A joint resolution 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 "Consumer Financial Protection Circular 2023-01: Unlawful Negative Option Marketing Practices".

Summary: SJRES 160 (119th Congress) – Joint Resolution to Disapprove a CFPB Rule

Overview

• This is a joint resolution proposing congressional disapproval under the Congressional Review Act (chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code) of a Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB) rule.
• The rule in question concerns the withdrawal of a prior CFPB rule labeled “Consumer Financial Protection Circular 2023–01: Unlawful Negative Option Marketing Practices.”
• The joint resolution asserts that Congress disapproves the CFPB rule withdrawal and would have no force or effect if enacted.

Purpose and Intent

• Primary aim: Invalidate (disapprove) the CFPB’s withdrawal of the 2023 circular on unlawful negative option marketing practices.
• By disapproving the rule withdrawal, Congress would prevent the withdrawal from taking effect and maintain the status quo as if the withdrawal never occurred (i.e., the original regulatory framework remains in effect, to the extent the withdrawal would have changed it).

Key Provisions and Changes

• Disapproval mechanism: The resolution uses the Congressional Review Act process to disapprove the CFPB withdrawal rule.
• Rule specifically targeted: “Consumer Financial Protection Circular 2023–01: Unlawful Negative Option Marketing Practices” and its withdrawal.
  • The original rule: CFPB Circular 2023-01 pertained to unlawful negative option marketing practices (a regulatory stance or guidance related to certain marketing and billing practices).
  • The withdrawal: The rule’s withdrawal as published by CFPB (indicated by references to a 2025 Federal Register entry) is targeted for disapproval.
• Effect if passed: The disapproval would render the withdrawal without force or effect, effectively reinstating or preserving the regulatory posture that would have continued had the withdrawal not occurred.

Affected Parties and Impacts

• Federal regulator: CFPB would be constrained by the disapproval and would not be able to enforce the withdrawal as intended.
• Regulated entities: Businesses and marketers subject to CFPB guidance on negative option marketing practices would retain the framework deemed active prior to the withdrawal.
• Consumers: Potential protections or obligations related to unlawful negative option marketing practices would remain under the prior regime, as the withdrawal would be reversed.

Procedural and Timeline Aspects

• Introduction and sponsorship: Introduced in the Senate by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (co-sponsor listed); referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
• Legislative path: Joint resolution, under the Congressional Review Act, typically requires passage by both chambers of Congress and presidential signature or a veto override to become law.
• Current status: As of the latest action, the bill has been read twice and referred to the committee; no floor passage or final action noted in the provided record.
• Importantly, the resolution references specific Federal Register notices:
  • Original rule: 88 Fed. Reg. 5727 (January 30, 2023)
  • Withdrawn rule: 90 Fed. Reg. 20086 (May 12, 2025)

Additional Notes

• The bill’s reach is limited to disapproval of the CFPB’s withdrawal action; it does not amend or create new substantive prohibitions against marketing practices beyond reinstating the prior regulatory posture.
• The use of the Congressional Review Act means a relatively narrow time window typically applies for disapproval actions after a rule is finalized; the reference dates indicate a recent regulatory move by CFPB being targeted.

If you want, I can add a brief comparison to related CFPB actions or provide a plain-language short FAQ for lawmakers and the public.