The Trade-through rule (which essentially requires that firms take-out the best bid on every single one of the very numerous stock exchanges before they execute a block in full) is lkely to be a key subject of the hearing.   

This case is significant because it was brought by the States, rather than by the SEC or FINRA. It is not the first enforcement action that the States have brought against firms that charged a fixed minimum commission. The minimum commission in this case was higher than in the two related cases. One question that remains is whether any minimum commission is acceptable. There ought be some reasonable minimum that would be ok, if fully disclosed, but it is not clear that is the case. …

This enforcement action draws a distinction between "churning" and "excessive trading," although it does not define where the line between the very similar violations lies. "Excessive trading" is described as a violation of FINRA Rule 2111 ("Suitability"), while churning constitutes both a violation of Rule 2111 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder - meaning churning rises to the level of a violation of law, not merely a violation of a FINRA…

In anticipatory counterpoint to the arguments of the State enforcement authorities, the Administration argued that the regulatory burdens imposed by the CFPB since inception have "cost consumers between $237-$369 billion, including fiscal costs, increased borrowing expenses, and reduced originations." (See,  (February 2026)).