Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to the withdrawal of the rule relating to "Consumer Financial Protection Circular 2024-03: Unlawful and Unenforceable Contract Terms and Conditions".
HJR185 is a congressional disapproval resolution under the Congressional Review Act. It targets a Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection action that withdrew Consumer Financial Protection Circular 2024-03, which addressed “Unlawful and Unenforceable Contract Terms and Conditions.” If enacted, the resolution would nullify the withdrawal rule and make it have no force or effect, effectively preventing the CFPB from withdrawing the earlier circular.
The measure does not create a new regulatory regime; instead, it seeks to preserve the CFPB’s prior guidance on contract terms the agency considered unlawful or unenforceable. In practical terms, it would affect how the CFPB can treat certain consumer contracts and clauses, and it could influence compliance expectations for businesses that use standard-form consumer agreements.
If enacted, HJR185 would override the CFPB’s withdrawal of Circular 2024-03 and keep the earlier consumer-protection guidance in place. The bill would not directly amend the U.S. Code, but under the Congressional Review Act it would bar the withdrawn rule from taking effect and would limit the agency’s ability to reissue a substantially similar rule without congressional authorization. The main affected parties would be the CFPB, consumer finance companies, lenders, and businesses that rely on contract terms potentially deemed unlawful or unenforceable.
No committee debate or recorded votes are provided, so the available context does not show an explicit bipartisan or partisan split. Based on the bill’s structure, the resolution appears to reflect support for stronger consumer-protection oversight and skepticism toward the CFPB’s decision to withdraw the circular. The absence of transcripts or votes means there is no documented floor-level sentiment in the materials provided.
The central point of contention is whether the CFPB should be allowed to withdraw guidance identifying certain contract terms as unlawful or unenforceable. Supporters of the resolution would likely argue that the withdrawal weakens consumer protections and creates uncertainty, while opponents would likely view the underlying circular as overreaching or too restrictive for businesses and contract freedom. The dispute is therefore between preserving agency consumer-protection guidance and limiting regulatory reach over private contracts.