hold on there's just too much going on in Congress lmao...
Rejects federal agency’s decision to withdraw its rule on unfair bank overdraft opt-ins.
Introduced by Senator Van Hollen (party/state not specified in bill text).
In Senate, placed on calendar for potential vote.
This bill seeks to reject a move by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB) to withdraw its previous guidance, 'Circular 2024-05,' which addressed improper practices banks might use to get customers to opt-in for overdraft services. If passed, it means the original guidance on overdraft opt-ins would remain in effect. Senator Van Hollen introduced this resolution, which has now been placed on the Senate calendar, meaning it's ready for a floor vote.
Introduced Mar 18, 2026
The bill was introduced in the Senate by Mr. Van Hollen. It was then referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. On April 27, 2026, the committee was discharged by petition, and the resolution was placed on the Senate Calendar. This means it is now eligible to be brought to a vote on the Senate floor. 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 bill passes, financial institutions might have to change how they ask you to agree to overdraft services. The goal is to ensure that customers clearly understand and willingly choose to opt-in to these services, rather than being enrolled through confusing or misleading practices. This could lead to a reduction in unexpected overdraft fees for consumers, as banks would need to follow specific guidelines on how they obtain your consent.
Supporters Say
Supporters argue this keeps important consumer protections against misleading bank overdraft practices in place.
Critics Say
Critics might argue it interferes with a federal agency's decision or limits bank flexibility in offering services.
Those in favor of this bill believe that the original CFPB guidance on overdraft opt-in practices is crucial for protecting consumers from predatory fees and ensuring transparency in banking. They would see the CFPB's withdrawal of that guidance as a step backward for consumer protection. Conversely, those who oppose this resolution (and thus support the CFPB's withdrawal) might contend that the original guidance was overly burdensome for banks or that the agency has the right to adjust its regulatory approach as it sees fit.