Filed briefs

The CFPB filed an Amicus Brief in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington concerning issues under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 a supplemental brief in support of the plaintiff's Article III standing.

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...

This case presents the question whether allegedly unpaid parking fees and associated nonpayment penalties constitute "debts" under the Fair Debt Collection...

This case involves a claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act against a debt-collection law firm that filed a state-court collection action...

This case presents the question whether a trustee who forecloses on a deed of trust in a non-judicial action in California can qualify as a "debt collector"...

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act provides that "a debt collector" must send a consumer a notice containing important information about the consumer's...

This case concerns the circumstances under which a debt collector may violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., by seeking...

This is a class-action lawsuit under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and other federal and state statutes.

This case concerns the circumstances under which a debt collector may violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., by seeking...