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 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 III standing.
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 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.
This case presents the question whether allegedly unpaid parking fees and associated nonpayment penalties constitute “debts” under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
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).
This case presents the question whether a land developer who sends a “property report,” as defined by Section 1707 of the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act (“ILSA”), to an attorney representing a purchaser meets Section 1703’s requirement that the report be “furnished to the purchaser.”
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 against a consumer.
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” under the general definition of that term in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
This case presents the question whether a private lender extends “consumer credit” under the Truth in Lending Act by providing loans to consumers for the purpose of paying off residential property-tax delinquencies.
The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act provides that “a debt collector” must send a consumer a notice containing important information about the consumer’s debt and rights either in “the initial communication” or “[w]ithin five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(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).
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 to collect a debt for which the statute of limitations for initiating a collection action has expired.
This is a class-action lawsuit under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and other federal and state statutes.
This case concerns the types of evidence a private plaintiff needs to put forward to demonstrate that a defendant paid for a referral in violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA).
This case presents the question of how long, under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), a consumer reporting agency can report certain negative information about an individual.
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 to collect a debt for which the statute of limitations for initiating a collection action has expired.
This case presents the question of whether condominium units are “lots” under the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq., and its implementing regulations.
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.
The Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. § 1635, gives borrowers the right to rescind certain transactions “by notifying the creditor.”
The Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. § 1635, gives borrowers the right to rescind certain transactions “by notifying the creditor.”
The Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. § 1635, gives borrowers the right to rescind certain transactions “by notifying the creditor.”
