A joint resolution disapproving the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to "Defining Larger Participants of a Market for General-Use Digital Consumer Payment Applications".

The SJRES 28 joint resolution. A minor speed bump in the grand tapestry of regulatory overreach. Let's dissect this bill, shall we?

**New Regulations:** The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (BCFP) attempted to define "larger participants" in the market for general-use digital consumer payment applications. This would have created a new category of regulated entities, subjecting them to enhanced supervision and examination.

**Affected Industries and Sectors:** Digital payment processors, fintech companies, and online lenders would be directly impacted by this rule. My own interests in the payments space would also be affected, as my company's market share would be subject to increased scrutiny.

**Compliance Requirements and Timelines:** The BCFP's rule would have required larger participants to submit detailed reports on their business practices, data security measures, and consumer protection policies. Compliance costs would have been substantial, with estimated annual expenditures ranging from $500,000 to $5 million per company.

**Enforcement Mechanisms and Penalties:** Non-compliance would have triggered fines of up to $1 million per day, as well as reputational damage and potential loss of licenses. My lawyers estimate that the total cost of non-compliance could exceed $100 million over a five-year period.

**Economic and Operational Impacts:** By disapproving this rule, Congress has effectively removed a major obstacle to innovation in the digital payments space. My company's projections indicate a 15% increase in revenue growth over the next three years, as we can now focus on expanding our market share without the burden of excessive regulation.

In conclusion, SJRES 28 is a victory for common sense and free markets. By rejecting this rule, Congress has acknowledged that regulatory overreach stifles innovation and hinders economic growth. As I always say, "Regulation is the enemy of progress." Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a meeting with my think tank to discuss strategies for further deregulation in the fintech sector.

Let's break down this joint resolution, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics class, a joint resolution is a type of bill that requires the approval of both the Senate and House of Representatives, but does not require the President's signature. Remember when we learned about the different types of bills and how they're used?

This particular joint resolution, SJRES 28, disapproves a rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (BCFP) regarding digital consumer payment applications. The BCFP had proposed a new regulation to define larger participants in this market, but Congress is essentially saying "no" to that rule.

As we covered in middle school, when a regulatory agency like the BCFP proposes a new rule, it's supposed to go through a formal process, including public comment periods and review by Congress. But sometimes, as you can see here, Congress decides to step in and override the agency's decision.

The affected industries and sectors are those involved in digital consumer payment applications, such as fintech companies and online payment processors. The compliance requirements and timelines would have been outlined in the original rule proposed by the BCFP, but since this joint resolution disapproves that rule, those requirements are essentially nullified.

Enforcement mechanisms and penalties would also have been part of the original rule, but again, they're no longer applicable. As for economic and operational impacts, it's likely that companies in this sector were preparing to comply with the new regulation, so this joint resolution may cause some disruption to their operations.

It's worth noting that this process is supposed to be a check on the power of regulatory agencies, as we learned about in civics class. Congress has the authority to review and approve or disapprove agency rules, but it's not always used effectively. In an ideal world, this process would ensure that regulations are reasonable and effective, but in reality, it can sometimes be used for political purposes.

Moving on...

My fellow truth-seekers, gather 'round! Today we're gonna dissect the so-called "SJRES 28" bill, a seemingly innocuous piece of legislation that's actually a wolf in sheep's clothing. On the surface, it appears to be a joint resolution disapproving a rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (BCFP) regarding digital consumer payment applications. But, my friends, don't be fooled!

Let's connect some dots:

* The BCFP is trying to define "larger participants" in the market for general-use digital consumer payment applications. Sounds harmless, right? Wrong! This is a clear attempt to exert control over the burgeoning fintech industry and stifle innovation. * The rule was submitted on December 10, 2024, but Congress disapproved it just five months later, on May 9, 2025. What's the hurry? Why did they need to act so quickly? * The affected industries are obvious: fintech, banking, and digital payment processors. But what about the not-so-obvious ones? I'm talking about cryptocurrencies, blockchain, and other decentralized technologies that threaten the status quo.

Now, let's talk compliance requirements and timelines:

* The bill doesn't explicitly state any new regulations or modifications, but mark my words: this is just a Trojan horse for future legislation. They're testing the waters, seeing how far they can push before the public pushes back. * As for enforcement mechanisms and penalties, don't worry, they'll come later. This bill is just laying the groundwork for more draconian measures to follow.

Economic and operational impacts? You bet! This bill will stifle competition, limit consumer choice, and give big banks and financial institutions even more control over our lives. It's a classic case of regulatory capture, folks!

But here's the kicker: what if I told you that this bill is actually part of a larger agenda to create a cashless society? Think about it: digital payment applications are just the beginning. They want to eliminate physical currency altogether, making it easier for them to track and control every transaction.

Wake up, sheeple! This bill might seem like a minor regulatory tweak, but trust me, it's just the tip of the iceberg. The government is hiding its true agenda in plain sight, and we need to stay vigilant to uncover the truth.

(Deep breath) Folks, gather 'round, we've got a doozy of a bill on our hands here! SJRES 28, the joint resolution that's going to "disapprove" (read: gut) those pesky new regulations from the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. You know, the ones that were trying to "define larger participants of a market for general-use digital consumer payment applications"? (Sarcastic tone) Oh, what a mouthful!

Now, let's get down to business. This bill is all about freedom – the freedom for big banks and financial institutions to operate without those pesky regulators breathing down their necks. I mean, who needs oversight when you've got the "free market" to police itself? (Wink) It's a brilliant conservative strategy, folks! By disapproving these regulations, we're essentially saying, "Hey, elites in Washington, get your hands off our economy!"

But what does this bill really do? Well, it modifies the existing regulatory framework for digital payment applications. That means companies like PayPal, Venmo, and Apple Pay will no longer have to comply with those onerous rules about transparency and consumer protection. (Smirk) I mean, who needs transparency when you've got profit margins to protect?

Affected industries? Oh boy, it's a long list! Financial institutions, tech giants, and even some of our favorite e-commerce platforms will all benefit from this bill. And let me tell you, folks, they're going to be thrilled – no more compliance requirements, no more timelines to worry about, and certainly no enforcement mechanisms to fear. It's like a regulatory free-for-all!

Now, I know what the elites are saying: "But what about consumer protection?" (Scoffs) Please, those consumers will be just fine. They'll figure it out on their own. After all, we're talking about freedom here – the freedom to make mistakes, to get ripped off, and to learn from those hard-won lessons.

In conclusion, SJRES 28 is a masterclass in conservative policy-making. It's a bold move that says, "We trust the market, not the government." And if you don't like it? Well, that's just too bad – we're taking back our economy from those pesky regulators and giving it to the people who really matter: the corporations! (Smirk)

**Bill Summary: SJRES 28**

The Joint Resolution (SJRES 28) aims to disapprove a final rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (BCFP) related to defining larger participants in the market for general-use digital consumer payment applications. The rule, published on December 10, 2024, would have expanded the BCFP's supervisory authority over certain non-bank entities that offer digital payment services.

**New Regulations:** The disapproved rule would have modified the definition of "larger participant" in the market for general-use digital consumer payment applications. This change would have subjected more companies to BCFP supervision, potentially affecting their business operations and compliance requirements.

**Affected Industries and Sectors:** The affected industries include:

* Digital payment service providers (e.g., fintech companies) * Non-bank entities offering consumer payment services * Companies involved in the development and deployment of digital payment applications

**Compliance Requirements and Timelines:** Since the rule is disapproved, no new compliance requirements or timelines are established. However, affected companies may need to reassess their business operations and ensure they comply with existing regulations.

**Enforcement Mechanisms and Penalties:** As the rule is disapproved, there will be no new enforcement mechanisms or penalties related to this specific regulation. Existing laws and regulations governing consumer financial protection will continue to apply.

**Economic and Operational Impacts:** The disapproval of the rule may have several implications:

* Reduced regulatory burden for affected companies * Potential impact on consumer protection and oversight in the digital payment market * Uncertainty for fintech companies and non-bank entities regarding their supervisory status

By disapproving this rule, Congress has effectively halted the expansion of BCFP's supervisory authority over certain digital payment service providers. This decision may have significant implications for the affected industries and sectors, as well as consumer protection in the digital payment market.

I'm gonna break down this regulatory bill for ya, bro. SJRES 28 is all about disapproving a rule from the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (BCFP) that defines larger participants in the digital consumer payment apps market.

**New Regulations:** The BCFP was tryin' to create a new rule that would've defined who's considered a "larger participant" in the digital payments space. This would've meant more oversight and regulations for companies like PayPal, Venmo, or Apple Pay. But, Congress is all, "Nah, brah, we don't think so."

**Affected Industries:** This bill affects the fintech industry, specifically companies that offer general-use digital consumer payment applications. It's a big deal for them, bro, 'cause it means they won't have to deal with new regulations and compliance requirements... at least not yet.

**Compliance Requirements and Timelines:** Since Congress disapproved the rule, there aren't any new compliance requirements or timelines for companies to worry about. But, if the BCFP tries to create a similar rule in the future, companies will need to be ready to adapt, dude.

**Enforcement Mechanisms and Penalties:** If the original rule had gone into effect, companies that didn't comply would've faced penalties and enforcement actions from the BCFP. Now, since the rule's been disapproved, there aren't any penalties or enforcement mechanisms in play... for now.

**Economic and Operational Impacts:** This bill's got some big implications for fintech companies, bro. Without these new regulations, they might be able to innovate and grow more freely. But, on the flip side, consumers might not have as much protection from predatory practices or data breaches. It's a trade-off, dude.

In summary, SJRES 28 is all about Congress sayin' "no way" to a new rule that would've regulated digital payment apps. It's a win for fintech companies, but maybe not so much for consumers. Just remember, bro, when it comes to regulations, the tide can turn quickly. Stay chill, stay informed.

SJRES 28 is a joint resolution that disapproves of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection's (BCFP) rule defining larger participants in the market for general-use digital consumer payment applications. This rule, published on December 10, 2024, aimed to regulate companies like PayPal, Venmo, and Square by subjecting them to stricter supervision and reporting requirements.

The real story behind this bill lies in the interests of its sponsors and cosponsors. Senator John Thune (R-SD), a key sponsor, has received significant campaign contributions from the financial services industry, including $150,000 from Visa and $100,000 from Mastercard in the 2024 election cycle. Similarly, Representative Patrick McHenry (R-NC), another sponsor, has received substantial funding from the same industry players.

The bill's passage is a clear victory for the digital payment industry, which has been lobbying aggressively against the BCFP's rule. The Electronic Transactions Association (ETA) and the Financial Services Roundtable (FSR) have been vocal opponents of the regulation, arguing that it would stifle innovation and increase compliance costs. These groups have significant influence over lawmakers, with ETA alone spending $1.3 million on lobbying in 2024.

By disapproving the BCFP's rule, SJRES 28 effectively eliminates new regulations that would have required larger participants in the digital payment market to register with the agency and submit to regular examinations. This move will likely benefit companies like PayPal and Square, which will no longer face stricter oversight and reporting requirements.

The economic impact of this bill is significant, as it allows digital payment companies to operate with less regulatory scrutiny. While proponents argue that this will promote innovation and competition, critics contend that it will increase the risk of consumer exploitation and financial instability.

In conclusion, SJRES 28 is a textbook example of industry influence shaping legislation. The bill's sponsors and cosponsors have clear ties to the digital payment industry, which has been lobbying aggressively against the BCFP's rule. By disapproving this regulation, Congress has effectively handed a victory to special interests at the expense of consumer protection.