hold on there's just too much going on in Congress lmao...
Stops a rule withdrawal, keeping consumer contract protection in place.
Ms. Cortez Masto (Democrat, Nevada)
In Senate, awaiting floor vote
This joint resolution aims to prevent the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) from withdrawing its previous guidance on unlawful contract terms. If passed, it means the CFPB's guidance, which warns against contract clauses that waive consumer rights, would remain in effect. Senator Catherine Cortez Masto, a Democrat from Nevada, introduced this resolution. It has been discharged from committee and is now on the Senate calendar, meaning it's ready for a vote by the full Senate.
Introduced Mar 17, 2026
This bill was introduced in the Senate and initially referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. However, it was discharged from that committee by petition on April 27, 2026, and placed directly on the Senate's legislative calendar. This means it is now ready for a vote by the full Senate. If it passes the Senate, it would then need to pass the House of Representatives and be signed by the President to become law.
If this joint resolution passes, it would ensure that the CFPB's guidance on unlawful and unenforceable contract terms remains active. This guidance warns financial service providers against including clauses in contracts that illegally waive consumer rights, such as the right to sue. As a result, companies may be less likely to include such terms, potentially making financial contracts clearer and more protective of consumers. For individuals, this could mean more options if disputes arise with financial institutions, and potentially less fine print that takes away your rights.
Supporters Say
Supporters argue it protects consumers from unfair contract terms that strip away their legal rights.
Critics Say
Critics might argue it creates unnecessary burdens for businesses or is an overreach of agency power.
Those in favor of this resolution believe it is crucial for consumer protection, ensuring that financial contracts do not contain hidden clauses that illegally limit a consumer's ability to seek recourse or waive their right to sue. They view the CFPB's original guidance as a necessary tool to prevent deceptive practices. Opponents, typically aligned with business interests, might contend that the CFPB's guidance is overly prescriptive, restricts companies' ability to structure agreements, or creates regulatory uncertainty that could harm economic activity.