CFPB Issues AI Underwriting Guidance On Adverse Action Notices – NMP Skip to main content

CFPB Issues AI Underwriting Guidance On Adverse Action Notices

President and CEO
Jul 09, 2026

The agency says proprietary and machine-learning models do not relieve lenders of their fair lending and disclosure responsibilities

AI in underwriting is not a new topic. Automated desktop underwriting has been an industry resource for decades. But advances in machine learning — and the emergence of platforms designed to move underwriting and other mortgage manufacturing functions into increasingly automated "black boxes" — are making the rules of engagement less clear.

In the name of consumer protection, federal and state regulators — including those in Michigan, New York, California, Colorado, and elsewhere — have introduced legislation and issued guidance addressing the growing use of AI tools. A careful reading of what is out there reveals less in the way of new requirements and more of a reminder that lenders must evaluate AI tools through the lens of fair lending, discrimination, bias, transparency, disclosure, and consumer protection.

On May 5, 2026, the CFPB issued Circular 2026-03, advising that lenders using complex algorithms, such as machine-learning underwriting models, remain fully responsible under ECOA and Regulation B for providing specific, accurate reasons for adverse action. This places a clear responsibility on lenders to understand how these algorithms work so that any adverse lending decision generated by an AI-driven platform can be translated into specific, accurate reasons for denial. Lenders cannot simply claim that the black box "told us to do it." The Circular also makes clear that proprietary or "uninterpretable" models do not excuse compliance.

Lenders should:

  • Understand the AI systems they use, including their algorithms and outputs.
  • Ensure adverse action notices clearly and specifically explain the reasons for a denial or other adverse determination.
  • Document how model outputs are translated into consumer-facing explanations so fair lending reviewers can independently validate the reasoning.

If you're already using AI-driven underwriting, now is the time to test, validate, and document how those systems reach their decisions. If you're evaluating a new platform, ask tough questions about explainability, compliance, and fair lending — not just speed and efficiency. Faster, better, and cheaper may be part of the sales pitch, but they are not the whole compliance picture.
 

About the author
President and CEO
Andrew Liput is President and CEO of Hamilton, New Jersey-based Secure Insight, a provider of risk management and wire fraud prevention tools. He may be reached at [email protected].
Published
Jul 09, 2026
Closing Costs: What HUD’s Proposed Rule Will Really Do To The Market

HUD’s proposed rollback of housing protections could deepen barriers for underserved borrowers, shrink the pool of prospective homebuyers, and ultimately cost loan originators business

Aug 27, 2026
MISMO Gives Lenders A New Test For Mortgage AI Vendors

Two certifications move the industry’s FRAME initiative from governance guidance toward product-level validation and implementation

Aug 27, 2026
One Owner, Two GSEs: Would Fannie And Freddie Still Compete?

Oksenholt Capital says shared infrastructure could lower costs without weakening competition, but mortgage bankers have warned that common ownership could reduce lender choice, innovation, and market resilience

Aug 27, 2026
MaxClass: Education Meets Lead Generation

CEO Kelly Hendricks details how MaxClass and HomeQB are opening a new referral channel for originators

Fannie Mae Returns To Distressed-Loan Market With $214 Million Sale

The agency’s first nonperforming-loan offering in 13 months transfers 969 deeply delinquent mortgages to private buyers, including a small pool concentrated in Dallas-Fort Worth

Aug 20, 2026
Brief Refinance Shift Tests Mortgage Lenders’ Compliance Controls

Critical defect rate jumps 23.9% as math-based compliance findings expose the potential for one systemic error to affect loans across a lender’s book