A federal judge in Texas has ruled against a Biden administration regulation that would have capped credit card late fees at $8, marking a significant setback for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and a major win for the banking industry.
The decision, issued by U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman in Fort Worth, continues an injunction he imposed in May, preventing the regulation from taking effect. The blocked rule was part of President Joe Biden’s broader crackdown on so-called "junk fees," which include excessive penalties charged by financial institutions.
Legal Grounds for Blocking the Fee Cap
The CFPB proposed the rule to limit late fees for card issuers managing more than one million accounts. Under the regulation, higher fees would only be allowed if companies could prove they were necessary to cover operational costs.
However, Judge Pittman ruled the CFPB overstepped its authority under the Credit Card Accountability and Disclosure Act (CARD Act) of 2009. The law permits penalty fees for contract violations, such as late payments, but requires they be reasonable and proportional. Pittman argued that the $8 cap effectively eliminated the ability for issuers to impose legitimate penalty fees.
Using a baseball analogy in his ruling, Pittman stated, “Congress assigned the CFPB as an umpire to call balls and strikes on the reasonableness and proportionality of penalty fees. But by preventing card issuers from actually imposing penalty fees, the CFPB impermissibly established a strike zone only large enough for pitches right down the middle.”
The judge also denied the CFPB’s request to transfer the case to Washington, further complicating the agency’s path forward.
Billions in Consumer Costs at Stake
The CFPB estimates that without the cap, American consumers will pay over $56 billion in credit card fees over the next five years. The agency’s spokesperson called the ruling “a gift to big banks,” emphasizing that late fees cost families $27 million each day.
Critics argue that the decision benefits financial institutions at the expense of vulnerable consumers. Erik Huberman, a financial analyst, commented, “This ruling highlights a troubling trend—where regulatory limitations aimed at consumer protection are consistently rolled back.”
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Bankers Association, which challenged the rule, praised the ruling, arguing the fee cap was unreasonable and overly restrictive.


Westpac Director Peter Nash Avoids Major Investor Backlash Amid ASX Scrutiny
SpaceX Reportedly Preparing Record-Breaking IPO Targeting $1.5 Trillion Valuation
SoftBank Eyes Switch Inc as It Pushes Deeper Into AI Data Center Expansion
Microsoft Unveils Massive Global AI Investments, Prioritizing India’s Rapidly Growing Digital Market
Fed Rate Cut Signals Balance Between Inflation and Jobs, Says Mary Daly
Japan Weighs New Tax Breaks to Boost Corporate Investment Amid Spending Debate
Asian Currencies Hold Steady as Indian Rupee Slides to Record Low on Fed Outlook
SoftBank Shares Slide as Oracle’s AI Spending Plans Fuel Market Jitters
Modi and Trump Hold Phone Call as India Seeks Relief From U.S. Tariffs Over Russian Oil Trade
Asian Stocks Slip as Oracle Earnings Miss Sparks AI Profitability Concerns
Intel’s Testing of China-Linked Chipmaking Tools Raises U.S. National Security Concerns
Hong Kong Cuts Base Rate as HKMA Follows U.S. Federal Reserve Move
ADB Approves $400 Million Loan to Boost Ease of Doing Business in the Philippines
Gold Prices Dip as Markets Absorb Dovish Fed Outlook; Silver Eases After Record High
China Adds Domestic AI Chips to Government Procurement List as U.S. Considers Easing Nvidia Export Curbs
Apple App Store Injunction Largely Upheld as Appeals Court Rules on Epic Games Case
US Signals Openness to New Trade Deal as Brazil Shows Willingness, Says USTR Greer 



