The final rule was expected to save consumers up to $5 billion in annual overdraft fees, or $225 per household that pay overdraft fees.

The final rule estimated approximately $9 billion in savings annually to consumers.

(Use of Digital User Accounts to Access Buy Now, Pay Later Loans)

The CFPB expected that consumers would experience increased access to credit and a reduction in the use of consumer reporting to induce payment of medical collections, including those that may be inaccurate.

(Defining Larger Participants of a Market for General-Use Digital Consumer Payment Applications)

(1) Enhanced Consumer Protections: By bringing major digital payment platforms under its supervisory authority, the CFPB could conduct examinations to ensure compliance with federal consumer financial laws. This oversight aims to protect consumers from unfair, deceptive, or abusive practices.

(2) Improved Privacy and Data Security: The rule would allow the CFPB to assess how these companies handle consumer data, ensuring that privacy practices meet federal standards and that sensitive information is adequately protected.

(3) Fraud Prevention: Regular supervision would enable the CFPB to monitor and address potential fraud risks within these platforms, providing consumers with greater confidence in the security of their transactions.

(4) Account Management Oversight: The CFPB could oversee how digital payment providers manage account closures and disputes, helping to prevent unlawful or arbitrary account terminations and ensuring fair treatment of consumers.

(5) Leveling the Regulatory Playing Field: By subjecting large nonbank payment providers to similar oversight as traditional financial institutions, the rule would promote fair competition and ensures that consumers receive consistent protections regardless of the type of financial service provider they use.

(Required Rulemaking on Personal Financial Data Rights)

The Open Banking Rule discusses several benefits to consumers, such as enhanced financial management, increased competition, and improved privacy protections. The rule was expected to make it easier for consumers to switch banks, which could lead to two main benefits.

First, consumers who switch may earn more interest or pay fewer fees. For example, if just 1% of consumer deposits move to higher-interest accounts offering rates just one percentage point higher, people could earn an extra $600 million annually. Similarly, avoiding just 1% of current overdraft and non-sufficient funds (NSF) fees could save consumers at least $77 million each year.

Second, the rule could improve competition among banks, leading to better rates and lower fees even for consumers who don’t switch. If competition causes banks to increase interest rates by just 0.01%, consumers could gain another $600 million annually. And if banks reduce overdraft and NSF fees by 1% on average, consumers would save at least another $77 million each year. Overall, the rule could help people earn more and pay less, whether or not they switch banks.

(1) By collecting detailed demographic and financial data on small business credit applications, the rule aimed to facilitate the enforcement of fair lending laws. This data would help regulators identify and address potential discriminatory lending practices more effectively.

(2) Improved Transparency and Market Efficiency: The public availability of collected data was expected to increase transparency in the small business lending market. This transparency could help identify gaps in access to credit and promote more equitable lending practices.

(3) Better Understanding of Credit Needs: Financial institutions could use the collected data to gain insights into the credit needs of small businesses, particularly those owned by women and minorities. This understanding could inform the development of products and services that better meet the needs of these businesses.

(Registry of Nonbank Covered Persons Subject to Certain Agency and Court Orders)

“Providing the public, including firms, with information on the extent and nature of covered orders is consistent with the Bureau’s congressionally assigned purpose of ensuring that consumer financial markets are fair, transparent, and competitive.”

(Regulation AA)

(1) Preservation of Legal Rights: The rule would prohibit clauses that waive substantive consumer legal rights and protections granted by federal or state law, ensuring consumers retain their ability to seek legal remedies.

(2) Protection of Free Expression: It would ban contract terms that restrict consumers’ freedom of speech, such as clauses that threaten penalties or account closures for sharing negative reviews or opinions about financial products or services.

(3) Prevention of Unilateral Contract Changes: The proposal aimed to stop financial institutions from unilaterally amending material terms of a contract without consumer consent, promoting fairness and transparency.

(4) Codification of Existing Protections: The rule sought to codify certain longstanding prohibitions under the Federal Trade Commission’s Credit Practices Rule, such as banning “confessions of judgment,” which can lead to consumers forfeiting legal defenses without due process.

(1) Enhanced Consumer Protections: By extending EFTA and Regulation E to emerging payment mechanisms, consumers would gain protections against unauthorized transactions, similar to those provided for traditional bank accounts.

(2) Clarity on Coverage: The rule sought to define key terms like “financial institution,” “funds,” and “account” to ensure that consumers using non-traditional payment platforms are aware of their rights and the protections available to them.

(3) Accountability for Digital Payment Providers: By bringing digital payment systems under the purview of EFTA, providers would be held to standards that require timely error resolution and liability for unauthorized transactions, thereby increasing consumer confidence in using these platforms.

Had it been implemented, the rule was projected to offer several benefits:

(1) Enhanced Privacy Protections: By requiring data brokers to obtain explicit consent before selling sensitive information, consumers would have greater control over their personal data.

(2) Improved Data Accuracy: Subjecting data brokers to FCRA standards would necessitate the maintenance of accurate and up-to-date consumer information, reducing errors that could affect credit decisions.

(3) Increased Transparency: Consumers would have the right to access and dispute their data held by these entities, promoting transparency in data handling practices.

(4) Reduced Risk of Harm: By limiting the dissemination of personal information, the rule aimed to decrease the likelihood of identity theft, financial fraud, and other harms associated with unauthorized data sharing.