Civil Investigative Demand Reform Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Rep. Barr, Andy [R-KY-6]
- Committees
- Financial Services Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 16, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to enhance due process and limit the scope of the CFPB's investigative authority by imposing new procedural requirements and expanding avenues for challenging civil investigative demands.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 to introduce several reforms to the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection's (CFPB) civil investigative demand (CID) process. Key changes include establishing a 6-year statute of limitations for CIDs, requiring CIDs to reference specific facts, creating a formal process for attorneys to question CID scope, making CID petitions confidential, expanding the grounds for setting aside a CID, and allowing for judicial review of CFPB decisions to deny such petitions.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill introduces much-needed due process protections for businesses subject to CFPB investigations, preventing overly broad or burdensome demands and ensuring greater accountability for the agency. They contend that a statute of limitations provides legal certainty, while increased specificity and judicial review align the CFPB's practices with those of other federal agencies and established legal standards, fostering a fairer regulatory environment.
Opponents contend
Opponents contend that these reforms would significantly weaken the CFPB's ability to effectively investigate and prosecute consumer financial law violations, potentially allowing bad actors to evade accountability. They argue that imposing strict limitations and increasing procedural hurdles could delay investigations, strain agency resources, and ultimately undermine consumer protection efforts by making it harder for the CFPB to uncover and address financial misconduct.
The bill is very short and straightforward, making it highly accessible for any informed reader to understand its provisions and implications.
Section 2(a)
Establishes a 6-Year Statute of Limitations for Civil Investigative Demands
This provision amends the Consumer Financial Protection Act to stipulate that the CFPB cannot issue a civil investigative demand (CID) for alleged violations that occurred more than 6 years prior to the date of the demand. This sets a clear time limit on how far back the CFPB can investigate alleged misconduct using CIDs.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that this limitation provides legal certainty for businesses, preventing indefinite exposure to investigations for very old conduct and aligning the CFPB's investigative powers with typical statutes of limitations found in other areas of law.
Critics contend
Opponents contend that a 6-year limit could allow complex or long-running financial schemes to go unpunished, especially if the misconduct takes years to uncover or manifest, thereby hindering the CFPB's ability to protect consumers effectively.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the need for legal certainty and protection against indefinite investigations for businesses with the CFPB's ability to investigate and address long-term or difficult-to-detect consumer harms.
Section 2(b)
Requires Specific Factual Basis for Civil Investigative Demands
This section mandates that when the CFPB issues a civil investigative demand (CID), it must describe the alleged conduct "with specific reference to particular facts." This means the CFPB cannot issue CIDs based on vague or general suspicions, but must provide concrete details about the alleged violation.
Section 2(c)
Establishes a Formal Process for Attorney Questions on CID Scope
This provision allows an attorney representing a recipient of a civil investigative demand (CID) to submit questions to the CFPB regarding the scope or breadth of the demand. The CFPB is then required to respond to these questions within 20 days or by the CID's return date, whichever is shorter. The CFPB may also extend the return date and petition deadline when providing a response.
Section 2(d)
Ensures Confidentiality of Petitions to Modify or Set Aside Demands
This section amends the law to explicitly include the contents of any petition submitted to the CFPB to modify or set aside a civil investigative demand (CID) under the existing confidentiality protections. This means that such petitions, which often contain sensitive legal arguments and proprietary information, will be treated as confidential by the CFPB.
Section 2(e)
Expands and Clarifies Grounds for Setting Aside a Civil Investigative Demand
This provision significantly expands the specific grounds upon which a civil investigative demand (CID) can be set aside. These new grounds include failure of the demand to comply with the section's provisions, violation of constitutional or other legal rights, or if the demand is unduly burdensome, disproportionately expensive, outside the scope of inquiry, unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or obtainable from a more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive source.
Section 2(f)
Establishes Judicial Review for Denials of Petitions to Modify or Set Aside Demands
This section adds a new provision allowing for judicial review in cases where the CFPB denies a petition to modify or set aside a civil investigative demand (CID). This means that if a business challenges a CID and the CFPB rejects their petition, the business can then appeal that decision to a federal court for an independent review.
Allows a civil investigative demand (CID) to be set aside if it is "unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive."
Section 2(e)(C)(ii)
Why it matters:Incorporating established legal principles by reference or similar phrasing is a standard legislative practice to ensure consistency with broader legal frameworks without needing to redefine them in detail.
Case for: Proponents argue that this provision aligns the CFPB's CID process with established federal court discovery principles, preventing redundant or overly burdensome requests and ensuring that the agency seeks information efficiently.
Case against: Opponents might argue that this adds unnecessary hurdles to CFPB investigations, potentially requiring the agency to prove it has exhausted other avenues before issuing a CID, thereby slowing down enforcement.
Estimated impact: This provision could significantly reduce the scope of some CIDs and shift the burden of proof onto the CFPB to justify its requests, potentially leading to more focused but also more challenging investigations for the agency.