H.R.1653 - Civil Investigative Demand Reform Act of 2025 (119th Congress)
Summary
H.R.1653, the Civil Investigative Demand Reform Act of 2025, aims to reform the civil investigative demand (CID) process of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (BCFP). The bill introduces several changes to Section 1052 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010, including limiting the demand period, requiring specificity in demands, allowing attorney representation during questioning, ensuring confidential treatment of petitions, specifying grounds to set aside demands, and providing for judicial review of denied petitions.
The bill seeks to provide more clarity and protection for individuals and entities subject to CIDs issued by the BCFP. It also aims to ensure fairness and transparency in the investigative process.
The changes are intended to balance the BCFP's authority to investigate potential violations of consumer financial law with the rights of those being investigated.
Expected Effects
The likely effect of this bill is to make the BCFP's CID process more transparent and accountable. It will likely increase the burden on the BCFP to provide specific justifications for their demands.
Entities subject to CIDs will have more avenues for challenging the demands and seeking judicial review. This may lead to fewer overly broad or burdensome CIDs being issued.
Overall, the bill aims to rebalance the power between the BCFP and those it investigates.
Potential Benefits
- Provides a clear statute of limitations (6 years) for civil investigative demands, offering predictability.
- Requires specificity in demands, preventing overly broad requests for information.
- Allows attorneys to submit questions related to the scope of the demand, promoting transparency.
- Ensures confidential treatment of petitions, protecting sensitive information.
- Provides specific grounds to set aside demands, offering more robust legal challenges.
Potential Disadvantages
- May hinder the BCFP's ability to investigate complex or long-running violations of consumer financial law due to the statute of limitations.
- Increased opportunities for legal challenges could slow down the investigative process.
- The requirement for specific facts in demands may allow entities to conceal information by claiming it falls outside the scope of the demand.
- The bill could be interpreted as weakening consumer protection by making it more difficult for the BCFP to obtain information.
- The changes might disproportionately benefit larger entities with more resources to challenge CIDs.
Constitutional Alignment
The bill appears to align with constitutional principles of due process and the right to legal representation. By providing specific grounds to set aside demands and allowing for judicial review, the bill reinforces the principle of checks and balances.
The bill also touches on the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, as it requires specificity in demands. This helps to ensure that the BCFP's investigative powers are not used in an overly intrusive manner.
However, the constitutionality of the underlying Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 has been debated, and this bill's amendments do not resolve those fundamental questions.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).