🕵️‍♀️ CFPB Walkouts, Shaq’s FTX Fallout, & $69M Settlements | Marketing’s Most Wanted

Hi Marketing Wranglers,

This week, we’re peeling back the calm to reveal the chaos underneath. From mass resignations shaking the CFPB, to a $69 million mess at UnitedHealth, and the growing cost of brand silence—or celebrity missteps. The headlines may not shout marketing, but make no mistake: your messaging, claims, and customer experience are right in the middle of it. Regulators might be quiet, but that doesn’t mean you can afford to be.

New Slack Community:
Marketing, Compliance, and Legal are all feeling the heat—so we’re launching a community space on Slack to swap updates, share insights, and stay ahead together. Join the community here.

🚨 In This Week’s Issue

🔥 Mass Resignation at the CFPB: Founders of the U.S. consumer watchdog agency are walking out—and calling it a shell of its former self.

🔥 Shaq’s $1.8M Settlement: The NBA legend pays up as FTX’s fallout exposes the dangers of celebrity-backed financial hype.

💰 UnitedHealth 401(k) Lawsuit Nears $69M Payout: What a $69M 401(k) lawsuit settlement says about fiduciary responsibility—and the price of legacy decisions.

📉 The Danger of Regulatory Silence: Why today’s regulatory silence is tomorrow’s liability—and how to stay ready.

Warrant Partner Directory

We’re launching the Warrant Partner Directory — a vetted list of the people we trust most.

These are the experts who’ve helped us (and dozens of other financial services, fintech, and insurtech teams) scale faster, stay out of legal quicksand, and move fast.

→ If you’re building in financial services or insurance and need legal, compliance, go-to-market, or AI tools, check it out.

→ If you are one of these people and want to be listed, reach out. We’d love to include you.

This one means a lot to me. Hope it helps. 💚

Warrant Directory

🔥 Mass Resignation at the CFPB: Is Consumer Protection Being Dismantled?

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), once a formidable watchdog for U.S. consumers, is facing unprecedented internal turmoil. On Tuesday, Cara Petersen, the agency’s acting head of enforcement and a founding employee, resigned with a searing email that accused current leadership of gutting the agency’s mission.

A Decade of Service Ends in Protest

“I have served under every director and acting director in the bureau’s history and never before have I seen the ability to perform our core mission so under attack,” Petersen wrote.

Her departure follows the February resignation of former enforcement director Eric Halperin, who also left after denouncing leadership’s actions.

Together, their exits mark a turning point for the agency, suggesting that enforcement leadership no longer believes the CFPB can fulfill its mandate under its current direction.

The Trump Administration’s Aggressive Restructuring

Since early February, the CFPB has operated under acting director Russell T. Vought, who also leads the White House budget office. Though Congress created the CFPB and holds sole authority to dissolve it, Vought has reportedly attempted to fire 90% of its staff and placed many employees on administrative leave—actions that have temporarily been blocked by court orders. In the meantime, the bureau’s enforcement capabilities have been effectively frozen.

Abandoned Lawsuits and Reversed Settlements

Under Vought’s direction, the CFPB has dismissed nearly all of its active enforcement cases, including major lawsuits targeting fraud on payment apps and deceptive banking practices. Petersen’s email pointed to the quiet unraveling of cases that would have held financial institutions accountable for practices that deprived consumers of higher interest rates or misled them about fees.

Several finalized settlements have also been reversed. In one striking move, the agency recently terminated an order requiring Toyota to refund $48 million to customers it had charged for unwanted insurance products—effectively allowing the company to keep the money it had previously agreed to return.

A Watchdog Agency in Name Only?

“It is clear that the bureau’s current leadership has no intention to enforce the law in any meaningful way,” Petersen concluded. With much of the staff sidelined, enforcement cases withdrawn, and key leadership walking out, the CFPB now appears to be a hollow shell of the institution it once was.

As the only federal agency solely dedicated to consumer financial protection, the stakes of this dismantling go beyond internal politics. With regulatory guardrails being stripped away, American consumers may find themselves increasingly vulnerable in the financial marketplace unless states step in.

Read more on The NY Times.

🏀 Shaq’s $1.8M Settlement: When Celebrity Hype Meets Compliance Risk

The FTX fallout continues—and this time, it’s Shaquille O’Neal in the spotlight. The NBA Hall-of-Famer has agreed to pay $1.8 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging he misled consumers through paid promotions of the now-defunct cryptocurrency exchange. It’s the latest development in a broader reckoning over celebrity endorsements, financial promotions, and regulatory gray areas in fintech marketing.

FTX, Endorsements & a Massive Collapse

FTX wasn’t just another crypto exchange. Before its dramatic collapse in 2022, it was the third-largest globally, known as much for its flashy marketing as for its trading volume. Led by founder Sam Bankman-Fried—now serving 25 years in prison for fraud—FTX leaned heavily into celebrity endorsements to build trust. Ads featured Larry David, Tom Brady, Stephen Curry, Naomi Osaka, and Shaq, all promoting the exchange as a safe and forward-thinking investment tool.

But behind the glitz was a financial house of cards. FTX was found to have misused customer deposits, leading to billions in losses and a swift fall into bankruptcy. For the celebrities who vouched for it, the legal consequences soon followed.

What Shaq’s Paying and What It Means

O’Neal’s proposed $1.8 million settlement, disclosed this week in a U.S. District Court filing, covers a class that includes anyone who deposited funds into FTX or bought its token (FTT) between May 2019 and late 2022. Though the agreement still needs court approval, it includes a “no take-backs” clause: Shaq can’t seek reimbursement from the FTX estate and is barred from future claims related to this promotion.

Interestingly, other celebrities like Brady and Curry remain in the legal crosshairs, suggesting more settlements (or court battles) may follow.

Marketing Lessons: When a Promo Becomes a Liability

This case puts a spotlight on the compliance risks of using high-profile endorsers in financial marketing. While celebrity backing can drive visibility, regulators and consumers are increasingly scrutinizing what those endorsements imply—especially in industries like crypto where trust is already shaky.

The central compliance issue here? Misleading promotion. The lawsuit argued that the celebs gave the illusion of financial credibility without doing due diligence, violating both ethical marketing standards and potentially federal consumer protection laws.

For fintech marketers, this is a wake-up call:

• Disclaimers and disclosures matter

• Endorsers should understand what they’re promoting

• Your marketing claims—no matter who delivers them—can become a legal liability

Regulatory Context: Where’s the Line?

Crypto regulation remains a moving target in the U.S., but this lawsuit shows that consumer protection laws don’t pause for emerging industries. The SEC and FTC have repeatedly warned that promoting financial products comes with obligations—celebrity or not.

We’re also seeing increased legal creativity: instead of just going after the company (FTX), lawyers are targeting those who helped build public trust around it. That changes the stakes for marketing teams, influencers, and compliance departments alike.

For Fintech Brands

Whether you’re launching a crypto platform, a neobank, or an investing app, the takeaway is clear: marketing is a compliance risk surface. Flashy campaigns might win attention, but without legal guardrails, they can also invite lawsuits, regulatory fines, and long-term reputational damage.

If FTX taught us anything, it’s that hype can’t replace transparency. And if Shaq’s case taught us anything, it’s that endorsements don’t end when the commercial airs—they follow you into the courtroom.

💰 UnitedHealth 401(k) Lawsuit Nears $69M Payout: Here’s What’s at Stake

A long-running class-action lawsuit against UnitedHealth Group over its employee 401(k) plan is moving toward resolution. A Minnesota federal court is expected to give final approval on Thursday to a $69 million settlement in a case that alleges the health care giant steered workers into poorly performing retirement funds for over a decade—costing them millions in lost gains.

What Sparked the Lawsuit

The case dates back to 2021, when lead plaintiff Kim Snyder filed a lawsuit claiming UnitedHealth violated its fiduciary duties under ERISA by keeping a suite of underperforming Wells Fargo target-date funds as the default investment option. According to court documents, these funds ranked among “the worst-performing” in the market. Despite internal warnings and alternative recommendations from its own investment committee, UnitedHealth allegedly kept the Wells Fargo funds in place—citing the bank’s close relationship with the company as a major business client.

Snyder’s legal team alleged that UnitedHealth’s decision-making process lacked transparency and deviated from the company’s own investment selection criteria, compromising the long-term returns of more than 350,000 participants in its retirement plan.

How the Settlement Will Be Distributed

Following the proposed approval of the $69 million settlement, participants will receive prorated payouts based on their total investments in the Wells Fargo funds and how those funds performed over time. Active 401(k) participants will receive the payout directly in their retirement accounts, while former employees will be sent checks—or could choose to roll the funds into a new retirement plan.

Despite the massive class size, there were no formal objections to the settlement. Angeion Group, the settlement administrator, reported nearly 160,000 website visits, 1,889 phone calls, and over 3,000 processed rollover forms from former participants since late March.

Age-Weighted Distribution?

Not everyone agrees with the flat distribution formula. Judge John R. Tunheim, who is overseeing the case, received two letters from former employees requesting an “age-weighted distribution,” arguing that older employees suffered more financial harm and should receive a larger share of the payout. However, Snyder’s legal team made little mention of that request in their final motion, instead defending the fairness of the standard allocation method.

Legal Fees and Service Awards

As part of the deal, attorneys for the class are requesting $23 million—roughly one-third of the total—for legal fees. Snyder, the sole named plaintiff, has also asked for a $50,000 “class service award” for her role in the case.

The court has already described the deal as “fair, reasonable, and adequate,” and the lack of objections may help smooth the path to final approval.

But the broader question remains: how many other retirement plans are still holding underperforming investments because of legacy relationships and opaque decision-making?

Check out Insurance Newsnet for more details.

📉 The Danger of Regulatory Silence: Why Fintech Marketers Can’t Relax Yet

In fintech, chaos is expected. But silence? Silence is dangerous.

Right now, across federal agencies, enforcement is slowing. Cases are being shelved. Priorities are shifting. On the surface, it feels like the pressure is off—but that illusion of calm is the real threat. For fintech marketers and compliance teams, this moment isn’t a green light to move fast and break things. It’s a trap.

Quiet Doesn’t Mean Safe

Drawing from a recent conversation with seasoned litigator Matthew G. Lindenbaum, it’s clear that the legal frameworks fintech operates within haven’t changed—only the attention to them has. Securities laws, consumer protection rules, anti-corruption statutes—they’re all still in effect. They're just waiting.

So why should marketers care? Because many of the campaigns being launched today—ads, influencer partnerships, AI-powered personalization tools—are being built during a time when enforcement is low. But the long-term record is being written right now. When regulators return to full strength, they’ll be asking hard questions about what your company did when no one was watching.

Compliance by Design > Cleanup by Crisis

We’ve seen this playbook before: fintech startups take the lack of enforcement as proof that certain practices are fine—until they’re not. A TikTok influencer campaign that skirts disclosures. A “no-fee” offer that buries conditions. A data-powered personalization tool that inadvertently profiles protected classes.

These aren’t just marketing missteps—they’re compliance liabilities waiting to surface. And once regulators start pulling threads, it’s the marketing materials, the messaging strategies, and the customer journeys that will be under the microscope.

Marketers must partner with legal teams now—not later—to build review processes, audit language, and log decisions. The question isn’t “Can we run this?” It’s “Will this still hold up when the rules catch up?”

AI, Data & the New Wild West

Meanwhile, AI has become the new darling of fintech marketing. Smarter targeting. Automated content generation. Predictive customer behavior. It’s seductive—and dangerous. Without clear vetting protocols, AI-generated marketing can easily veer into noncompliant territory: making unsubstantiated claims, reinforcing biases, or breaching privacy standards.

Add to that the legal chaos unfolding behind the scenes—particularly around data centers and infrastructure—and it’s clear that fintech marketing is happening atop a legal minefield.

Planning for the Pendulum Swing

If your fintech’s marketing strategy is built on speed alone, you’re betting that enforcement will stay quiet. But history tells a different story. Regulation always returns, and when it does, it tends to overcorrect.

The platforms that will thrive through the next wave of scrutiny aren’t the loudest or the fastest. They’re the ones that documented every claim, disclosed every risk, and ran every creative through a compliance filter—even when they didn’t have to.

Bottom Line: Silence Isn’t Protection

There’s no such thing as “too early” for compliance in fintech marketing. There’s only “too late.”

So ask yourself: if enforcement came knocking tomorrow, could you defend your funnel, your copy, your campaigns? Could you prove you took the rules seriously—even when others didn’t?

Because in fintech, the real risk isn’t chaos. It’s complacency.

Want to know more? Check out Fintech Weekly.

💬 We’re launching a community for Marketing, Compliance, and Legal teams to stay up to date on regulatory changes—and help each other navigate them.

→ Join the community here.