On May 12, 2025, the CFPB withdrew its May 2024 interpretive rule that had applied credit-card-style protections under the Truth in Lending Act to buy-now-pay-later products. In June 2025 the Bureau confirmed it does not intend to issue a revised version. The stated reason: the original rule was procedurally defective and applied open-end credit rules to products that are generally structured as closed-end, short-term loans — a mismatch that a fintech trade group had already challenged in court.

That leaves BNPL marketing, and creator-promoted BNPL partnerships in particular, in a position that is easy to misread as deregulated. It is not. It is governed by an older, less BNPL-specific set of rules that never went away and that carry their own disclosure obligations.

What the withdrawn rule would have done

The 2024 interpretive rule would have treated Pay-in-4 BNPL products as “credit cards” and their providers as “card issuers” under Regulation Z, importing dispute-resolution rights, billing-error procedures, and refund obligations that Congress had built for revolving open-end credit. BNPL products are typically structured as a fixed number of installments on a single purchase — closed-end by design — which is the mismatch the Bureau ultimately cited when it decided not to defend the rule.

The withdrawal does not mean BNPL products are unregulated. It means the CFPB pulled back a specific interpretive extension of TILA’s open-end credit-card framework. General consumer-protection law — UDAAP, state lending and licensing statutes, and the FTC’s advertising and endorsement authority — was never contingent on that rule and remains fully active.

Where creator promotions actually sit

BNPL marketing that runs through a creator or influencer partnership was never solely a CFPB question. It sits at the intersection of two separate regimes that did not move when the interpretive rule was withdrawn.

FTC Endorsement Guides (16 CFR Part 255). These require anyone endorsing a product — a creator posting a paid BNPL integration, an affiliate link, a sponsored unboxing — to clearly and conspicuously disclose any material connection to the brand. That includes payment, free product, commission, or equity. The Guides were substantively updated in 2023 to tighten what counts as adequate disclosure and to extend coverage explicitly to social platforms and virtual influencers, and current enforcement commentary describes the FTC as focused less on new rules than on whether a disclosure is actually obvious to an average viewer scrolling past it, not just technically present somewhere in the post.

The compounding problem in BNPL specifically: a creator promoting a BNPL checkout option can have two separate material connections — one to the retail brand paying for the placement, and a second to the BNPL provider itself if that provider separately compensates the creator or pays an affiliate commission on originated loans. Each connection generally needs its own disclosure. A single “#ad” tag covering a brand partnership does not automatically cover a second, undisclosed financial relationship with the payment provider.

The state law filling part of the gap

With no federal BNPL-specific rule in force, states have started building their own frameworks. New York is furthest along: the Department of Financial Services proposed a comprehensive BNPL regulatory framework in March 2026 covering licensing, underwriting, and disclosure requirements modeled closely on Regulation Z’s open-end credit provisions — payment schedule, fees, consequences of missed payments, and dispute and refund rights, with periodic statements required on a schedule tied to billing-cycle length. As of this writing the rule is still in its comment and adoption process, with an effective date set for 180 days after final adoption — it is not yet in force, but it signals where state-level obligations are headed regardless of what the CFPB does at the federal level.

What this means for creator-marketed BNPL campaigns right now

A few things follow directly from where the rules actually stand, as opposed to where a headline about a “withdrawn CFPB rule” might suggest they stand:

  • Don’t read the withdrawal as a green light. The interpretive rule’s disappearance removed one specific TILA extension. It did not touch FTC endorsement obligations, UDAAP, or any state licensing or disclosure statute already on the books.
  • Audit creator briefs for double material connections. If a creator is compensated by both the retail brand and the BNPL provider, the brief and the disclosure language need to reflect both relationships, not just the more visible one.
  • Track state rules by where the audience actually is, not where the company is headquartered. A national creator campaign can reach consumers in states building BNPL-specific disclosure regimes well before those rules are final everywhere, and campaign-level claims about payment terms should be able to survive the stricter version, not just the current baseline.
  • Keep the underlying product claims accurate regardless of format. “No interest,” “no credit check,” and “no impact on your credit score” are exactly the kind of claims that drew CFPB attention under the withdrawn rule and remain squarely within UDAAP and state UDAP statutes now.

The practical takeaway: the CFPB stepping back from its own BNPL-specific rule shifted which regulator is most likely to act first, not whether creator-marketed BNPL claims face real regulatory exposure. Treat every BNPL creator partnership as carrying two disclosure obligations and at least two active legal regimes, and the fact that one federal rule went away stops being the thing that matters.

This is an editorial summary, not legal advice. Confirm creator disclosure language and state-specific obligations with qualified counsel before launching a campaign.