Eliminating Fraud in the CFPB’s Complaint Database Act
HB7588, titled the “Eliminating Fraud in the CFPB’s Complaint Database Act,” would amend the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 to add new verification and anti-fraud requirements for complaints submitted to the CFPB. The bill would require each complainant to attest under penalty of perjury that the complaint is truthful, that it was submitted either by the consumer or an authorized representative with proof of identity and written authorization, and that the consumer first raised the issue directly with the covered financial institution at least 60 days before filing with the Bureau.
The bill also gives covered financial institutions more authority to close complaints they determine are duplicative, frivolous, unauthorized, or fraudulent, or where the consumer did not first notify the institution 60 days earlier, or where the institution already remedied the issue. When a complaint is closed for those reasons, the institution must notify the CFPB, which would record the closure and reason in the database. In addition, the bill would bar the CFPB from publicly posting narrative complaint content or narrative responses, while still allowing publication of aggregated, non-identifying data and trend analyses.
If enacted, the bill would amend Section 1013(b)(3) of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 and directly change how the CFPB collects, verifies, stores, and publishes consumer complaints. It would impose new attestation and identity-verification requirements on complainants, create a formal process for identifying unauthorized submissions, and expand the ability of regulated financial firms to reject certain complaints without further action. It would also narrow public access to complaint narratives, limiting the CFPB’s database to aggregated information that does not reveal personally identifiable or narrative details.
No committee transcript or recorded vote is available, so there is no direct evidence of legislative debate or bipartisan support/opposition in the provided materials. Based on the bill text and title, the measure appears to be framed by its sponsor as an anti-fraud and data-integrity reform, suggesting support from those concerned about misuse of the complaint system. At the same time, the bill’s restrictions on complaint access and publication suggest it could draw skepticism from consumer advocates and others who view the CFPB complaint database as an important transparency and enforcement tool.
The main points of contention are likely to be the new 60-day pre-filing notice requirement, the attestation under penalty of perjury, and the expanded authority for covered persons to close complaints as duplicative, frivolous, unauthorized, or fraudulent. Critics may argue these provisions could make it harder for consumers to file complaints, especially through representatives, and could reduce the usefulness of the CFPB database by limiting narrative publication. Supporters are likely to argue the bill would deter false or third-party-submitted complaints, protect against abuse of the database, and improve the reliability of complaint records.