US Federal House Bill HJR171

US Federal 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/30/26
• Refer: 4/30/26

Caption

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to the withdrawal of the rule relating to "Bulletin 2022-06: Unfair Returned Deposited Item Fee Assessment Practices".

Impact

The reinstatement of Bulletin 2022-06 could have significant effects on state laws governing financial transactions and consumer rights. Specifically, it would impose stricter guidelines on how banks handle returned deposits and the fees they may charge. This transparency is expected to enhance consumer protection by ensuring that individuals are not subjected to unreasonably high charges which can exacerbate their financial difficulties. The bill's approval may lead to a more favorable environment for consumers, particularly those in vulnerable financial situations.

Summary

HJR171 is a joint resolution aimed at disapproving a rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (BCFP) concerning the withdrawal of a prior regulation known as 'Bulletin 2022-06.' This bulletin addressed unfair practices associated with returned deposited item fees assessed by financial institutions. By disapproving this rule, the resolution seeks to reinstate the original regulation which was intended to protect consumers from potentially excessive fees imposed when deposited items are returned by banks due to insufficient funds or similar reasons.

Contention

The discussion surrounding HJR171 has shown a division among lawmakers regarding the role of federal regulation in consumer finance. Proponents argue that reinstating the bulletins is essential for consumer protection and maintaining fairness in banking practices. On the other hand, opponents may contend that extensive regulations could hinder the operational flexibility of financial institutions and contribute to increased costs for these services, ultimately impacting consumers negatively. This highlights an ongoing debate on the balance between regulatory oversight and market freedom.