FDIC Rescinds Supervisory Pressure for Multiple Nonsufficient Funds Fees

On April 10, 2026, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC) rescinded its supervisory guidance on multiple representment nonsufficient funds (NSF) fees, marking a notable shift in tone for the agency and further underscoring growing tension with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).

At issue is a long-debated banking practice: When payment is declined for insufficient funds, merchants may resubmit the same transaction multiple times. Each time the payment is declined, the bank may charge another NSF fee, creating the potential for several fees tied to a single purchase. The FDIC previously warned that charging multiple NSF fees on a represented item could constitute an “unfair or deceptive” act under the Federal Trade Commission Act. Now, the FDIC has concluded that the approach has become “overly broad in scope” and has introduced uncertainty for both banks and examiners about when such fees might cross into unfairness, resulting in its ultimate decision to rescind the guidance.

For banks, this change removes a specific supervisory playbook that has driven examination findings and compliance remediation. Even without this guidance, the FDIC emphasizes that institutions must still ensure disclosures accurately reflect their practices and comply with existing law. However, the agency will no longer single out multiple representment fees as a focal supervisory concern.

Contrast With CFPB’s Direction
The FDIC’s retreat in guidance conflicts with the CFPB’s approach to overdraft and NSF fees, which has trended toward greater enforcement. While the FDIC now steps back from detailed supervisory direction, the CFPB has consistently framed back-end deposit fees as a core consumer protection issue. In recent years, the CFPB has pursued enforcement actions and supervisory initiatives targeting junk fees, including NSF charges. Its stance has not only emphasized the importance of, and need for, bank disclosure but has also questioned the underlying fairness of fee structures. Now contrasting with the FDIC’s approach, the CFPB has overall suggested that transparency alone may not be sufficient where consumer harm occurs.

It’s worth noting the Trump administration has significantly scaled back CFPB activity, halting much of its rulemaking and reducing enforcement. Since early 2025, the agency has opened few new investigations and dropped many pending cases. Still, the divergence between the FDIC and CFPB creates a more complex compliance environment for banks operating across multiple regulatory touchpoints. FDIC‑supervised institutions may find fewer examiner‑driven objections on representment fees, but they remain exposed to CFPB scrutiny, as well as potential state‑level actions, particularly in jurisdictions that have adopted aggressive consumer protection frameworks.

Implications
For bank boards and executives, the rescission does not signal a green light to revisit fee strategies without caution. Instead, it highlights the importance of aligning products, disclosures and customer outcomes across a divided regulatory landscape. Practical steps include revisiting account agreements to ensure they clearly describe fee practices, monitoring for consumer complaints and patterns of potential consumer harm, and revisiting fee practices generally to confirm compliance with all federal and state authorities outside of the FDIC’s withdrawn guidance.

As agencies recalibrate their approaches, banks should expect continued scrutiny, albeit from different angles. The FDIC’s action may reduce immediate supervisory friction, but it also reinforces a key reality: In the current environment, compliance risk is less about any single regulator’s position and more about how those positions intersect.