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.


Chinese Robotaxi Stocks Rally as Tesla Boosts Autonomous Driving Optimism
Asian Fund Managers Turn More Optimistic on Growth but Curb Equity Return Expectations: BofA Survey
Elliott Management Takes $1 Billion Stake in Lululemon, Pushes for Leadership Change
Asian Currencies Trade Sideways as Dollar Weakens Ahead of Key U.S. Data
Sanofi’s Efdoralprin Alfa Gains EMA Orphan Status for Rare Lung Disease
Silver Prices Hit Record High as Safe-Haven Demand Surges Amid U.S. Economic Uncertainty
MetaX IPO Soars as China’s AI Chip Stocks Ignite Investor Frenzy
U.S. Dollar Steadies Near October Lows as Rate Cut Expectations Keep Markets on Edge
Apple Opens iPhone to Alternative App Stores in Japan Under New Competition Law
Robinhood Expands Sports Event Contracts With Player Performance Wagers
South Korea Warns Weak Won Could Push Inflation Higher in 2025
U.S. Dollar Slips Near Two-Month Low as Markets Await Key Jobs Data and Central Bank Decisions
EU Signals Major Shift on 2035 Combustion Engine Ban Amid Auto Industry Pressure
Oracle Stock Slides After Blue Owl Exit Report, Company Says Michigan Data Center Talks Remain on Track
Korea Zinc to Build $7.4 Billion Critical Minerals Refinery in Tennessee With U.S. Government Backing
Ford Takes $19.5 Billion Charge as EV Strategy Shifts Toward Hybrids 



