CFPB logo
Entities

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) (186)

This is a list and summary of all amici filed in courts by the CFPB from 2021 to December 2023

Nelson v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., U.S.C.A. No. 24-10147 (11th Cir.).

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Cir. (on appeal from the U.S.D.C., N.D. Ala.)

Brief: Amicus (March 29, 2024). CFPB’s Summary of Brief: The FCRA’s requirement that CRAs must “conduct a reasonable reinvestigation” of disputed information

applies to consumer disputes concerning personal identifying information contained in the consumer’s file, such as names, addresses, and Social Security numbers. The brief also argues that Experian’s contrary interpretation was not based on the text of the FCRA, prior case law, or guidance from the CFPB or the FTC. Experian therefore should not be allowed to escape liability for failing to investigate the consumer’s disputes [in this case].

Blog: Consumer reporting companies have an obligation to correct errors.

Status: On appeal to the 11th Circuit, 4:21-cv-00894.

Ritz v. Nissan, U.S.C.A. (3rd Cir.) No. 23-2181.

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit (on appeal from the U.S.D.C., D.N.J.)

Brief: Amicus (Feb. 7, 2024). CFPB’s Summary of Brief:

To ensure fair and accurate credit reporting, the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA or the Act), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., requires consumer reporting agencies (CRAs) and entities that furnish information to CRAs (furnishers)—often, but not always, creditors—to follow various requirements when they compile and disseminate personal information about individuals. One of those requirements is that furnishers must reasonably investigate consumers’ disputes regarding the completeness or accuracy of the information furnished.

The Bureau filed an amicus brief arguing that the duty to investigate applies not only to factual disputes, but also disputes that can be labeled as legal in nature. The briefs also explain that, among other things, a contrary approach is not supported by the statute, risks exposing consumers to more inaccurate credit reporting, and undercuts the remedial purpose of the FCRA.

Roberts v. Carter-Young, Inc., U.S.C.A. (4th Cir.) No. 23-1911

  • Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit (on appeal from the U.S.D.C., M.D.N.C.)
  • Brief: Amicus (Dec. 8, 2023). CFPB’s Summary of Brief:

To ensure fair and accurate credit reporting, the Fair Credit Reporting Act requires consumer reporting agencies (CRAs) and entities that furnish information to CRAs (furnishers)—often, but not always, creditors—to follow various requirements when they compile and disseminate personal information about individuals. One of those requirements is that furnishers must reasonably investigate consumers’ disputes regarding the completeness or accuracy of the information furnished.

The Bureau filed an amicus brief arguing that the duty to investigate applies not only to factual disputes, but also disputes that can be labeled as legal in nature. The brief explains that, among other things, a contrary approach is not supported by the statute, risks exposing consumers to more inaccurate credit reporting, and undercuts the remedial purpose of the FCRA. It also explains that the statute does not authorize furnishers to forgo investigating any dispute simply because there may be colorable arguments on both sides. The brief also argues that, to conduct a reasonable investigation, a furnisher may need to look beyond the information already within the furnisher’s possession.

Henderson v. The Source for Public Data, L.P., et al

  • Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit (on appeal from the U.S.D.C., E.D.Va.)
  • Brief (with the FTC): Amicus (Oct. 14, 2021)
  • Summary of Brief: Argued that immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is not applicable because the FCRA claims at issue do not challenge third-party content of Public Data’s reports, but rather Public Data’s conduct in disseminating reports Public Data itself created without complying with the FCRA’s procedural requirements.
  • Press Release
  • Status: In November 2022, the Court of Appeals reversed the lower court and found that Sec. 230 did not apply because the online aggregator was an “information content provider that provided the improper information” and not merely providing a forum for its users to upload information. The case was settled in 2023.

Thomas-Lawson v. Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC

  • Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
  • Brief: Amicus (October 21, 2021).
  • Summary: Argued that the FDCPA prohibits debt collectors from collecting pay-to-pay or “convenience” fees unless the agreement creating the debt expressly authorizes them or a law expressly or affirmatively authorizes them. An “amount” does not need to be “incidental to the principal obligation” to be covered under Section 1692f(1) and pay-to-pay fees are “incidental to” the principal obligation.

Milgram v. JPMorgan Chase 

  • Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit
  • Brief: Amicus (April 7, 2022)
  • Summary: Argued that the court should clarify that furnishers are required to conduct reasonable investigations of both legal and factual questions posed in consumer disputes. The court should also clarify that furnishers are statutorily obligated to reasonably investigate both legal and factual questions raised in indirect disputes to CRAs about the accuracy or completeness of information they furnish.
  • CFPB Summary
  • Status: U.S. Court of Appeals (11th Cir.) opinion issued in June 2023. The plaintiff/appellant filed a petition for rehearing.

Sessa v. Trans Union, LLC

  • U.S. Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit
  • Brief: Amicus (May 5, 2022)
  • Summary: First, the court should clarify that any incorrect information in a consumer report, whether “legal” or “factual” in character, constitutes an inaccuracy that triggers reasonable-procedures liability under the FCRA. Second, the court should clarify that a CRA’s reliance on information provided by even a reputable furnisher does not categorically insulate the CRA from reasonable-procedures liability under the FCRA.
  • CFPB Summary
  • FTC Press Release: FTC Joins Amicus Brief Opposing Liability Shield for Sloppy Credit Reports
  • Amicus of the Consumer Data Industry Association (August 5, 2022).
  • Amicus of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, American Bankers Association (ABA), National Association of  Federally-Insured Credit Unions (NAFCU), The Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA), American Financial Services Association (AFSA), and Credit Union National Association (CUNA) (August 5, 2022).
  • Additional reading:
  • Troutman blog, The 7 Most Notable FCRA Cases Of 2023 So Far (Aug. 2023).

Ingram v. Waypoint Resource Group, LLC

  • Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit
  • Brief: Amicus (September 13, 2022)
  • Summary: Furnishers are required to investigate any dispute forwarded to them by a CRA and there should not be an exception for frivolous disputes or inadequately supported disputes. This is supported by three reasons: (1) The text of the FCRA is unambiguous; (2) Consumers are entitled to notice of the outcome of their disputes and an opportunity to cure; and (3) The FCRA protects furnishers from frivolous disputes by allowing CRAs to determine whether a dispute is frivolous.
  • CFPB Summary
  • Troutman blog, The 7 Most Notable FCRA Cases Of 2023 So Far (Aug. 2023).

Holden v. Holiday Inn Club Vacations Inc. and Mayer v. Holiday Inn Club Vacations Inc.

  • Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit
  • Brief: Amicus (December 16, 2022)
  • Summary: The court should clarify that furnishers are required to, and can be held liable for failing to, conduct reasonable investigations of both legal and factual questions posed in consumer disputes. Separating “legal” and “factual” disputes is difficult and would allow furnishers to evade their statutory obligations by characterizing nearly any dispute as a “legal” dispute. Additionally, it is not supported by the statute, risks exposing consumers to more inaccurate credit reporting, conflicts with the decision of another circuit, and undercuts the remedial purpose of the FCRA.
  • CFPB Summary
  • Troutman blog, The 7 Most Notable FCRA Cases Of 2023 So Far (Aug. 2023).

Belair v. Holiday Inn Club Vacations Inc.

  • Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit (from the U.S. District Court for the M.D. Fla.)
  • Brief: Amicus (April 20, 2023)
  • Summary; The court should clarify that furnishers are required to, and can be held liable for failing to, conduct reasonable investigations of both legal and factual questions posed in consumer disputes. This is the same argument from Holden v. Holiday Inn Club Vacations Inc. and Mayer v. Holliday Inn Club Vacations, Inc.
  • CFPB Summary
  • Troutman blog, The 7 Most Notable FCRA Cases Of 2023 So Far (Aug. 2023).

Suluki v. Credit One Bank, NA