted a joint stay request as she paused the case until 60 days after the Senate either confirms or rejects Brian Johnson. Johnson is President Trump’s nominee for permanent director. He’s currently a Capital One executive. And his confirmation hearing took place on July 23rd. For what it’s worth, he pledged that if he’s confirmed, he’ll recuse himself from Capital One matters for two years. So why does all this matter to you? Here’s my take.
For lenders, the SPCP change and the now effective disparate impact rule together narrow your federal fair lending exposure. That’s real. But, and this is a big but, do not read that as fair lending risk is going away. Because it’s absolutely not. State statutes and state regulators are enforcing disparate impact and fair lending standards completely independently of the CFPB. New York’s Department of Financial Services, California’s DFPI.
They have their own authority, their own appetite, and they are still very much in this space. So what you’re really looking at is a widening gap between a quieter federal posture and an active multi-state enforcement environment. And with the leadership question unsettled until Johnson’s confirmation plays out, the smart move is to plan for continued uncertainty rather than betting the federal pullback is permanent.
Design your program to the stricter state standard and you’re covered either way.
Okay, I do want to give you this addition’s significance stat because it’s a good one. $2.25 million. the amount the tenant screening company Rent Grow agreed to pay in July to settle FTC allegations that it violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the FTC Act. And the allegations here are worth knowing because they’re a clinic in what not to do with consumer data.
The FTC alleged that RentGrow’s reports duplicated eviction and criminal records, which had the effect of inflating applicants’ histories, making people look worse than they actually were. They allegedly hid a key data source and they closed consumer disputes without actually investigating them.
So if you touch consumer reporting in any way, that last piece, closing disputes without investigating, is exactly the kind of thing that turns into an enforcement action. File that away.
All right, story number two: the FTC and Made in the USA. So the headline here is that the FTC really intensified its Made in the USA enforcement in July. This follows a March 13th executive order from the Trump administration directing the agency to prioritize enforcement against deceptive Made in America claims.
And the agency marked it with new warning letters and public statements, basically reaffirming that this is a live priority. Quick refresher on the actual standard because it trips people up. The FTC’s Made in the USA labeling rule codifies what they call the all or virtually all standard. An unqualified US origin claim, just flatly saying made in the USA with no caveats, is considered deceptive unless final assembly happens in the United States. All significant
Processing happens in the United States, and all or virtually all of the components are sourced domestically. That is a high bar. And it’s very easy to trip over if you’re using that language loosely. And the enforcement is real, not theoretical. Earlier this year, back on April 14th, the FTC announced three enforcement actions and settlements totaling roughly $868,000. And here’s the part I think is most important for the direction of travel. They’ve put online marketplaces, including Amazon and Walmart, on notice.
That these requirements extend to the third-party sellers on their platforms. So the exposure isn’t just the manufacturers anymore. The executive order even directs the FTC to consider a rulemaking that would require marketplaces to actually verify country of origin claims. Now I want to be straight with you because a lot of you listening are on the financial services side and you might be thinking, AC, I market loans and credit cards and deposit accounts, and I don’t slap Made in the USA on a checking account.
And you’re right. This rule on its face is about physical goods, where something is assembled where the components come from. Financial products aren’t goods with a country of origin, so the Made in the USA rule itself is probably not gonna land on your desk directly.
But here’s why I still want you to pay attention to it and why we put it in the Roundup. The signal underneath this story is bigger than the specific rule. And what the FTC is really demonstrating is an aggressive posture on substantiating objective claims and a willingness to hold platforms responsible for the claims made by the partners operating under them. And that absolutely translates to financial marketing. Any objective claim you make, rate promotion, number one, free, the lowest fee.
A ranking documented substantiation sitting behind it. And if you work with partners, affiliates, lead generators, anyone marketing your products on your behalf, the platform shares responsibility theme is one to internalize. Because that same logic, you’re on the hook for what your partner says about you is exactly how this plays out in a bank, fintech, or lead gen relationship. So don’t dismiss the this one because you don’t make origin claims. read it as the FTC is in an enforce the claims mood and that mood doesn’t stop at just physical goods.
Alright, story number three: state junk fee and pricing transparency laws, which just keep expanding. So, the federal law, pricing transparency rules are pretty sector specific, but the states have not been waiting around. Through the 2025 and 2026 legislative cycle, states kept broadening their own all-in pricing and surcharging laws. California’s honest pricing law and Minnesota’s all-in pricing statute already require that advertised prices include mandatory fees, across industries, not just one vertical. And a bunch of additional states have debated or enacted measures dealing with surcharging, junk fees, and interchange. One concrete example: Louisiana enacted a law effective August 1st, 2026, that prohibits retailers from imposing a surcharge on consumers who pay with a debit card. And critically, it creates a private right of action for consumers who are harmed by violations. Now, the reality of all this is that it’s an uneven patchwork.
Some bills passed, some stalled out when legislative sessions ended. But the direction is really consistent and really clear. Mandatory fees that aren’t reflected in the advertised price are increasingly being treated as deceptive. And in the states that attach a private right of action, you’re not just looking at a regulator enforcement, you’re looking at a class action exposure on top of it.
Why it matters for you, if you are a financial services marketer, fee disclosure is squarely in scope here. Advertised prices, rate promotions, fee schedules that leave out mandatory charges, those can trigger state UDAAP liability and pricing transparency liability, even in places where the federal rules don’t reach. And because these laws vary state to state and several of them carry that private right of action, my honest recommendation, if you advertise nationally, is don’t try to track fifty state standards and thread the needle on each one. Design your fee disclosure to the strictest state applicable, apply that everywhere, and then you take a whole category of risk off the table.
So, rate number four is what we call an On the Radar item, the thing that isn’t final yet, but you should be watching. And this month it’s open banking, which is coming back around. So the CFPB’s 2026 agenda signals a proposed rule on Section 1033. That’s the personal financial data rights framework, the open banking rule we’ve been tracking on this regulatory Roundup since it still out earlier this year. That proposal is expected in the near term alongside a payday lending proposal.
And a reconsidered 1033 rule is likely to revisit some of the biggest open questions. Who actually qualifies as an authorized third party? Whether banks are allowed to charge for data access, and what the data security and consumer authorization standards look like. Why it’s On the Radar, open banking touches nearly every financial institution and every fintech.
This is generally one of those affects the whole ecosystem rules. so if and when a revised proposal drops, that public comment window becomes your moment to weigh in on fees, on data access, on the security obligations. my advice is watch for the proposal and be ready to assess how a reshape Section 1033 would hit your data sharing practices. Because this one’s going to matter to how the whole industry moves data around. And that brings me to our last story.
Connecticut’s Click-to-Cancel law, which took effect and is part of a much bigger trend in subscriptions. Okay, so on July 1st, an amended click-to-cancel provision in Connecticut’s automatic renewal law took effect. And under the updated statute, covered businesses have to notify consumers about automatic renewals, provide annual renewal reminders, expand the ways people can cancel.
And promptly honor cancellation request. The core principle, and honestly this is the principle behind all of these laws, is that canceling a subscription should be as easy as signing up for one. Attorney General William Tong and the state’s Department of Consumer Protection rolled the new rights out at a July press conference in Hartford. Enforcement runs through the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, CUTPA.
So businesses that don’t comply can be investigated by the AG or by the Department of Consumer Protection and they can face penalties. Consumers can file complaints with either office, and A.G. Tong was pretty blunt about it. He said businesses, quote, don’t get to profit by trapping consumers in subscriptions they no longer want, and that the state will quote, will not hesitate to enforce the law.
Here is the context that makes Connecticut more than a one-state story. So remember the FTC’s federal click-to-cancel rule got struck down back in 2025. The FTC is now enforcing subscription practices under ROSCA and under Section 5 while it works on new rulemaking. So there’s a gap at the federal level, and the states have moved to fill in from New York City’s proposed municipal rule, which we’ve covered back in our April edition, to California’s amended automatic renewal law.
To auto-renewal statutes that are now on the books in more than two dozen states. So why this matters, if you have any subscription or auto-renewal offering, your compliance obligation is now being largely driven at the state level. And the standards vary. Connecticut’s requirements, advanced renewal notice, annual reminders, easy cancellation echo what a lot of the other states are doing. But the specifics differ. The notice timing, how often you have to set reminders, the exact cancellation mechanics.
And because enforcement runs through state UDAP statutes like CUTPA. non-compliance can get treated as an unfair or deceptive practice with real penalty exposure. so map your enrollment and your cancellation flows against the requirements in every state where you actually have subscribers.
And same advice as the fee story, designed to the strictest applicable standard.
And that is it for this Regulatory Roundup. So quick recap: the CFPB is still deregulating hard. Disparate impact is out at the federal level and the SPCP rules tightened, but the states have not moved an inch. So mind that gap. The FTC is aggressively enforcing claims and holding platforms responsible for their partners. And even if made in the USA isn’t your issue, message is.
State junk fee laws keep spreading, several with private rights of action. Open banking is coming back, so watch for that proposal. And Connecticut’s click to cancel law is the latest reminder that subscription compliance is a state by state game now.
Okay, if any of these stories hit home for your program, the full written Roundup with all the source links so you can go even deeper is on our blog at PerformLine.com. I will link it in the show notes as well. And I’d really encourage you to subscribe to our blog again at Performline.com so you never miss an edition. You can also follow PerformLine on LinkedIn for the latest industry, news, events, and content between editions of our podcast.
And if there’s a story you think we should be covering or you’ve got feedback on this audio format, I genuinely want to hear it. Please reach out to us on LinkedIn or me on LinkedIn personally or write to us at performline.com. All right, thanks so much for listening and I’ll see you on the next edition of the Roundup.
