This incident is relevant not only to the CFPB, but to other financial regulators as well. Centralization of financial information on the CAT system, for example, may be a risk not worth taking. (See, e.g., .)

State securities regulators are always skeptical of any legislative initiative that would reduce regulatory burdens. They argue that any such reduction will result in a lessening of consumer protections. No doubt there is a trade-off. Less regulation means some greater acceptance of risk. On the other hand, more regulation means less business and innovation. Reaching consensus on where to draw the line is difficult. One way may be to allow reduced regulation in those states where there is a…

Declaring "junk fees" to be unlawful has a good sound to it, but market participants should have a right know just what is unlawful. When the regulators say that "something" (in this case, "junk fees") is illegal, they should be careful to closely define what that something is. If there are particular fees that the CFPB believes should be illegal, then the CFPB should propose a rule to that effect and take public comment on the rule, and, if it then goes forward, adopt a rule that is clear…

There is some irony to the SEC complaining that a document request is overly burdensome. In some ideal world, this might cause the SEC to explain why the request is burdensome and when it can have the required documents. Also in that ideal world, this might lead the SEC to consider the costs of the document demands that it imposes and whether such demands could be better tailored.