Filed briefs

The Bureau filed an amicus brief arguing that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act prohibits the collection of pay-to-pay fees (also known as “convenience fees”) where neither the contract creating the debt nor a specific law expressly authorizes the collection of such fees.

The Bureau, the Federal Trade Commission, and the North Carolina Department of Justice jointly filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit arguing that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act does not bar a private plaintiff's claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

In response to the court’s invitation, the Bureau filed an amicus brief addressing how to interpret a servicer’s obligation under RESPA and its implementing regulation to respond to errors relating to the servicing of a borrower’s mortgage loan.

The Bureau filed an amicus brief addressing the Truth in Lending Act’s restriction on mandatory arbitration clauses in home loans and other agreements “relating to” home loans.

The Bureau filed an amicus brief arguing that the Fair Credit Reporting Act does not exempt “legal disputes” from its requirement that furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies must reasonably investigate disputes about information they furnished.

The government filed a brief with the Supreme Court in TransUnion v. Ramirez, arguing that a plaintiff class had Article III standing to sue under the Fair Credit Reporting Act where the defendant produced consumer reports that erroneously designated the class members as individuals who are legally barred from transacting business in the United States.

The Bureau filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit arguing that a debt collector does not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act when it accurately states in an itemization of a consumer’s debt that $0.00 in interest and collection fees have been applied to the debt.

The Bureau and the FTC jointly filed an amicus brief arguing that the “applicants” protected by the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and its implementing rule include those who have received credit.

The Bureau filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit arguing that a debt collector does not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act when it accurately itemizes the interest and fees that are included in a consumer’s debt.

The Bureau filed a motion in the Maryland Court of Appeals seeking permission to file a brief in Linton v. Consumer Protection Division, arguing that the court should not permit the approval of a class-action settlement agreement that threatens to interfere with the Bureau’s authority under the Consumer Financial Protection Act by purporting to release the Bureau’s claims in a pending Bureau enforcement action, to enjoin class members from receiving any benefits from the Bureau’s action, and to assign to the parties who caused the class members’ injuries all benefits the Bureau may obtain for class members in that action.

The Bureau filed a brief in the Third Circuit arguing that section 1042 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act, which permits states to bring actions to enforce the CFPA, does not prohibit a state from bringing an action against a defendant merely because the Bureau has already brought an action against the same defendant.

The CFPB filed an amicus brief arguing against an exception to a prohibition in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Bureau filed an amicus brief arguing that a debt collector violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act when it tells consumers that they must notify the creditor, rather than the debt collector, that a debt is disputed.

The Bureau filed an amicus brief addressing how to interpret the term “servicer,” as defined in RESPA and its implementing regulation, in the common event that the right to service a consumer’s mortgage loan is sold or transferred between companies.

The Solicitor General and the Bureau filed a brief in the Supreme Court in Rotkiske v. Klemm, arguing that the one-year statute of limitations that applies to private actions under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act begins to run when the violation occurs, not when the plaintiff discovers or should discover the alleged violation.

The Bureau filed an amicus brief addressing the one-year statute of limitations in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The brief argued that the FDCPA’s statute of limitations does not bar consumers from suing to challenge violations that occurred in the prior year, even if the defendant previously committed similar violations that are outside the limitations period.

The Solicitor General and the Bureau filed a brief in the Supreme Court in Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus, LLP, arguing that actions that are legally required to carry out a nonjudicial foreclosure are generally not debt collection regulated under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Bureau filed an amicus brief addressing the applicability of the E-SIGN Act to electronically delivered validation notices under the FDCPA.

The Bureau filed an amicus brief supporting a business entity’s ability to state an ECOA discrimination claim and arguing that regulations issued pursuant to ECOA reasonably interpret the term “applicant” to encompass guarantors.

The Bureau filed an amicus brief urging the Federal Circuit to conclude that a trial court injunction barring the Department of Education from assigning debt collectors to loans in default is inconsistent with the public interest.

The Bureau filed an amicus brief supporting application of the FDCPA to judicial foreclosure proceedings that can lead to a deficiency judgment.

The Bureau filed an amicus brief addressing application of the "competent attorney" standard to alleged false representations of amounts owed and Article...

The government filed a brief in the Supreme Court supporting application of the FDCPA to debt collectors that file proofs of claim on time-barred debt in...

The Bureau filed an amicus brief supporting application of the FDCPA to an alleged attempt to collect protected Social Security Funds.

The Bureau filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiff’s Article III standing.