Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV)
A joint resolution 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".
A Democratic resolution with no cosponsors
Last activity — Motion to proceed to consideration of measure rejected in Senate by Voice Vote. (consideration: CR S2270-2271)
Introduced, nothing more yet
Formally proposed, and not yet handed to a committee.
Nearly every bill is sent to a committee within days. Introduction alone is not a sign of support, of momentum, or of any likelihood of passing — any member may introduce any bill.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
What this bill would do
This joint resolution aims to provide congressional disapproval of a rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. The specific rule involves the withdrawal of a rule regarding "Consumer Financial Protection Circular 2024-03: Unlawful and Unenforceable Contract Terms and Conditions." If passed, the resolution states that the Bureau's rule shall have no force or effect. This action is being taken under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code.
Yes
- Scored +3
Would business owners be better off under this?
The disapproval of the rule prevents more stringent regulation of contract terms, benefiting business owners.
The opposite· 3 of 5
- Scored -4
Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices?
The resolution disapproves a rule intended to address unlawful and unenforceable contract terms, which may reduce consumer protections against unfair business practices.
- Scored -3
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Removing consumer protection rules can disproportionately affect low-income populations when facing unfair contract terms.
- Scored -2
Would middle-income households be better off under this?
Weakening consumer financial protections could negatively impact middle-class contract negotiations.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
The provided text does not contain information explaining the potential positive impacts or benefits of this resolution for individuals or groups.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
The provided text does not contain information explaining the potential negative impacts or burdens of this resolution for individuals or groups.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would business owners be better off under this? — The disapproval of the rule prevents more stringent regulation of contract terms, benefiting business owners. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Removing consumer protection rules can disproportionately affect low-income populations when facing unfair contract terms. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Weakening consumer financial protections could negatively impact middle-class contract negotiations. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Reduced consumer financial regulation may impact urban populations more heavily due to higher concentrations of service-based contracts.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — The resolution disapproves a rule intended to address unlawful and unenforceable contract terms, which may reduce consumer protections against unfair business practices.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The disapproval of a Bureau rule limits the regulatory oversight capacity of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
- 5/13/2026
- Motion to proceed to consideration of measure rejected in Senate by Voice Vote. (consideration: CR S2270-2271)
- 4/27/2026
- Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs discharged, by petition, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 802(c).
- Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 384.
- 3/17/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
- Introduced in Senate
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.