The decision comes after ongoing feedback from industry professionals who raised concerns about the rule’s language, timing, and overall alignment with broader regulatory standards. Stakeholders emphasized the need for better clarity, data-driven decision-making, and acknowledgment of consumer preferences—especially when it comes to digital communication methods.
The California Privacy Protection Agency (Agency) on Thursday, July 24, 2025, approved a comprehensive set of new California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) regulations that the Agency has been developing for over four years. Before taking effect, the proposed regulations must still be approved by California’s Office of Administrative Law (OAL). It is possible some of these provisions may change with the OAL’s review, which must be completed within 30 business days after the Agency submits to the OAL its final rulemaking package. However, many expect that most of the proposed regulations will pass OAL review.
In a significant turn of events, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) has decided to initiate a new rulemaking process concerning its final rule on personal financial data rights under Section 1033 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (1033 rule). This decision comes amidst ongoing legal challenges, notably from Forcht Bank, N.A.; Kentucky Bankers Association; and the Bank Policy Institute, which filed a lawsuit immediately after the 1033 rule was finalized challenging it.
Today, the New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (NYC DCWP) announced another delay in the effective date of its amended debt collection rules. This marks the second postponement. As discussed here, the rules were initially set to take effect on December 1, 2024. Then the enforcement date was first postponed to April 1, 2025, following industry concerns and legal challenges, and then to October 1, 2025.
A federal judge has rejected the Trump Administration’s request to release from court supervision a bank that had been accused of discriminatory lending.
U.S. District Judge Michael M. Baylson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania found that continued oversight was needed to make sure the terms of the settlement with ESSA Bank were followed.
.jpg)
.jpg)