CFPB Abandons Name Change Following Mulvaney Departure
An internal memo from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s new director confirms the agency will not complete the renaming process that began under recently departed acting director Mick Mulvaney.

Former acting director Mick Mulvaney’s quest to change the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s name has ended with an internal memo sent by the agency’s new chief.
Photo by Gage Skidmore via Flickr
WASHINGTON — In her first official act as director of the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Kathy Kraninger has informed staff that the agency will no longer seek to enforce a name change initiated by her predecessor, Mick Mulvaney, who left the bureau to serve as White House chief of staff.
“As of December 17, 2018, I have officially halted all ongoing efforts to make changes to existing products and materials related to the name correction initiative,” Kraninger wrote in an email, adding that “we have a legal name but will be using our colloquial name and the branded acronym ‘CFPB.’ Many of us have legal names but use nicknames without much confusion. My birth certificate says Kathleen, but I also answer to Kathy. I think we can do the same here. I believe this decision is most efficient and effective for our continued work together.”
Kraninger was confirmed by Senate vote as the CFPB’s new director on Dec. 6. Mulvaney was appointed acting director by President Donald Trump in November 2017, following the resignation of Richard Cordray. Mulvaney, who would lead a rollback of the CFPB’s jurisdiction over auto finance sources, pledged to change the agency’s name to the “Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection,” claiming that was the intent of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act that created it.
On the same day Kraninger’s memo was sent, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D.-Mass.) called for an investigation into the name change in an open letter to Mark Bialek, who serves as inspector general for the CFPB and the Federal Reserve. Citing public records uncovered by The Hill, Warren wanted to know why the change, which was estimated to cost the agency up to $19 million and collectively cost affected finance companies up to $300 million, was undertaken without a cost-benefit analysis.
“The failure to justify the name change, combined with the failure to follow basic procedural rules, the wasteful expenditures, and the confusing implementation suggest a serious breakdown in the policymaking process at the CFPB,” she wrote, in part.
Originally posted on F&I and Showroom
More Compliance

Dealer Ads and the FTC
The agency has made it clear in recent enforcement actions and warnings, in auto retail and other industries, that advertised prices must include all nonoptional costs to the consumer.
Read More →
AAMS Training and Mosaic Compliance Services Merge
The strategic combination is intended to expand technology-driven compliance solutions for the automotive industry.
Read More →
The Jurisprudence of Pricing
Legal concept helps makes sense of California’s recently passed version of the failed federal CARS legislation.
Read More →
Trump 2.0 and Enforcement Priorities
The upshot is don’t relax, because regulation indeed continues.
Read More →
June Is Automotive Service Professionals Month
Observance is opportunity to thank technicians for their crucial role in auto retail.
Read More →
Cox Automotive Releases Compliance Guide
New edition walks auto dealers through relevant regulations for 2025.
Read More →
Trump 2.0 and Retail Automotive
Administration’s plans should generally bode well for the industry.
Read More →
CARS Rule Update: 5th Circuit Oral Arguments Recap
In this video, Jim Ganther of Mosaic Compliance Services, recaps the key takeaways from the oral arguments in the critical CARS Rule case, including potential outcomes and what dealers should do to stay ahead of compliance changes.
Read More →
State of the CARS Rule, Part 3
The players in the automotive industry should coordinate their responses to this pending regulation.
Read More →
The Future of Car Dealer Documents
Where forms, documents, agreements and contracts could be in 50 years.
Read More →