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
Credit-Score Competition Could Expand Beyond FICO, VantageScore

CHLA sees new Fannie and Freddie score disclosures as a first step toward more competition, while lenders are already finding different borrower outcomes under today's models

Mortgage AI Survey Finds Monitoring Gap At Smaller Lenders

Only 40% of smaller lenders surveyed reported ongoing AI monitoring, compared with 80% of larger lenders, as a new state examiner guide details the records regulators may request

Fannie Changes How Rent From A Former Home Counts

Fannie now prohibits leases for departing residences and permits market-analysis tools instead of Form 1007, creating a key documentation difference from Freddie Mac

ACES Targets Loans Traditional QC Samples May Miss

New population-testing technology applies lender-defined rules across selected origination and servicing records, then directs flagged files to human reviewers

Sep 21, 2026
The Risk Your Credit Score Can't See

Place-based market risk can produce dramatically different default outcomes among borrowers with nearly identical credit profiles

Sep 17, 2026
Trump Taps FHA Insider Matt Jones To Lead Agency

The former MBA policy executive would oversee FHA underwriting, servicing, and credit-score changes that directly affect lenders and borrowers