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 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.
Recently filed amicus briefs
The Bureau filed a motion in the Maryland Court of Appeals seeking permission to file a brief in Linton v. Consumer Protection Division, arguing that the court should not permit the approval of a class-action settlement agreement that threatens to interfere with the Bureau’s authority under the Consumer Financial Protection Act by purporting to release the Bureau’s claims in a pending Bureau enforcement action, to enjoin class members from receiving any benefits from the Bureau’s action, and to assign to the parties who caused the class members’ injuries all benefits the Bureau may obtain for class members in that action.
The Bureau filed a brief in the Third Circuit arguing that section 1042 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act, which permits states to bring actions to enforce the CFPA, does not prohibit a state from bringing an action against a defendant merely because the Bureau has already brought an action against the same defendant.
In response to the 7th Circuit’s invitation, the Bureau filed an amicus brief arguing that there is no “benign language” exception to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act’s prohibition on debt collectors “using any language or symbol, other than the debt collector’s address, on any envelope when communicating with a consumer by use of the mails or by telegram, except that a debt collector may use his business name if such name does not indicate that he is in the debt collection business.”
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.
Suggest a case
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.