H.J.Res.64 - Disapproving the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to Defining Larger Participants of a Market for General-Use Digital Consumer Payment Applications. (119th Congress)
Summary
H.J.Res.64 is a joint resolution introduced in the House of Representatives aiming to disapprove a rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (BCFP). The rule in question relates to defining larger participants in the market for general-use digital consumer payment applications.
The resolution seeks to nullify the BCFP's rule, effectively preventing it from taking effect. The resolution cites the rule as published in the Federal Register (89 Fed. Reg. 99582 (December 10, 2024)).
Passage of this resolution would signal Congressional intent to limit the BCFP's regulatory authority over digital payment applications.
Expected Effects
If passed, H.J.Res.64 would prevent the BCFP from regulating larger participants in the market for general-use digital consumer payment applications under the specific rule cited.
This could lead to reduced oversight of these payment applications, potentially impacting consumer protection. The practical effect would be to maintain the status quo prior to the BCFP rule's implementation.
This could also embolden other challenges to BCFP regulations.
Potential Benefits
- Reduced regulatory burden on businesses involved in general-use digital consumer payment applications.
- Potential for increased innovation and competition in the digital payment market due to less stringent regulatory oversight.
- Prevents potential overreach by the BCFP, preserving Congressional authority over financial regulation.
- Could lead to lower costs for consumers if businesses pass on savings from reduced compliance costs.
- Reinforces the principle of Congressional oversight of executive agencies and their rulemaking processes.
Most Benefited Areas:
Potential Disadvantages
- Reduced consumer protection in the digital payment market, potentially leading to increased risks of fraud or unfair practices.
- Could disproportionately harm vulnerable populations who may be more susceptible to predatory practices in the absence of regulation.
- May create uncertainty for businesses if the regulatory landscape becomes less clear.
- Could undermine the BCFP's ability to effectively supervise and enforce consumer financial protection laws.
- Could set a precedent for weakening consumer financial protections in other areas.
Most Disadvantaged Areas:
Constitutional Alignment
The resolution's attempt to disapprove a rule submitted by the BCFP aligns with Congress's legislative powers as defined in Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution, which vests all legislative powers in Congress. Congress has the authority to oversee and, if necessary, nullify regulations issued by executive agencies.
Furthermore, this action can be seen as an exercise of checks and balances, ensuring that executive agencies do not exceed their delegated authority. The resolution does not appear to infringe upon any specific constitutional rights or protections.
However, the constitutionality of the underlying BCFP rule itself is not addressed directly by this resolution, only the Congressional disapproval of it.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).