Effective May 12, 2025, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) formally revoked 67 different guidance documents by publishing a notice in the Federal Register. The CFPB’s action covers various guidance documents, interpretive rules, policy statements and advisory opinions across a range of laws and topics. The stated purpose of this move is threefold:

1. The CFPB’s new policy is to only issue guidance “where that guidance is necessary and would reduce compliance burdens.”
2. There is “no pressing need for interpretive guidance to remain in effect” because the CFPB is “reducing its enforcement activities” in light of the current administration’s “directives to deregulate and streamline bureaucracy.”
3. The CFPB’s “guidance is generally non-binding and generally does not create substantive rights,” and sometimes goes beyond the relevant statute or regulation it seeks to interpret.

The CFPB’s action has raised significant questions for financial institutions. For example, does the withdrawal of a particular guidance document mean that the current CFPB disagrees with the interpretation or position articulated in that document? Should an entity change course and take a different approach to complying with whatever the guidance addressed? And does the CFPB’s choice to keep a certain guidance document in force and not withdraw it mean that the current CFPB agrees with the interpretation or policy articulated in that document?

Unfortunately, there aren’t any answers to these questions at present. For starters, the CFPB does not explain why any particular guidance document is being withdrawn. Instead, the agency offers a number of potential explanations, such as inconsistency with the statutory text, violations of notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements, inconsistency with the agency’s current positions, or even just the agency’s “current policy to avoid issuing guidance except where necessary and where compliance burdens would be reduced rather than increased.”

The problem for industry is that the explanation for withdrawing each document matters. For example, if the CFPB withdrew one guidance document because it now deems the interpretation to be inconsistent with the statutory text, then regulated entities would have to consider changing how they interpret and comply with various parts of the law. On the other hand, if the CFPB withdrew a document as “unnecessary” (notwithstanding the fact that it advances a permissible interpretation), a regulated entity would not necessarily need to change their internal policies or procedures, as the current policy would remain compliant with federal law.

Unfortunately, financial services providers are left to analyze all of the now-withdrawn guidance documents and make their own determinations regarding which category each document may fall into. This is a significant compliance burden, to say the least.

While the CFPB’s move is jarring, the exercise of reviewing complex issues addressed through guidance or advisory opinions is something that financial services providers should have undertaken when the United States Supreme Court released the

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo decision. That case overturned the long-standing Chevron doctrine, which instructed courts to give deference to enforcing agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous statutes. Under Chevron, knowing how the CFPB interpreted certain issues was critical for covered entities to consider in their compliance efforts. Not only did it ensure a company met the agency’s expectations, but it also provided some level of cover if ever challenged in private litigation, as the CFPB’s interpretation was often likely to receive some deference.

In a post-Loper Bright world, reviewing courts are no longer supposed to defer to agency interpretations. Rather, they are now instructed to make their own determinations regarding the most reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute or regulation. Under this lens, the CFPB’s guidance provides much less value. It certainly does still provide insight into the agency’s expectations, which is valuable, especially in the context of enforcement actions, but it no longer has the same value when presented in court.

Since a reviewing court is supposed to ascertain the most reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute or regulation on its own, the CFPB’s interpretation now has little persuasive value. If the CFPB adopted an unreasonable interpretation in a guidance document, it would not matter in a post-Loper Bright world whether that document was in effect or withdrawn, as the court would not give deference in either case. In other words, the Loper Bright decision signaled that financial services providers would be best served to undertake their own analysis regarding the laws implicated by all of the CFPB’s guidance, regardless of whether it is withdrawn or remains in effect.

Given the diminished value of an agency interpretation in a post-Loper Bright world, in some ways the CFPB’s action to withdraw significant amounts of guidance is of limited effect. For now, while we undertake analysis of the issues implicated by the now-withdrawn guidance, we also wait for additional answers from the CFPB. Specifically, we hope that the CFPB will provide its rationale for why each guidance document was withdrawn. Did the CFPB consider the guidance to have adopted an inaccurate interpretation of the law, or did the CFPB determine that the guidance was unnecessary? Even though agency guidance is now less valuable than it once was, it is still helpful to know an agency’s views on complex legal and compliance issues.

Finally, we await to see if the CFPB’s withdrawal decisions are final. In its notice, the CFPB explains that its current action “is not necessarily final. The Bureau intends to continue reviewing all guidance documents to determine whether they should ultimately be retained. However, the Bureau has determined that the guidance identified . . . should not be enforced or otherwise relied upon by the Bureau while this review is ongoing.” In other words, we don’t even know whether the withdrawal is an interim measure while it continues to review things internally, or whether the withdrawal will be a final action. This only adds to the uncertainty and, unfortunately, we are forced to wait to see if the CFPB announces if and when the exercise is completed.

Listen to this post