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.
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 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 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.