US consumer watchdog scraps $95 million 'illegal fees' settlement with Navy Federal Credit Union
In a separate order also published on Tuesday, the CFPB likewise canceled a November action against the nonbank mortgage company Fay Servicing over alleged violations of mortgage servicing laws.
The decisions were the latest moves by the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to undo cases already concluded by the agency, which President Donald Trump has sought to shrink drastically if not eliminate outright. The CFPB last month exited its corporate monitorship of Bank of America (BAC.N), opens new tab from a 2023 settlement and in May canceled a settlement with Toyota from the same year over allegations of pushing car buyers into unwanted product bundles.
Representatives for both companies welcomed the news, saying they were committed to properly serving their customers.
"Navy Federal complied with all applicable laws and regulations at the time and continues to do so. We firmly believe the CFPB's decision to terminate the order was appropriate," a spokesperson for the credit union said.
The CFPB did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Navy Federal primarily services military service members, veterans, civilian employees of the military and their families. In an internal memo in April, CFPB Chief Legal Officer Mark Paoletta said the agency would focus its reduced resources on "pressing threats to consumers, particularly service members and their families and veterans."
In November, the CFPB had ordered Navy Federal to pay $95 million, including $80 million in redress to consumers over allegations the credit union charged depositors whose accounts had sufficient funds at the time of a purchase but fell into the red by the time the charge later posted to their accounts. The CFPB also said depositors paid fees if they drew on funds received via services like PayPal and CashApp and the credit union's system incorrectly told them the funds were immediately available to spend.
In an order signed Tuesday, CFPB acting Director Russell Vought said the November order was terminated, including provisions requiring redress payments to allegedly harmed consumers. However the similar order concerning Fay Servicing indicated the CFPB would distribute $3 million in redress payments specific to that case.
(This story has been corrected to say that the orders were published on Tuesday, not Wednesday, in paragraphs 1-2)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
19 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
After seven long weeks of testimony where does Diddy's legacy stand in the wake of a mixed verdict?
After 7 weeks the Diddy trial has reached its conclusion, but with the mixed verdict, the questions are far from over. In this deep-dive segment, the Daily Mail breaks down every single charge, witness testimony, and key courtroom moment that shaped the case. Click above to watch the video.
Telegraph
40 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Washington has crushed Trump's Maga revolution
New presidential administrations often spur talk of revolution in Washington, and that goes double for Donald Trump. Supporters promise an end to the old politics; opponents warn of the end of America as we've known it. But the minute anything needs to be done through Congress, the forces of politics as usual reassert themselves. So it is with the 'One Big Beautiful Bill'. The gigantic tax and budget bill isn't just the centrepiece of Trump's legislative agenda. Given the narrow Republican majorities in both houses of Congress, the power of the Senate filibuster to block party-line bills outside of the tax and budget context, and the disinterest of all sides in forging bipartisan compromise, the bill is likely to be Trump's entire legislative agenda for 2025-26. There was a lot of talk about how the bill would do big, dramatic things and break with Republican policies of the past in favour of a new, populist agenda. Perhaps, Trump suggested, Republicans would raise taxes on the wealthy. There was fierce lobbying to undo some provisions of the 2017 Trump tax bill. But the forces of political gravity are not so easily defied. From the beginning, Republicans understood that this was a must-pass bill. Without it, not only would many of the 2017 tax cuts expire, but the GOP would likely miss the opportunity to satisfy priorities such as funding more immigration enforcement. In the end, the bill passed the House by just one vote, 215-214 (with two Republicans voting no and three others absent or abstaining), and did the same in the Senate, with vice-president JD Vance casting the 51-50 tiebreaker (with three Republicans voting no). The bill's passage followed a 'vote-a-thon' of record length in the Senate, as Senators voted down one amendment after another. When a must-pass bill needs every single yes vote to pass, that's a lot of people who have to be appeased or outright paid off. If the House baulks at the Senate's changes, the same dynamic is apt to repeat itself. So, the broad outlines of the bill look a lot more like traditional conservative policymaking with some Trump flavouring. Tax cuts for businesses and the wealthy are preserved, and coupled with working-class tax relief such as eliminating taxes on tips, overtime, and car loans. There's more money for warships and other weapons, and also for the tools of border enforcement (a wall, more agents, and more detention facilities). Poverty programmes such as Medicaid are subjected to work requirements, tightened eligibility rules, and restrictions on benefits for immigrants. The bill cuts back on subsidies for student-loan repayments and green energy. Republican moderates got their own concessions. The deduction for state and local taxes, which effectively subsidises high-tax blue states, was raised from $10,000 to $40,000 (at significant cost to the budget deficit) to secure a few votes from blue-state Republicans, mainly in the northeast. The child tax credit was expanded, which amounts to a payout to many lower-income taxpayers. Alaska was given more generous treatment in some benefits programmes once Senator Lisa Murkowski's vote became a must-have. Hospital and nursing-home lobbies made out like bandits. Fiscal hawks who wanted deeper spending cuts are instead presented with a bill that does nothing to alter the debt-ridden nation's grim fiscal trajectory. Other conservative ambitions were scaled back or ended on the cutting room floor. Abortion giant Planned Parenthood was defunded from the Medicaid programme – a long-time goal of pro-lifers – but the Senate cut the duration of that defunding to one year. The Senate version also cut out plans to ban Medicaid funding for gender transitions, sell public lands in the West, tax third-party funding of lawsuits, or prevent states from regulating artificial intelligence or giving state-funded healthcare to illegal immigrants. A Senate effort to reduce the federal subsidy for Obamacare health insurance plans was scrapped. The end result is a bill nobody likes – which is how lawmaking in Washington usually works. Among Republicans, only the handful of purist fiscal conservatives casting 'no' votes are truly at peace with their votes. Trump and Vance can doubtless sell the deal to Maga diehards as a necessity, and the donor class will be pleased. Democrats are back in their happy place, complaining that Republicans are cutting taxes on the rich and paying for it with welfare cuts for the poor – a hymn they've been singing since the 1930s. Voters instinctively dislike the bill because it's huge and messy, but that's precisely why they're unlikely to remember much about it a year and a half from now at midterm election time other than the Medicaid cuts, which Democrats aim to make the centrepiece of their campaigns. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
The US has just exposed the green industry's dirty little secret
The cat is out of the bag. Electricity made from renewable sources is not as 'cheap' as its advocates sometimes claim. It evidently cannot survive without billions annually in tax credits. That's the message from the latest skirmish over America's renewable energy future, where the House and Senate have unveiled duelling visions for the rollback of energy tax credits – each with its own tempo and tone. The vitriolic reaction from the green lobby, and the predictions of disaster for renewables should any of these changes be passed into law, have exposed just how economically unsustainable even the fiercest backers of these energy sources clearly accept them to be. Supporters of renewable energy have assured us for years that the wind blows and the sun shines free of charge. But although these technologies have received hundreds of billions in subsidies globally over the past 20 years, proponents still demand more – for a few years, we're told, until renewables can stand on their own feet. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said: 'Eliminating these tax credits radically and irresponsibly rolls back all the progress we have made in recent years. It turns America's clean energy boom into a bust.' But the boom was always something of an illusion. It is often asserted that electricity in the United States made with wind and solar is less expensive than electricity made by natural gas and coal. But rather than declining, average American electricity prices have risen considerably over the past 20 years as wind and solar have entered the electricity mix. One dirty little secret is that, on a state-by-state basis, nine out of the top 10 states in electricity prices in the United States in 2024 required renewable energy as part of their electricity mix. The bottom 10 states generally did not require renewable energy. It can cost utility companies more to provide people with electricity using intermittent sources than continuous sources such as natural gas, coal, and nuclear power. The utility company is likely to need to put other energy sources in place, to provide back-up should demand not be met when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine. For instance, when the wind stops, an alternative such as a natural gas power plant will likely need to be turned on to meet demand. Then it's turned off when the wind starts. With America's low natural gas prices, it is always likely to be cheaper to have one set of equipment and to operate one power plant continuously, rather than having it sit idle as the wind blows. Taxpayers are paying multiple times for renewables. In their electricity bills, they pay not only for wind and solar, but for the backups to the wind and solar. In their tax bills, they pay for the energy tax credits. They also give up faster economic growth when electricity prices rise. Another dirty secret is that renewable energy is often neither green nor clean. About 70 per cent of solar panels, wind turbines, batteries and their components are made in China, which remains reliant on coal-fired power plants to fuel its industries. Wind turbines kill birds, and, when offshore, can harm sea mammals. Solar power can take over agricultural land, which is likely to drive up the price of food. Green and clean are marketing hype used to push renewables onto unsuspecting consumers. While both chambers agree on tightening the purse strings by reducing tax credits, the House opts for a cliff-edge approach, while the Senate favours a more gradual wind-down. The House draws a hard line at Dec 31, 2025. From clean vehicles to home energy upgrades, nearly all credits vanish at the stroke of midnight. Even the clean hydrogen and nuclear incentives face sharp cut-offs, with added restrictions on foreign influence. Transferability of credits? Many are axed. The message is clear: the era of generous subsidies is fast ending. The Senate, by contrast, offers a more calibrated exit. Clean vehicle credits expire by Sep 30, 2025, but major production and investment credits are phased out over years, some as late as 2036. The Senate also tightens rules on foreign entities, but with more nuanced thresholds and timelines. Both bills close ranks on national security. Credits are denied to entities with ties to China, Russia, and other adversaries. The clean hydrogen credit in the House bill expires at the end of this year, but in the Senate bill by the end of 2027. Carbon capture faces identical construction cut-offs and foreign ownership bans. But only the House repeals credit transferability, an investor-friendly feature the Senate preserves. With the end of these tax credits, Americans may well discover that the true costs of renewable energy are higher than utility companies are willing to bear. Developers are already saying that they will halt projects without the tax credits. If the age of renewable energy tax credits is drawing to a close, Americans will be the beneficiaries. The question is how abruptly Washington will pull the plug – and whether other countries will follow.
