内容摘要：“It provides a remedy to victims of invasive harms that go beyond the intimate images addressed by that legislation, protecting artists like Martina from non-consensual deepfakes and voice clones that breach the trust she has built with millions of fans,” he said, adding that it “empowers individuals to have unlawful deepfakes removed as soon as a platform is able without requiring anyone to hire lawyers or go to court.”

“It provides a remedy to victims of invasive harms that go beyond the intimate images addressed by that legislation, protecting artists like Martina from non-consensual deepfakes and voice clones that breach the trust she has built with millions of fans,” he said, adding that it “empowers individuals to have unlawful deepfakes removed as soon as a platform is able without requiring anyone to hire lawyers or go to court.”

However, the rule included an “immunity provision” that let some banks charge $25 for the first late payment and $35 for subsequent late payments, adjusted for inflation each year. Those amounts subsequently grew to $30 and $41.After a review of market data, the CFPB finalized a rule that would have capped late fees at $8 and ended automatic inflation adjustments. Based on records analyzed by the CFPB, a late fee of $8 would be sufficient for card issuers, on average, to cover collection costs incurred as a result of late payments.

Industry groups, including the Consumer Bankers Association, American Bankers Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and others, said they welcomed the court’s decision eliminating the cap.The groups said that the rule would have led to higher interest rates and reduced credit access for card holders. The groups also said the rule would have “reduced important incentives for consumers to manage their finances.”The CFPB has estimated that banks bring in roughly $14 billion in credit card late fees a year.

Horacio Méndez, president and CEO of Woodstock Institute, an organization for advancing economic equity, called the ruling a “devastating blow.”“By tossing out the CFPB’s common-sense rule to cap these predatory late fees — some as high as $41 — a federal judge is putting corporations over the lives of everyday consumers,” he said. “The CFPB’s rule was borne out of clear evidence: the credit card industry was using inflated late fees as a profit engine, forcing families with the least financial cushion to pay.”

Méndez said that while consumers have come to expect fees for services, those fees needn’t be punitive to be effective.

The Associated Press receives support from Charles Schwab Foundation for educational and explanatory reporting to improve financial literacy. The independent foundation is separate from Charles Schwab and Co. Inc. The AP is solely responsible for its journalism.that could suck away more revenue, as well as the nation’s limit on how much it can borrow.

If Washington has to pay more in interest to borrow cash to pay its bills, that could filter out and cause interest rates to rise for U.S. households and businesses too, in everything from mortgage rates to auto loan rates to credit cards. That in turn could slow the economy.The downgrade adds to a long list of concerns that have already weighed on the market. Chief among them is President Donald Trump’s trade war, which itself has forced investors globally to question whether the U.S.

still deserve their reputations as some of the safest places to park cash during a crisis.The U.S. economy seems to be holding up OK so far despite the pressures of tariffs, and hopes are high that Trump will eventually relent on his tariffs after striking trade deals with other countries. That’s a major reason the S&P 500 has rallied back within 3% of its all-time high after falling roughly 20% below that market last month.