Amicus briefs filed by the CFPB are available on this page, including amicus briefs concerning federal consumer financial protection law filed in the U.S. Supreme Court by the Office of the Solicitor General.
Use the filters below to browse by date, statute, and the court in which the brief was filed.
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 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 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 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 consumers’ bankruptcy proceedings.
The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) excludes from the definition of “debt collector” an “officer or employee of the United States or any State to the extent that collecting or attempting to collect any debt is in the performance of his official duties.”
The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) requires consumer reporting agencies to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the consumer reports it prepares about individuals. 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b).
The Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) makes it unlawful for “any creditor to discriminate against any applicant, with respect to any aspect of a credit transaction,” on the basis of prohibited characteristics including sex and marital status. 15 U.S.C. 1691(a).
The Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. § 1635, gives borrowers the right to rescind certain transactions “by notifying the creditor.”
In response to the Court’s call for the views of the Solicitor General, the government filed an amicus brief that argued that the Supreme Court should not review a decision of the California Supreme Court relating to the Truth in Savings Act (TISA).
The government’s amicus brief argues that a consumer who loses a suit under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act does not have to pay the defendant’s court costs unless she filed the suit in bad faith and for the purpose of harassment.
This case presents the question whether communications from debt collectors to consumers’ attorneys are categorically excluded from the coverage of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), which in relevant part prohibits debt collectors from engaging in “[t]he collection of any amount . . . unless such amount is expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law.” 15 U.S.C. 1692f(1).
This case concerns a provision of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act that prohibits the payment or receipt of “any portion, split, or percentage” of a charge for a real estate settlement service other than for a service actually performed, 12 U.S.C. § 2607(b).
The case concerns the provisions of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act that prohibit the payment or receipt of a kickback for the referral of settlement services business and provide a cause of action for damages equal to three times the amount of any fee paid for a settlement service involving such a kickback, 12 U.S.C. § 2607(a) & (d)(2).
