WASHINGTON – The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) should not cut back on supervising key industries that expose consumers to big risks and have a track record of violating the law, the National Consumer Law Center (NCLC), Consumer Federation of America (CFA), and 29 other groups said today in comments to the CFPB. Cutbacks to CFPB supervision could send a message to companies that violations of the law will be ignored.

31 advocacy groups submitted general comments to the CFPB arguing that the bureau should not reduce the number of larger companies potentially subject to supervision, and NCLC and CFA submitted more detailed comments on the auto finance, debt collection, credit reporting, and international money transmission (also known as remittances) markets. The comments were in response to four “advance notices of proposed rulemaking” (ANPR) signaling that the CFPB is considering drastically shrinking the number of companies potentially subject to being examined:

● From 63 auto finance companies to as few as five, possibly eliminating all of those that focus on subprime lending;

● From about 36 consumer reporting agencies to as few as six;

● From 250 to 300 debt collectors to as few as 11; an

● From about 28 international money transmitters to as few as four.

“The vast majority of complaints to the CFPB are about credit reporting and debt collection. Limiting the CFPB’s ability to examine larger companies in those industries to make sure they are complying with the law makes no sense,” said Lauren Saunders, associate director at the National Consumer Law Center. “The CFPB’s plan to limit oversight of the debt collection, credit reporting, auto finance and remittance markets is yet another abrupt reversal from its mission to protect consumers from financial abuse.”

“The CFPB couldn’t have chosen a worse moment to shirk its duty to oversee major financial institutions and help avert the next crisis,” said Erin Witte, director of consumer protection at Consumer Federation of America. “Americans are drowning in debt, putting corporations in a position of power to exploit them, and the Bureau’s response is to simply walk away.”

Congress tasked the Bureau with supervising nonbank companies in the wake of the financial disasters of the Great Recession, when a lack of oversight of nonbanks wreaked havoc on households across the country. The CFPB needs the flexibility to supervise companies if red flags emerge and to understand compliance issues in companies of different sizes, advocates say.

Supervision is a key pillar in the CFPB’s congressionally designed structure. Consistent supervision protects law-abiding companies from being forced to compete with those that violate the law or take advantage of individuals. Notably, in auto finance and international money transfers, nonbank companies compete with banks that provide the same services, but the CFPB is the only federal regulator that supervises their conduct. Banks, on the other hand, are supervised by other federal regulators in addition to the CFPB, so scaling back supervision would create an unfair advantage for nonbanks.

Flexible supervision authority can help the CFPB stave off smaller problems before they turn into bigger problems that harm more people. Limiting supervision to the very largest entities will give the CFPB less information about compliance issues and regulatory burden at smaller companies.

Related Resources

• Coalition Comment on the CFPB’s Proposed Rule Amending the Civil Penalty Fund Rule, July 18, 2025
• Letter Opposing Anti-CFPB Bills, July 15, 2025
• Press release: 50+ Consumer, Civil Rights & Privacy Groups Urge CFPB to Eliminate Junk Fees in Remittances, Oct. 29, 2024