The request is at the prerule stage, with the rule not yet published, according to the post.
Law firm Ballard Spahr, which flagged the CFPB’s request for information in a Wednesday (July 8) blog post, said in its post that a request for information is often the first formal step in a rulemaking process. However, because the document has not been released, the nature of the potential regulation cannot be determined, according to the post.
Ballard Spahr noted that the CFPB has been examining credit card late fees for many years and issued a March 2024 final rule that the regulator said reduce fees and save consumers about $10 billion annually.
Banking industry trade associations immediately launched a legal challenge that prevented the rule from taking effect, and then the CFPB stopped defending the rule after the most recent change in administration, leaving the late-fee rules untouched, according to the post.
Ballard Spahr speculated in the post that the request for information could signal that the CFPB aims to update the factual record to account for changes since its 2022 Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that led to the final rule, may be exploring other regulatory approaches that could avoid the legal criticisms directed at the 2024 final rule, or may be responding to concerns about the affordability of consumer credit.
The firm said that the new information gathering effort doesn’t necessarily signal another late-fee rule.
“Nevertheless, the development is significant,” Ballard Spahr said in the post. “Credit card late fees have remained a high-profile policy issue since the CFPB first launched its 2022 inquiry, and the Bureau’s decision to revisit the subject—despite abandoning the Biden Administration’s 2024 rule—suggests that regulation of late-payment practices remains on the agency’s docket, even though it doesn’t appear on the agency’s recent regulatory agenda.”
PYMNTS reported in April 2025 that when banking and business groups filed suit against the CFPB’s rule that included a late fee cap, they alleged that the regulator had exceeded its authority and ignored Congress’ intent that fees be high enough to prevent late payments and compensate card issuers for their costs.
