The CFPB has put its newly published Enforcement Principles into practice for what may be the first high-profile time, resolving a wave of consumer complaints against Bilt Technologies through direct collaboration rather than a formal investigation or public enforcement action.
The bureau’s revised approach rests on four pillars. First, enforcement will target actual harm to consumers rather than theoretical or speculative risk, and the bureau says it will not pursue cases where consumers simply made unwise decisions. Second, due process means institutions are entitled to know the rules before they are enforced, with actions grounded in clear statutory authority or regulations adopted through notice and comment rather than novel interpretations. Third, collaboration is now a preferred path: the bureau will work with companies to remedy violations voluntarily, and firms that self-report will not be unnecessarily punished for their candor. Fourth, efficiency means the bureau will avoid duplicative work and will stand down where states or other regulators are better positioned to act.
The Bilt matter shows those principles in motion. The episode began when Protect Borrowers, a consumer advocacy group, urged the bureau to invoke its risk-based supervisory authority over Bilt and related parties, citing borrower reports of missing rent payments, accounts debited before rent was due, frozen cards, unhonored promotional offers, and customer service handled by AI chatbots. The group asked for risk-based supervision and, where appropriate, public enforcement.
The bureau took a different route. Officials met with Bilt to understand the problems caused by its transition from Wells Fargo to Column Bank and to review the company’s remediation. At the bureau’s direction, Bilt contacted potentially affected customers and offered to reimburse overdraft fees, late fees, and insufficient funds fees tied to the transition. Bilt’s documentation indicated the technical issues had been resolved. By June 4, the company expects to refund fees for more than 500 newly identified customers, with the bureau continuing to monitor until satisfied that full redress is delivered.
Officials cast the outcome as a deliberate break from the prior administration, arguing that under former Director Rohit Chopra a comparable matter would have meant a protracted investigation and public action that could litigate for years before consumers saw a dollar. Here, redress reached additional consumers within weeks.
