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.


GM Canada Workers Approve C$1.1 Billion Investment Deal
Asian Stocks Tumble as Oil Surge Fuels Rate Hike Fears
Shein Shares Drop 5% After Weak Hong Kong IPO Debut
OpenAI Nears Astra AI Model Launch With Safety Focus
Lynas Rare Earths Shares Rise After Takeover Talks Revealed
MediaTek Shares Jump 10% on Nvidia’s $3.5 Billion Investment
Asian Stocks Rise as Bond Yields Ease, Oil Prices Stabilize
Bessent Urges Japan on Fiscal Discipline, BOJ Rate Hikes
Asian Currencies Rise as Yen Surges on BOJ Rate Hike Bets
Trump Says ExxonMobil Among Oil Majors Planning Venezuela Return
Yen Extends Gains as BOJ Rate Hike Bets Rise
China Services PMI Beats Forecasts as Domestic Demand Improves
US Tech Giants’ AI Bond Boom Raises Euro Zone Borrowing Risks
Trump Secures Drug Pricing Deals With Nine Pharma Companies
South Korea Unveils Record $597 Billion 2027 Budget to Boost AI and Chips
Apple’s Phil Schiller Steps Back as Leadership Shake-Up Accelerates
Amazon Shares Fall as FTC Plans Ad Pricing Lawsuit 



