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.
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 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 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 a business entity’s ability to state an ECOA discrimination claim and arguing that regulations issued pursuant to ECOA reasonably interpret the term “applicant” to encompass guarantors.
The Bureau filed an amicus brief urging the Federal Circuit to conclude that a trial court injunction barring the Department of Education from assigning debt collectors to loans in default is inconsistent with the public interest.
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 Bureau filed an amicus brief supporting application of the FDCPA to an alleged attempt to collect protected Social Security Funds.
The Bureau filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiff’s Article III standing.
The Bureau filed a supplemental brief in support of the plaintiff's Article III standing.
The Bureau filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs' Article III standing.