Eliminating Fraud in the CFPB’s Complaint Database Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Barr, Andy [R-KY-6]
- Committees
- Financial Services Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Feb 17, 2026
Bottom line
This bill aims to reduce fraudulent or unverified complaints in the CFPB database by adding attestation requirements for consumers and providing mechanisms for companies to dismiss certain complaints, while also ensuring the confidentiality of narrative complaint data.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 to mandate new requirements for consumers submitting complaints to the CFPB, including attesting to the truthfulness of their information under penalty of perjury, verifying their identity, and confirming prior direct notification to the company 60 days before filing. It also grants financial companies the authority to close certain complaints (duplicative, frivolous, unauthorized, fraudulent, or already remedied) and requires the CFPB to keep all narrative complaint content confidential.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue the bill will enhance the integrity and accuracy of the CFPB's complaint database by preventing fraudulent or unsubstantiated complaints, ensuring that only legitimate issues are recorded and acted upon. They contend it protects companies from having to respond to baseless or repetitive complaints and safeguards consumer and company privacy by making narrative content confidential.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that the new attestation and prior notification requirements create unnecessary barriers for consumers seeking to file complaints, potentially discouraging legitimate complaints and reducing the accessibility of the CFPB's complaint system. They may also raise concerns that allowing companies to unilaterally close complaints could lead to underreporting of consumer issues or abuse, while confidentiality reduces public transparency.
The bill is short and relatively straightforward, allowing for a quick understanding of its core provisions.
Section 2, amending 1013(b)(3)(E)(i) of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010.
Mandate for Consumer Attestation Under Penalty of Perjury
This provision requires any person submitting a complaint to the CFPB to attest, under penalty of perjury, that the information and documentation provided are true and accurate to the best of their knowledge. It also requires attestation that the complaint is submitted directly by the consumer or an authorized representative, and that the consumer directly informed the covered person of the issue at least 60 days before submitting the complaint to the Bureau.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision will significantly reduce fraudulent, frivolous, or unverified complaints, thereby improving the quality and reliability of the CFPB's complaint database. They contend it ensures consumers have attempted to resolve issues directly with companies first, promoting efficient dispute resolution.
Critics contend
Critics may contend that requiring attestation under penalty of perjury and a 60-day waiting period creates undue burdens for consumers, potentially discouraging legitimate complaints and making the complaint process less accessible, especially for vulnerable populations or those with urgent financial issues.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the desire for complaint database integrity and corporate protection against the potential for reduced consumer access and increased hurdles for filing complaints.
Section 2, amending 1013(b)(3)(E)(ii) of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010.
Notification for Unauthorized Complaint Submissions
If the Director of the CFPB discovers that a complaint was submitted in a consumer's name without their authorization, the Director is required to inform the consumer that such a complaint was filed. To the degree practicable, the Director must also provide the name of the person who submitted the unauthorized complaint to the covered person (company) to whom the complaint relates.
Section 2, amending 1013(b)(3)(E)(iii) of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010.
Definition of "Sufficient Proof of Identification"
This sub-provision defines what constitutes "sufficient proof of identification" for a consumer's representative. It specifies that such proof includes a social security number or a copy of a social security card, a certified or official copy of a birth certificate, or a copy of a driver's license, an identification card issued by the motor vehicle administration, or any other government-issued identification.
Section 2, amending 1013(b)(3)(F) of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010.
Company Authority to Close Certain Complaints
This provision allows covered persons (financial companies) to close a consumer complaint without further action if they reasonably determine it is duplicative of a previously resolved complaint, frivolous, unauthorized, fraudulent, or if the consumer failed to inform them of the issue 60 days prior. Companies can also close complaints if they already remedied the issue raised by the consumer. When a complaint is closed under these conditions, the company must notify the CFPB unit and provide the reason for closure, which the unit must record.
Section 2, amending 1013(b)(3)(G) of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010.
Confidentiality of Complaint Narrative Content
This provision mandates that the CFPB must ensure that the narrative content included in consumer complaints and the responses from covered persons (companies) remains confidential. This content is not to be published or made publicly viewable. However, the CFPB is still permitted to publish aggregated data about complaints and analyses of trends, provided that such data and analyses do not include personally identifiable information or specific narrative content that could reasonably be linked to an individual consumer or company.
This sub-provision defines "sufficient proof of identification" for a consumer's representative, specifying documents such as a social security number/card, birth certificate, or government-issued ID (driver's license, state ID).
Section 2, amending 1013(b)(3)(E)(iii) of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010.
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for defining terms that are referenced elsewhere in the bill to provide clarity and specificity.
Case for: Supporters argue that a clear and robust definition of identification is essential to prevent fraudulent representation and ensure the integrity of the complaint submission process, protecting both consumers and companies from misuse.
Case against: Critics might argue that specifying such narrow forms of identification could inadvertently exclude certain individuals or communities who may have difficulty obtaining or providing these exact documents, thereby limiting access to representation for some vulnerable populations.
Estimated impact: This provision primarily impacts the administrative process of verifying consumer representatives, ensuring higher verification standards for a potentially small percentage of complaints submitted by third parties.