Digital Library: What the CFPB’s Recent FCRA Preemption Guidance Gets Wrong

November 7, 2025 — Article

In a head spinning 180 degree pivot, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) under Acting Director Russell Vought has issued a new interpretive rule claiming that the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) preempts all state laws that regulate the contents of consumer reports and what creditors and others can report or “furnish” to consumer reporting agencies (CRAs).  See Fair Credit Reporting Act; Preemption of State Laws, 90 Fed. Reg. 48,710 (Oct. 28, 2025).  This 2025 interpretive rule is the polar opposite of the CFPB’s 2022 interpretive rule, which had stated that “FCRA’s express preemption provisions have a narrow and targeted scope.”  The Fair Credit Reporting Act’s Limited Preemption of State Laws, 87 Fed. Reg. 41,042 (July 11, 2022).

By its own terms, the 2025 interpretive rule has no direct effect on state laws. As the interpretive rule itself expressly states, the status of those laws is fundamentally a question for courts if and when those laws are challenged, not a matter to be decided by the CFPB.  90 Fed. Reg. at 48,711.  Nonetheless, the rule clearly is aimed to support any future efforts to preempt the 15 state laws that prohibit the reporting of medical debt on credit reports, which are discussed in another NCLC Digital Library article, The Latest on Keeping Medical Debt Out of Credit Reports, updated September 3, 2025.  The 2025 interpretive rule also appears to be aimed at state laws that prohibit the reporting of certain criminal records, such as Colorado’s law regarding sealed, expunged, and non-conviction records. Colo. Rev. State. § 5-18-109(1)(e.5). 

This article provides an overview of FCRA preemption, discusses why the new 2025 interpretive rule is wrong, sets out arguments as to why the 2022 CFPB interpretive rule is correct that the scope of FCRA preemption is narrow and targeted, and provides suggestions for state policy advocates on how to “preemption proof” their state laws even if courts were to hold that the 2025 interpretive rule is correct.