If you suspect the list above is a recipe for broad, near autocratic rule making, you’re not alone. Critics have warned that unspecific UDAAP reasoning imparts the CFPB with unchecked authority, since what is and isn’t unfair, misleading, or abusive is continually a subjective query. And while the CFPB’s posted tips notes that “emotional impact and other subjective styles of harm won’t mainly amount to colossal injury,” it leaves in some room for subjectivity: “n sure circumstances emotional impacts may amount to or contribute to great injury. In addition, actual injury is not required; a major risk of concrete harm is sufficient.
MENU