The Electronic Privacy Information Center drafted this amicus brief in Johansen v. Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited, Inc. (11th Cir. 2022) in an appeal from the denial of class certification in this TCPA case. Telemarketers often take great care to conceal their identity and the identity of the seller on whose behalf they are calling, in order to make it impossible to sue.
This 2018 amicus brief prepared by the CFPB deals with the FDCPA’s statute of limitations, arguing that the limitations period runs separately for each discrete FDCPA violation. In this case, each communication violating the Act should be considered a discrete violation.
This 2018 amicus brief prepared by the CFPB and the Solicitor General deals with the question whether attorneys whose principal business is the conduct of home foreclosures are covered by the FDCPA. The brief argues that enforcement of a security interest through a nonjudicial foreclosure generally is not debt collection under the FDCPA and that any enforcement of a security interest, without more, generally is not debt collection under the FDCPA.
This is a CFPB amicus brief in support of the consumer in a Ninth Circuit appeal regarding pay-to-pay fees. The brief argues that the fees violate the FDCPA because they are not permitted by law unless a law expressly authorizes such fees. "Permitted by law" does not mean "permitted by any valid contract." An "amount" is "permitted by law" under section 1692f(1) only if a law expressly authorizes it. Allowing debt collectors to charge pay-to-pay fees absent express authorization is inconsistent with the FDCPA’s purposes.