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.
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 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.
The Bureau filed an amicus brief addressing how to interpret the term “servicer,” as defined in RESPA and its implementing regulation, in the common event that the right to service a consumer’s mortgage loan is sold or transferred between companies.
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.