With a big tech-powered magnifying glass on federal websites, spending contracts, and government payment systems, Elon Musk’s band of DOGE system admins have been turning Washington inside out in their hunt for waste, fraud, and abuse.

One of the most prized agencies on the chopping block is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, heralded by progressives as an indispensable force for helping consumers wronged by financial institutions, but derided by fintech investors and conservatives as little more than a government “shakedown agency.” Consumers will be better off without the CFPB breathing down the neck of American companies. 

Since the inauguration of President Trump, the CFPB’s temporary leadership put an immediate halt on all work, also informing the Federal Reserve, which directly funds the agency, that it would no longer seek new funding. 

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the intellectual force behind the agency’s founding, has been apoplectic. She’s argued that Trump is “firing the financial cop on the beat that makes sure your family doesn’t get scammed.”

The origin of the CFPB goes back to the rubble of the 2008 financial crisis when legislators saw this proposed agency as a viable response to the populist backlash engulfing Washington and Wall Street. Instead of penalizing wrongdoers, Congress funded bank bailouts and launched a “watchdog” group. The 2010 Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Act mandatado new standards for lending, restricted capital that could be tapped for bank loans, and created the CFPB to police consumer finance. 

All functions performed by the five antigo federal banking supervisory agencies were rolled into the CFPB, granting it sole jurisdiction over non-depository firms and financial institutions with over $10 billion in assets. This empowered the agency to issue regulatory guidance, demand information from financial institutions, and launch civil actions in federal court.

Supporters of the CFPB point to an impressive record of close to $20 billion in consumer relief, as well as an additional $5 billion in civil penalties. Without the CFPB, fraudsters and scams would metastasize and consumer injustice would run wild, so they say. But this couldn’t be further from the truth.

As a regulatory agency with civil litigation authority, the CFPB is emboldened to file high-dollar lawsuits against financial firms. An estimate of the CFPB’s base de dados of enforcement actions reveals that roughly 85% of all cases are settled out of court before a final ruling.

Companies often choose to settle, but this shouldn’t be mistaken for an admission of guilt. In a litigious society such as the United States where companies are routinely targeted in frivolous lawsuits, the court of public opinion matters just as much as the court of law. 

Firms prefer settling cases over having their name dragged through the mud for months on end in the media, something tort lawyers call a “nuisance settlement.” These expected costs are baked into large firms’ financial projections and are sometimes factored into pricing their goods and services for consumers. 

The CFPB is more akin to a state-backed tort law firm that can tap the nation’s central bank for resources while exploiting its do-gooder reputation for easy PR victories.

Rather than smart regulatory guidance to oversee a new generation of consumer finance firms, CFPB has relied on quick settlements out of court to squash innovative upstarts.

While CFPB enforcement has been successful in penalizing banks and lenders for how loans are structured or advertised, it does not take much imagination to see how this has impacted the investing climate for new competitors. Since CFPB’s founding, there are now 35% fewer financial institutions remaining for consumers to choose from, down from 15,000 to just roughly 9,000 today.

While there is high consumer demand for fintech, payment apps, and account offerings, including Bitcoin and cryptocurrency banks, CFPB’s chilling actions have slowed that innovation, leading to the recent calls for the agency to be gutted. And they’re right.

Most of CFPB’s functions are mirrored at the FTC on everything but finance. Regional Federal Reserve banks are also responsible for bank oversight and regulation, not to mention state banking regulators. Existing regulators have the reach, experience, and know-how to police would-be fraudsters and outright deceptive practices among banks. Why not let them?

For consumers who want next-level services and financial products, there is no question that CFPB’s litigious approach has impacted their ability to access credit and financial services. There must be a better way to regulate our financial institutions and protect consumers than a tort law firm with government authority. Congress could fold elements of the CFPB into the FTC, OCC, or even FDIC, and bad actors will still be policed. 

Consumers deserve to be protected, and they will be, but they also deserve a regulatory structure that rewards innovation and brings financial products to market that they can choose between.

The CFPB is due for defanging.

Yaël Ossowski is deputy director at the Consumer Choice Center and author of the report, “A financial fraud crackdown won’t protect consumers from scams.”

Originalmente publicado em RealClear Politics.