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".

#64 | HJRES Congress #119

Last Action: Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services. (2/27/2025)

Bill Text Source: Congress.gov

Summary and Impacts
Original Text

Bill Summary

The joint resolution disapproves a rule established by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB) that aimed to define which entities qualify as "larger participants" in the market for general-use digital consumer payment applications. By passing this resolution, Congress essentially nullifies the CFPB's final rule, meaning it will no longer be in effect. This action reflects congressional oversight and a response to concerns regarding the regulation of digital payment platforms, potentially impacting how these services are governed in terms of consumer protection and market oversight.

Possible Impacts

The disapproval of the rule regarding the definition of larger participants in the market for general-use digital consumer payment applications can have several implications for individuals and businesses. Here are three examples:

1. **Impact on Consumer Protections**: By disapproving the rule, Congress may limit the regulatory oversight of larger digital payment providers. This could result in fewer consumer protections for users of these applications, potentially leading to less transparency in fees, security measures, and dispute resolution processes. Consumers might face increased risks, such as fraud or unauthorized transactions, without adequate regulatory guidelines to safeguard their interests.

2. **Market Competition**: The rule was likely intended to ensure that larger digital payment providers adhere to specific regulations that promote fair competition. Disapproving it may allow larger companies to dominate the market without facing stringent regulatory scrutiny. This could stifle innovation and competition from smaller firms or startups that provide alternative payment solutions, ultimately reducing consumer choice and potentially leading to higher costs.

3. **Financial Inclusion**: The rule may have aimed to create a framework that encourages financial inclusion by ensuring that larger participants cater to a diverse range of consumers, including underserved communities. With the disapproval of this rule, there may be less incentive for larger companies to develop products that meet the needs of these populations, resulting in continued barriers to access for individuals who rely on digital payment systems for their financial transactions.

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 64 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>






119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 64

  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''.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 27, 2025

  Mr. Flood (for himself, Mr. Meuser, Mrs. Kim, Mr. Downing, and Mr. 
Steil) submitted the following joint resolution; which was referred to 
                  the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION


 
  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''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
final rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection 
relating to ``Defining Larger Participants of a Market for General-Use 
Digital Consumer Payment Applications'' (89 Fed. Reg. 99582 (December 
10, 2024)), and such rule shall have no force or effect.
                                 <all>