The proposal would limit when the CFPB can issue investigative demands and give recipients more ways to question, challenge, and seek court review of them.
CFPB investigative demands would be limited to six years after an alleged violation and would need specific references to the facts involved.
Attorneys could ask the CFPB about a demand's scope, and the Bureau would have to answer within a short deadline; it could also extend related deadlines.
People could keep petition contents confidential, raise broader burden and legal objections, and seek court review after the CFPB denies a challenge.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau would have to issue a civil investigative demand no later than six years after the violation and refer to specific facts about the conduct. The rules would apply to CFPB civil investigative demands under the federal consumer financial law. The six-year limit would apply before the Bureau begins a proceeding under that law. The demand would need specific references to particular facts. The six-year period would run from the date of the alleged violation.
An attorney advising a person who receives a demand could send the Bureau questions about its scope or breadth, and the Bureau would have to answer. The process would cover attorneys advising people who receive a CFPB civil investigative demand. The Bureau could extend the demand's return date and the deadline for asking it to modify or cancel the demand when it responds to questions. The response period would be the shorter of 20 days or the time from service of the demand to its return date. The response period would begin when the attorney submits the questions and would end within the shorter applicable period.
The proposal would protect petition contents from disclosure, list additional reasons to challenge a demand, and allow court review when the Bureau denies a petition to change or cancel it. The rules would apply to petitions filed with the CFPB to modify or set aside a civil investigative demand. A person could challenge a demand for violating the law or a constitutional or other legal right or privilege. A challenge could also claim that the demand is overly burdensome, disproportionately expensive, outside the inquiry, repetitive, duplicative, or obtainable from a more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive source. Court review would apply when the Bureau denies the petition. Court review would become available after the Bureau denies a petition to modify or set aside the demand.
No hearings or votes scheduled.