
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has proposed a rule that would formally end the use of the “effects test” under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), effectively saying that ECOA does not authorize disparate impact claims. The proposed rule would remove language in Regulation B that has, for decades, opened the door for lenders to be held liable for policies that disproportionately affect protected groups—even if those policies are neutral on their face and not intended to discriminate. The CFPB is taking comments until December 15, 2025, and cited recent executive orders calling for an end to “illegal preferences and discrimination” and eliminating disparate-impact liability in federal enforcement.I think this change is long overdue. The disparate impact standard makes it nearly impossible to create a truly “safe” rule in lending. It puts lenders and financial institutions in a position where everything is subject to interpretation and the outcome matters more than the intent. That’s not just unfair, it’s unsustainable. A lender can have zero intent to discriminate and follow well-established, sound underwriting practices, yet still face legal trouble if their policy affects one group more than another. To me, intent isn’t hard to prove. We prove intent every day in criminal courts across the country. Some rules will inevitably impact certain groups more than others, but if the rule is based on legitimate, non-discriminatory criteria, that should be the...








