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.


Washington Post Publisher Will Lewis Steps Down After Layoffs
Dow Hits 50,000 as U.S. Stocks Stage Strong Rebound Amid AI Volatility
China Extends Gold Buying Streak as Reserves Surge Despite Volatile Prices
Dollar Steadies Ahead of ECB and BoE Decisions as Markets Turn Risk-Off
SoftBank Shares Slide After Arm Earnings Miss Fuels Tech Stock Sell-Off
Trump Endorses Japan’s Sanae Takaichi Ahead of Crucial Election Amid Market and China Tensions
Bank of Japan Signals Readiness for Near-Term Rate Hike as Inflation Nears Target
OpenAI Expands Enterprise AI Strategy With Major Hiring Push Ahead of New Business Offering
South Korea Assures U.S. on Trade Deal Commitments Amid Tariff Concerns
TrumpRx Website Launches to Offer Discounted Prescription Drugs for Cash-Paying Americans
Nvidia, ByteDance, and the U.S.-China AI Chip Standoff Over H200 Exports
Tencent Shares Slide After WeChat Restricts YuanBao AI Promotional Links
Trump Backs Nexstar–Tegna Merger Amid Shifting U.S. Media Landscape
American Airlines CEO to Meet Pilots Union Amid Storm Response and Financial Concerns
Baidu Approves $5 Billion Share Buyback and Plans First-Ever Dividend in 2026
Weight-Loss Drug Ads Take Over the Super Bowl as Pharma Embraces Direct-to-Consumer Marketing
SpaceX Prioritizes Moon Mission Before Mars as Starship Development Accelerates 



