HR-7588-119
Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
Sponsored by Andy Barr (R-KY)
What it does
This bill would require the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to make consumers (or their authorized representatives) attest under penalty of perjury that complaint information is accurate, that the submitter is the consumer or an authorized representative with proof of identification, and that the consumer notified the company at least 60 days before filing with the CFPB. It would also let companies close complaints they deem duplicative, frivolous, unauthorized, or already resolved, and require complaint narratives to remain confidential rather than published in the public database, though aggregated trend data could still be released.
Who benefits
Financial companies (banks, lenders, credit card issuers, debt collectors) that are the subject of consumer complaints, since they gain new grounds to close complaints and avoid public narrative disclosure that could affect their reputation or invite scrutiny. Industry trade groups and companies concerned about reputational harm from unverified or malicious complaints also benefit.
Who is hurt
Consumers filing complaints, particularly those needing quick CFPB intervention, since the 60-day pre-notice requirement delays filing and the attestation/ID rules create hurdles for vulnerable consumers (elderly, disabled, non-English speakers) who rely on advocates or family members to file on their behalf. Consumer advocacy groups and researchers who use the public complaint narrative database for oversight, journalism, and identifying patterns of misconduct would lose access to that information.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue the CFPB complaint database has been misused by third parties, including firms that mass-file complaints on behalf of consumers who never authorized them, undermining data integrity and unfairly damaging company reputations. They contend that requiring attestation, proof of identity for representatives, and prior notice to companies would filter out fraudulent, duplicative, or frivolous complaints while giving companies a fair chance to resolve issues directly before facing public complaints.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue the 60-day pre-notification requirement and identification hurdles would deter legitimate consumers, especially vulnerable populations who rely on advocates to file complaints, from reporting real problems to the CFPB. They contend that ending public disclosure of complaint narratives would reduce transparency and accountability, making it harder for researchers, journalists, and regulators to identify patterns of corporate misconduct that the public database has historically exposed.