USA – WASHINGTON TRENDS AND DEVELOPMENTS Contributed by: Blank Rome LLP
Several states have adopted their own versions of the CFPB or amended their consumer protection laws to enable them to step into the role the CFPB played prior to 2025. For example, New York passed the Fostering Affordability and Integrity through Reason - able Business Practices Act (the “FAIR Act”), which expands the state’s authority over “unfair”, and “abu - sive” acts. In addition, New York amended the Finan - cial Services Law to make it unlawful to engage in unlicensed activity in New York, which, among other things: (i) gives the New York Department of Financial Services superintendent the authority to impose civil penalties on individuals or entities operating without proper licensure; and (ii) allows for up to double the penalty amounts for unlicensed acts that result in consumer harm. Oregon enacted a price transpar - ency law, which became effective on 1 January 2026 and requires that online retailers disclose all fees that a consumer must pay to complete a transaction as part of the originally listed price, which is consistent with the Biden administration’s attempt to prohibit junk fees. State regulators have also been getting creative by forming coalitions and entering into joint efforts to examine specific areas of the consumer financial ser - vices industry more closely, making it difficult for fin - techs to fly completely under the radar. Rohit Chopra, CFPB director under the Biden admin - istration, is now senior advisor to the Democratic Attorneys General Association’s Consumer Protec - tion and Affordability Working Group. According to the organisation’s announcement, Chopra “will work with state attorneys general to craft and promote policies that make life more affordable for Americans, protect people’s personal data, and defend consumers from online abuses”. In this role, Chopra can help shape state enforcement and future state attorneys general (AG) coalitions, and can actively counsel them on how to employ the various circulars, bulletins, and other resources the CFPB compiled at the end of his ten - ure as director in its “Compendium of Recent CFPB Guidance” and “Strengthening State-Level Consumer Protections” documents, which serve as a roadmap for states to carry the torch for CFPB’s efforts while the agency is less active.
In addition to these efforts, states have continued to challenge the ability of fintechs to originate loans through bank partnerships and export the rates avail - able to the banks nationwide. For example, Colorado passed a law to opt out of the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 (DID - MCA), which would force state-chartered banks based outside Colorado to comply with Colorado’s interest rate caps on loans made to state residents, rather than export the rates available in the bank’s home state nationwide. While this move has been controversial and subject to challenge, the Tenth Circuit has allowed the Colorado law to take effect pending further review, which are anticipated to be an en banc review by the full Tenth Circuit or a petition to the Supreme Court. State actions in 2026 will determine whether states can effectively counterbalance the deregulation at the federal level. Fintechs should expect much more robust examination and enforcement action at the state level than in previous years. The State of the Market Below, we describe the most active developments in fintech markets and what it means for the coming year. Artificial intelligence AI made its presence known in all industries in 2025, and the fintech industry was no exception. Fintechs have been incorporating AI into all aspects of their product life cycles, from data mining and fraud pre - vention to underwriting and customer service. At the federal level, President Trump has made it known that deregulation of AI is a priority. In December 2025, Trump issued an Executive Order (EO) characterising AI as a technological arms race and emphasising the importance of a national standard for its regulation. The EO calls for the establishment of an AI Litigation Task Force for the purpose of challenging any state regulations of AI that are inconsistent with the goal of a “minimally burdensome” regulatory framework for AI. The EO suggests that state laws that require altera - tions to the truthful outputs of AI models may require businesses to engage in deceptive acts or practices affecting commerce, in violation of the FTC Act.
1006 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook