HR 1653: Civil Investigative Demand Reform Act of 2025

HR 1653 in plain English: This bill changes the rules governing how the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) can issue civil investigative demands, which are tools used to collect information before formal legal action. It sets new time limits, specificity requirements, and legal protections for people and entities that receive such demands. It also expands the ability of recipients to challenge or seek relief from these demands.

Stated purpose

To reform the process the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) uses to demand information from people or businesses during investigations, by adding time limits, clearer requirements, and new ways to challenge or appeal those demands.

Key points

• Requires CFPB to issue investigative demands no later than six years after the alleged violation occurred.
• Demands must reference specific facts about the alleged violation, not just general claims.
• Allows an attorney to submit questions on behalf of someone compelled to give oral testimony.
• Permits judicial review if the CFPB denies a petition to set aside or modify a demand.
• Expands grounds to challenge a demand, including if it is unduly burdensome, duplicative, or obtainable from a less costly source.

Arguments supporters make

• The current process gives the CFPB too much unchecked power — businesses and individuals deserve clear deadlines, specific notice of what they allegedly did wrong, and a real chance to challenge overreaching demands in court.
• A 6-year limit prevents the CFPB from issuing open-ended investigations that drag on indefinitely, creating legal uncertainty for companies long after any potential violation occurred.
• Allowing attorneys to ask clarifying questions and seek judicial review makes the process fairer and more transparent without stopping legitimate investigations from moving forward.

Arguments opponents make

• Financial misconduct can be complex and slow to uncover — a hard 6-year deadline could allow bad actors to escape accountability simply by concealing violations long enough.
• Adding multiple procedural hurdles like mandatory attorney Q&A responses and expanded court challenges could delay or derail legitimate CFPB investigations, weakening consumer protection enforcement.
• Expanding the grounds to challenge demands — such as claiming they are 'too expensive' — gives well-resourced companies new tools to slow down investigations that less powerful consumers depend on.

Tradeoffs

Stronger procedural rights for investigated parties may reduce the risk of government overreach, but could also make it harder and slower for the CFPB to gather evidence in consumer protection cases — trading enforcement speed and reach for individual due process protections.

Current status in Congress: In committee.

NewsClear — neutral news & congressional tracking · Bill of the Week