Filed briefs

The CFPB filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit arguing that the Fair Credit Reporting Act’s file disclosure and accuracy requirements apply to consumers’ personal identifying information.

The Bureau joined the Department of Justice in filing an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit arguing that the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) bars financial institutions from enforcing arbitration agreements in order to keep plaintiffs representing a class of aggrieved servicemembers from enforcing the SCRA in federal court.

The Bureau and the FTC filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit arguing that the Fair Credit Reporting Act’s requirement that consumer reporting companies investigate consumer disputes applies to disputes concerning personal identifying information, such as name, address, and Social Security number information.

The Bureau and the Federal Trade Commission filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit arguing that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act prohibits debt collectors from collecting pay-to-pay or “convenience” fees—fees imposed for making a payment online or by phone—unless the agreement creating the debt expressly authorizes such fees, or a law affirmatively authorizes them.

The Bureau and the Federal Trade Commission filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 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 First Circuit arguing that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act’s prohibition on false, deceptive, or misleading representations is not limited to intentional or knowing misrepresentations and that the Bankruptcy Code does not bar FDCPA claims based on bankruptcy-related misrepresentations.

The Bureau and the Federal Trade Commission filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 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 and the Federal Trade Commission filed an amicus brief explaining the scope of a furnisher’s duties under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) to respond to disputes from a consumer.

The CFPB filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to explain why it should affirm a jury verdict against a mortgage lender who targeted Black and Latino borrowers and neighborhoods with predatory products in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.

The Bureau filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 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 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 and the Federal Trade Commission 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 Bureau, joined by the Federal Trade Commission, filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit arguing that when a consumer reporting agency forwards a consumer’s dispute to the company that furnished the disputed information, the furnisher is required to conduct an investigation. There is no exception to this requirement for disputes that are frivolous or lack adequate support.

The Bureau, joined by the Federal Trade Commission, filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit arguing that (1) the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) requires credit reporting agencies to follow reasonable procedures to ensure that consumer reports are both legally and factually accurate, (2) a credit reporting agency’s reliance on information provided by a furnisher does not absolve it of potential liability under this provision of the FCRA.

The Bureau filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit arguing that (1) the Fair Credit Reporting Act requires furnishers to conduct reasonable investigations of both legal and factual questions posted in consumer disputes, and (2) each time a furnisher fails to reasonably investigate a dispute results in a new statutory violation, with its own statute of limitations.

The Bureau filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit arguing that Regulation X requires a mortgage loan servicer to respond...

The government filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit arguing that the Military Lending Act covers a loan issued to a...

The Bureau, along with three partner agencies, jointly filed an amicus brief arguing that the "applicants" protected by the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and...

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.