The CFPB is responsible for implementing many federal laws that relate to consumer finance. Courts sometimes apply those same laws to resolve disputes between private parties. In some cases, we believe a court would benefit from hearing our views on what the law says.
The amicus program is how we share our views with to the court. (“Amicus” is shorthand for “Amicus curiae”, Latin for “friend of the court.”) Our amicus briefs provide the courts with the CFPB’s views on significant consumer financial protection issues and help ensure that consumer financial protection statutes and regulations are correctly and consistently interpreted.
The CFPB and DOJ filed a joint Statement of Interest in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland explaining that mortgage lenders violate the Equal Credit Opportunity Act if they rely on an appraisal that they knew, or should have known, was discriminatory when assessing the creditworthiness of an applicant.
The Bureau filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit arguing that EFTA’s protections for people who experience errors in their accounts apply to prepaid accounts loaded with government benefits, including unemployment assistance related to the pandemic.
The Bureau filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in two related cases, arguing that the Fair Credit Reporting Act requires an entity that furnishes credit information to a consumer reporting agency (CRA) to perform a reasonable investigation when a consumer disputes the accuracy of information furnished to the CRA, even if the dispute could be characterized as a legal, rather than factual, dispute.
The Bureau filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit arguing that a Truth in Lending Act protection that prohibits banks from taking money from a borrower’s checking or savings account to cover amounts the consumer owes on certain types of debts covers home-equity lines of credit linked to a credit card.
The Bureau, joined by the Federal Trade Commission, filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit arguing that an American servicemember and his wife who took out a loan to purchase a timeshare have Article III standing to challenge the legality of the loan under the Military Lending Act. The brief argues that the plaintiffs have standing because they were injured when they made a down payment on the loan and their injury is both traceable to the loan and redressable by an order of the court.
We welcome your suggestions of cases that might make good candidates for the amicus program. We strongly recommend that you read our FAQs before submitting your request, especially if you are not an attorney.
