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".
- Sponsor
- Rep. Williams, Nikema [D-GA-5]
- Committees
- Financial Services Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Apr 30, 2026
Bottom line
H.J. Res. 171 aims to block the BCFP's attempt to roll back consumer protections concerning bank fees for returned deposited items, ensuring the original bulletin remains effective.
What it actually does
This joint resolution, introduced under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), seeks to disapprove a rule issued by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (BCFP) on May 12, 2025. This BCFP rule had withdrawn "Bulletin 2022-06: Unfair Returned Deposited Item Fee Assessment Practices." By disapproving the BCFP's withdrawal rule, H.J. Res. 171 would effectively keep Bulletin 2022-06 in force, thereby maintaining restrictions on banks regarding fees for returned deposited items.
Proponents argue
Supporters of H.J. Res. 171 argue that the BCFP's Bulletin 2022-06 was a crucial measure to protect consumers from predatory or unfair banking practices related to returned deposited item fees. They contend that the BCFP's subsequent withdrawal of this bulletin was a step backward for consumer protection, potentially allowing financial institutions to impose excessive or unwarranted charges on account holders, particularly those with lower incomes who are more susceptible to such fees. Therefore, disapproving the withdrawal is seen as essential to uphold consumer safeguards.
Opponents contend
Opponents of H.J. Res. 171, including those who supported the BCFP's withdrawal of Bulletin 2022-06, would argue that the original bulletin imposed undue regulatory burdens on financial institutions. They might contend that the bulletin's guidance was unclear, led to operational complexities, or restricted banks' ability to recover legitimate costs associated with processing returned items. Furthermore, they may argue that the market or existing regulations are sufficient to address fee practices, and that the BCFP's withdrawal was a necessary step to streamline regulations and reduce compliance costs for banks, which could ultimately benefit consumers through more efficient services.
The bill text is extremely short and can be read in under a minute. However, understanding its full implications requires familiarity with the underlying BCFP rules and the Congressional Review Act process.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves 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 (87 Fed. Reg. 66940 (November 7, 2022))" (90 Fed. Reg. 20084 (May 12, 2025)), and such rule shall have no force or effect.
Disapproval of BCFP Rule Withdrawing Bulletin 2022-06
This provision states that Congress formally rejects and nullifies a specific rule issued by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (BCFP) on May 12, 2025. That BCFP rule had previously withdrawn a bulletin (Bulletin 2022-06) that addressed "Unfair Returned Deposited Item Fee Assessment Practices." By disapproving the withdrawal rule, this joint resolution effectively ensures that Bulletin 2022-06 remains in effect, continuing to guide or restrict how banks can charge fees for items deposited into an account that are subsequently returned unpaid.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that maintaining Bulletin 2022-06 is vital for consumer protection, preventing banks from imposing potentially unfair or excessive fees on customers, especially those who may be financially vulnerable. They believe these fees can disproportionately impact low-income individuals and contribute to financial instability.
Critics contend
Critics contend that the original Bulletin 2022-06 imposed unnecessary compliance costs and operational complexities on financial institutions. They argue that banks should have the flexibility to set their own fee structures to cover the costs associated with processing returned items and that the BCFP's withdrawal was a sensible regulatory relief measure.
Tradeoffs
The provision navigates the tension between consumer protection from potentially high bank fees and the operational autonomy and revenue generation capabilities of financial institutions. It also highlights the ongoing debate about the appropriate level of regulatory oversight in the banking sector.