In This Update
RMAI recently met with leadership at the Federal Trade Commission and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to discuss the continued rise in consumer complaints and growing concerns around fraud, misuse of reporting tools, and evolving regulatory priorities.
In both meetings, RMAI discussed the significant increase in complaints submitted through both the CFPB portal and FTC fraud reporting system. RMAI emphasized that a meaningful portion of this volume appears to involve fraudulent or abusive submissions, including activity tied to AI-driven bots, finfluencers, and third-party companies.
A key concern raised with the FTC was the widespread misuse of the FTC identity theft affidavit. While the affidavit is an important consumer protection tool, its broad availability online limits oversight and enables misuse. RMAI noted that affidavits are often submitted with minimal or inaccurate information, and in some cases, multiple consumers appear to be using identical FTC case numbers, suggesting templated or coordinated submissions.
The FTC expressed interest in identifying practices that warrant further scrutiny and acknowledged the complexity of addressing “fin-fluencers” compared to more structured business models.
At the CFPB, conversations focused on operational and technological solutions to improve complaint quality. The Bureau noted that it is pursuing implementation of multi-factor authentication (MFA) and evaluating secure login tools for consumers as part of efforts to reduce fraud. RMAI also reiterated its request to move the complaint portal off the CFPB homepage.
The CFPB is also exploring enhancements to the company portal, including additional response categories.
Separately, the Federal Communications Commission is advancing efforts to combat illegal robocalls, including new actions targeting offshore call centers that facilitate fraudulent or unlawful traffic into the United States. These developments signal increased coordination across agencies to address fraud, particularly where technology is used to scale abusive practices.
RMAI will continue engaging with regulators and welcomes member input, particularly regarding company portal improvements and identification of entities engaging in potentially problematic practices.
RMAI is synonymous with our government advocacy initiatives – it is one of the pillars which our association has been built upon – fighting for the interests of our members. Our association has had an unparalleled level of success in amending and stopping harmful legislation.
A good measure of our success has come from the volunteer efforts of RMAI’s State Legislative Committee and the generosity of our members to the Legislative Fund which helps pay for our lobbying efforts. If you have an interest in volunteering in RMAI’s grassroots advocacy efforts, please contact RMAI General Counsel & Senior Director of Government Affairs David Reid at (916) 779-2492 or [email protected].
Here is a sample of bills we are actively monitoring/lobbying:
Alabama HB 351 – This bill is a comprehensive consumer data privacy proposal. It excludes financial institutions and personal information governed by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. It does not contain a private right of act. [The legislation is awaiting the governor’s signature and, if enacted, will go into effect May 1, 2027.]
Indiana SB 225 [Chapter 124] Effective: July 1, 2026 – This law has a definition of “medical debt” that exempts financial institutions, including debt collectors. [RMAI through our retained lobbyist successfully expanded the exemption to include debt collectors. This bill has been enacted into law and takes effect on July 1, 2026.]
Maine LD 2129 [Chapter 649] Effective: 90 days after the end of the legislative session – This law will prohibit the collection of interest on judgments related to liens or attachments of a debtor’s principal residence for medical debt. [The definition of “medical debt” referenced in the law was the definition RMAI was able to get adopted in 2024 which exempts financial services products.]
Maryland HB 1198 – This bill defines “coerced debt” as debt incurred in a debtor’s name through means such as fraud, duress, intimidation, or the nonconsensual use of personal information, particularly in contexts involving abuse, exploitation, harassment, or trafficking, but excludes debts secured by real property. Debtors may notify creditors in writing, with adequate documentation (such as police reports or certifications from qualified third parties), to request cessation of collection activities on coerced debts. Creditors are required to acknowledge receipt, inform consumer reporting agencies of the dispute, and respond within 30 days regarding their decision to continue or cease collection. If collection is terminated, creditors must report the deletion of the debt to consumer reporting agencies and dismiss any related court actions. [RMAI is opposing the bill as drafted and is working with the Maryland Bankers Association and the Maryland/DC Creditors Bar Association to seek some reasonable clarifying amendments. RMAI sought amendments during testimony at the Maryland Statehouse on March 11.]
Virginia HB 444 [Chapter 395] Effective: July 1, 2027 – This law enacts the Uniform Law Commission’s (ULC) Uniform Consumer Debt Default Judgments Act, which aims to standardize the process for obtaining default judgments in consumer debt collection cases. It applies to unsecured consumer debts, secured consumer debts when seeking a money judgment, and deficiencies remaining after the disposition of secured property. The act mandates specific requirements for complaints in such cases, including detailed information about the consumer, the debt, and the plaintiff’s authority to collect it. [RMAI spent over three years as an observer on the ULC drafting committee to ensure the model act, if adopted by a state, worked for RMAI’s members. A portion of the model act was modeled on provisions contained in the RMAI Certification Program. RMAI supported its adoption.]
Washington SB 5720 [Chapter 107] Effective: January 1, 2027 – This law enacts the Uniform Law Commission’s (ULC) Uniform Consumer Debt Default Judgments Act (UCDDJA), which aims to standardize the process for obtaining default judgments in consumer debt collection cases. It applies to unsecured consumer debts, secured consumer debts when seeking a money judgment, and deficiencies remaining after the disposition of secured property. The act mandates specific requirements for complaints in such cases, including detailed information about the consumer, the debt, and the plaintiff’s authority to collect it. The bill would also repeal the 2020 debt buyer statute and add specific requirements to UCDDJA for debt buyers that were contained in the 2020 law that did not contradict the act. [RMAI has been actively negotiating this bill for the past year. While RMAI would have preferred the model act as adopted by the ULC unedited, the bill does reflect most of the act. RMAI spent over three years as an observer on the ULC drafting committee to ensure the model act, if adopted by a state, worked for RMAI’s members. A portion of the model act was modeled on provisions contained in the RMAI Certification Program. RMAI is in support of its adoption.]
Vermont HB 385 – This bill would establish protections and remedies for victims of a debt arising from intimidation, violence, or domestic abuse. The bill requires specific documentation to substantiate claims of coerced debt, including police reports, court orders, and certifications from qualified professionals. Creditors are required to cease collection efforts upon receiving a debtor statement of coerced debt and adequate documentation and notify credit reporting agencies to delete adverse information related to such debts. The legislation also provides civil legal remedies, allowing debtors to defend against claims of coerced debt and hold perpetrators liable. Creditors can seek recovery from the perpetrators of coerced debt. [RMAI has retained a lobbyist. Through advocacy, testimony, and coordinating with the Vermont Bankers Association, RMAI has been able to obtain several favorable amendments.]
Oklahoma SB 546 Effective: January 1, 2027 – This law is a comprehensive consumer data privacy legislation setting forth consumer rights regarding the processing of personal data by businesses. The law includes an exemption for “a financial institution or data subject to Title V of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, 15 U.S.C., Section 6801 et seq.” [RMAI supported this legislation due to the GLBA exemptions and the lack of a private right of action.]
Oregon SB 1546 [Chapter 85] Effective: January 1, 2027 – This law establishes restrictions and requirements for operators of artificial intelligence companions and platforms within the state. The law defines “artificial intelligence companion” as “a system designed to simulate sustained, human-like platonic, intimate, or romantic relationships with users, while explicitly excluding customer service bots, certain video game software, and standard virtual assistants.” The definition excludes, among other things, “software that operates solely for the purpose of customer service or support” and “financial services.” [RMAI had a neutral stance on this legislation.]
Most collections teams want to modernize, but many are still stuck between digital ambition and digital maturity, download The 2026 Reality Check today.
Sixth Circuit Sanctions Attorneys for Fake Citations – Appeal Was “Frivolous as Argued”
A plaintiff brought numerous lawsuits against a city for defamation, First Amendment retaliation, and other assorted tort claims. The trial court dismissed the lawsuits as frivolous, sanctioned the attorney, and awarded the city its attorney’s fees. The plaintiff’s attorney appealed, challenging the court’s imposition of sanctions and denial of his motion for recusal. In that opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the trial court’s rulings.
In this separate opinion, the Sixth Circuit addressed the misconduct of plaintiff’s attorneys in their appellate briefing. The Court explained that in reviewing the attorneys’ briefings, “over two dozen fake citations and misrepresentations of fact” were found. The attorneys were ordered to:
- Explain why they should not be sanctioned;
- Provide a copy from Westlaw or LexisNexis of all the cases and authorities cited in all of the briefs filed;
- Highlight any material that they quoted from those cases;
- Tell the Court who wrote the briefs in each case;
- Tell the Court whether the briefs were ghostwritten in whole or in part;
- Tell the Court whether they used generative AI to write the briefs; and
- Explain how they cite-checked the briefs.
Instead, the attorneys “said the show cause order was ‘void on its face for failing to include a signature of an Article III judge,’ was ‘motivated by harassment of the Respondent attorneys,’ and ‘reflect[ed] illegal ex-parte [sic] communications within this Court.’”
The Court first noted that under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 (“Rule 38”), it “can ‘award just damages and single or double costs to the appellee’ when we ‘determine that an appeal is frivolous.’” It then explained the difference between appeals that are “frivolous as filed” versus “frivolous as argued.” “An appeal is frivolous as filed when ‘the judgment by the lower court was so plainly correct and the legal authority contrary to the appellant’s position so clear that there really is no appealable issue.’” On the other hand, “[a]n appeal is frivolous as argued when the appellant engages in ‘misconduct in arguing the appeal,’ like ‘distorting the record,’ ‘disregarding or mischaracterizing the clear authority against the appellant’s position,’ or ‘attempting to draw illogical deductions from the facts and the law.’”
Here, the court held:
[The] appeal is frivolous as argued because [the attorneys] submitted fake cases, and inventing case law is a misrepresentation of law. A fake opinion is not existing law, and citation to a fake opinion does not provide a non-frivolous ground for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law, or for establishing new law. An attempt to persuade a court or oppose an adversary by relying on fake opinions is an abuse of the adversary system.
Next, the Court stated that “Rule 38 alone is not ‘up to the task’ of sanctioning this conduct, because Rule 38 allows only for the imposition of costs and attorneys’ fees.” Therefore, believing that “other sanctions” were also in order, the Court imposed penalties pursuant to its “inherent authority,” explaining that “[i]nherent authority sanctions are appropriate only when the litigant has acted in bad faith or ‘willfully abused judicial processes.’”
Among other things, the Sixth Circuit ordered the attorneys to:
- Jointly and severally reimburse in full the appellees’ attorneys’ fees;
- Jointly and severally pay double costs to appellees for costs incurred on appeal; and
- Separately and individually pay $15,000 to the registry of the court as punitive sanctions.
Wisconsin Supreme Court Holds Remedy Offer to Individual Can Bar Class Certification
Gudex v. Franklin Collection Serv., 2026 WI 6, 31 N.W.3d 338
A consumer received a letter from a collection agency that she said made her feel confused and contained language that made her fear she might be sued. She filed a putative class action against the agency alleging it violated the Wisconsin Consumer Act (“WCA”) “by providing the false impression that [the agency] would sue [her].
The consumer notified the agency of her intent to seek monetary damages for the putative class. Section 426.110(4)(a) of the WCA provides: “At least 30 days or more prior to the commencement of a class action for damages pursuant to the provisions of this section, any party must:
- Notify the person against whom an alleged cause of action is asserted of the particular alleged claim or violation; and
- Demand that such person correct, or otherwise remedy the basis for the alleged claim.”
In response, the agency offered her individual relief consisting of: 1) actual damages and the WCA’s maximum statutory penalty of $1,000; 2) a promise that no further letters would be sent with the same language; and 3) entry of a voluntary stipulation of those terms. The agency believed that this would “constitute ‘an appropriate remedy’ under Wis. Stat. § 426.110(4)(c), and thus prohibit [the consumer’s] class action for damages from proceeding further.”
That section of the WCA provides: “Except as provided in par. (e) [relating to actions for injunctions], no action for damages may be maintained under this section if an appropriate remedy, which shall include actual damages and may include penalties, is given, or agreed to be given within a reasonable time, to such party within 30 days after receipt of such notice.”
The consumer rejected the offer, and the trial court granted her motion for class certification. It interpreted the offer to cure provision “to mean that an appropriate remedy must be offered to both [the consumer] and the members of the putative class.” The court of appeals affirmed the decision, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court granted the agency’s petition for review.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court noted that § 426.110(4)(c) “specifies that to avoid a class action for damages, ‘an appropriate remedy’ must be ‘given, or agreed to be given’ ‘to such party.’” The question was “who ‘such party’ refers to. Does it include the entire putative class, or just the prospective party plaintiff—here, [the consumer]?”
Analyzing the relevant sections of the WCA, the Court stated that “[t]ranslating the statutory rules to this case is straightforward. [The consumer] is the “party” who intended to and then did bring a class action lawsuit for damages. . . Paragraph (c) says that the class action suit for damages may not be maintained if [the agency] gave or agreed to give an appropriate remedy to the party who sent the notice. The litigation-commencing and notice-sending party is [the consumer], and [the consumer] alone.”
In conclusion, the Court stated:
In this case, the circuit court based its decision to certify the class in part on its legal conclusion that Wis. Stat. § 426.110(4)(c) requires a potential defendant to provide or agree to provide an appropriate remedy to the class, not just the party plaintiff. We disagree and hold that when a customer brings a class action for damages under § 426.110(4), § 426.110(4)(c) requires an appropriate remedy be given or agreed to be given to the party bringing suit, not to the putative class. Here, that means [the agency] may avoid the class action for damages if it gives or agrees to give appropriate relief within the meaning of the statute to [the consumer] herself.
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals and remanded the matter for further proceedings.
California Appeals Court Holds Injury Unnecessary in Fair Debt Buying Practices Act Lawsuit
Niemann v. LVNV Funding, LLC, No. H052797, 2026 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1733 (Mar. 13, 2026)
A collection agency, on behalf of a debt buyer, sent a collection letter to a consumer that included the various notice provisions required by the California Fair Debt Buying Practices Act, Cal Civ Code § 1788.52(d). However, the font was smaller than “12-point type” required by the statute. The consumer filed a class action based on the violation and the trial court granted the debt buyer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding that the consumer failed to allege actual harm or concrete injury. The consumer appealed.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal of California, Sixth Appellate District, reversed the trial court’s ruling. In an unpublished decision, it noted that the trial court’s decision was “before two different panels of this court ruled that the Act’s plain language ‘expressly authorizes consumers who receive noncompliant collection letters to sue for the violation of their statutory rights, and nothing in the statute suggests that any injury beyond the noncompliance is required to impose civil liability per named plaintiff.’” (Citing Chai v. Velocity Investments, LLC (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 1030, 1037, 1037-1038, 1040, 330 Cal. Rptr. 3d 11, and Guracar v. Student Loan Solutions, LLC (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 330, 346, 332 Cal. Rptr. 3d 742).
Section 1788.62 specifically provides that for individual or class actions, “a debt buyer that violates any provision of this title” “shall be liable” to the individual or each named plaintiff in a class for statutory damages. The Court concluded that “the Act unambiguously imposes liability on debt buyers for ‘any’ violation of the Act. Because the Act’s language on this point is unambiguous, its plain meaning controls.”
RMAI CONTINUES ITS ADVOCACY
RMAI is continuing its work on the legislative front working to prevent the passage of California AB 2746 (which does not appropriately define medical debt as this bill would broaden the definition to include any “credit card [that] allows for deferred interest purchases of a medical service, product, or device”). RMAI is currently fighting for a favorable outcome in other state proposed legislation including New York A. 3351, Illinois H.B. 3041,and Indiana S.B. 0085. Your donations help us continue to actively defend your rights. We hope that you will consider donating, in any amount, to RMAI’s Legislative Fund.
If you’d like to contribute to the Legislative Fund, you can Donate Here. We will add your Company name to our list of Legislative Fund contributors on our website.
About the Legislative Fund
RMAI actively monitors and responds to state and federal measures affecting how our members do business. Your contributions to the Legislative Fund extend the reach of RMAI’s advocacy across the country where and when needed. Read more about the Legislative Fund. Click here to see a list of current contributors on the right-side bar.
UPCOMING WEBINARS
Register for our May 14th, Ask Me Anything: Consumer Financial Law with Don Maurice webinar where participants are encouraged to submit any questions you have in advance of the webinar. Whether you are an attorney, compliance professional, or industry participant, this is your opportunity to dig into the complexities of the current landscape. Don is prepared to address a wide range of topics, including:
- Federal & State Regulations: Navigating the latest shifts in oversight.
- Litigation Trends: What the recent wave of consumer filings means for your business.
- Enforcement Priorities: Where regulators are focusing their energy right now.
- Compliance Challenges: Managing the lifecycle of consumer financial products.
- Ethics & Legislation: The impact of new laws and regulatory guidance.
Whether you are an attorney, compliance professional, or industry participant, this is your opportunity to dig into the complexities of the current landscape. Don is prepared to address a wide range of topics
Submit Your Questions Early
To ensure we cover as much ground as possible, Don will be reviewing questions in advance to provide the most comprehensive insights during the live session. While we may not be able to address every submission live, all questions will help shape the discussion.
Click Here to Submit Your Questions & Hypotheticals. All questions are due by May 7, 2026.
Why Attend?
This format was inspired by member feedback and is tailored to provide direct value. No canned presentations—just real talk on the legal and regulatory issues that matter most to your practice and your organization.
Register for our May 28th, Making Government Investigation Meet and Confers Matter – Collaborative Approaches that Work webinar where our panelists Vaishali Rao, Chris Asbrock and Megan Stoppel, will reveal how a collaborative mindset can turn routine discussions into opportunities for meaningful agreement.
RECORDED WEBINARS
Recorded on March 24, 2026 you can register for The Big Apple’s Big Changes: A Survivor’s Guide to the DCWP Final Rule where our presenters will strip away the legal jargon and look at the reality of the September 1, 2026 effective date, tackle the heavy lifting required to get your business compliant and explore the “grey areas” where you’ll need to make the tough calls on operationalizing these mandates.
Click here for more information on our live and recorded educational webinars. Contact Shannon Parod-Tsui at [email protected] to find out more about sponsoring an RMAI webinar.
Congratulations to our new and renewed Certified Receivables Compliance Professionals (CRCP) & Certified Receivables Businesses (CRB)!
CRCP NEW
Darryl Atkinson, Second Round
Deborah Roberts, BK Debt Services
Kenneth Rozicki, Alliant Capital Management
Eric Thut, National Enterprise Systems
Laura Vasquez, Crown Asset Management
CRCP RENEWALS
Kala Alexander, EverChain
Brian Bowers, Financial Recovery Services
Michael Druckman, Pharus Funding
Patricia Druckman, Pharus Funding
Andrea Goist, Velocity Portfolio Group
Susan Guevera, PRA Group
Lori Hess, National Credit Adjusters
Bryan Hosto, Converging Capital
Jill Katz, NMRC
Kenneth Lewis, Andreu Palma Lewis & Solls
Sergio Martinez, Radius Global Solutions
Brittan Robinson, Stone, Higgs, & Drexler
Elizabeth Schaefer, Grassy Sprain Group
Michael Sheehan, Revenue Assistance Corporation dba Revenue Group
Leo Stawiarski Jr, LCS Financial Services
Demetrios Tsarhouis, Tsarhouis Law Group
CRB NEW
Align Balance
CRB RENEWALS
Converging Capital
View all certified businesses and vendors.
View all certified individuals.
TURN IN YOUR CREDIT FORMS FROM THE ANNUAL CONFERENCE
If you attended the Annual Conference and earned either certification credits or CLE credits, please make sure to turn in your appropriate credit form so we can get those processed.
If you were taking education for Individual certification, please send us your completed application and any certificates of completion to support your 24 education credits.
Contact Shannon Parod-Tsui @ [email protected] or call 916-482-2590.
View our full list of certification resources.
RMAI Digital Dispatch
RMAI’s spring publication is just around the corner! Launching this May, the Digital Dispatch will be available to all primary contacts as well as additional membership representatives as a digital flipbook. You can add additional membership representatives by completing the online registration form. Keep an eye out for RMAI’s email distribution and website!
Refer a Friend!
Do you know someone who would make a great RMAI member? Share the perks of your RMAI membership and direct them towards our online application! Offer to be a reference for them to streamline their application process. Now through June 30th, 2026, new member applicants will receive 25% off member dues! For questions or resources regarding membership, contact Nicole Canon.
Get Involved!
Looking to dig deeper into RMAI? Getting involved maximizes your membership through intimate industry connections and exposure. Involvement opportunities range from sponsorship and advertising to publishing an article! Publications and blog posts from our members allow them to highlight personal experiences, industry trends and developments, profiles, and news. Contact Aurora Sain to submit news, articles, and press releases. For advertisement opportunities, contact Nicole Canon.
Welcome New Members –
- PMD Investing, LLC | MI
- Manulife/Comvest Credit Partners/OAG | FL
- Vodex AI, Inc. | DE
- Moveo AI | NY
- Marshall Law LLC | IN
- Caddis Funding, LLC | SC
For a complete list of RMAI members, login to check out the Member Directory.
2026 RMAI Executive Summit| August 4-6, 2026
RMAI LEGISLATIVE FUND CONTRIBUTORS APRIL 1, 2025 – APRIL 14, 2026
DIAMOND
Absolute Resolutions Corp.
Cavalry Investments, LLC
Crown Asset Management, LLC
Midland Credit Management
PRA Group, Inc.
Resurgent Holdings, LLC
Second Round, LP
Velocity Portfolio Group, Inc.
TITANIUM
Financial Recovery Services, Inc.
Stenger & Stenger P.C.
TRAKAmerica
PLATINUM
Blitt and Gaines, P.C.
Cascade365 Family of Companies
Garnet Capital Advisors, LLC
Halsted Financial Services, LLC
InvestiNet, LLC
Pharus Funding, LLC
Plaza Services
Rausch Sturm, LLP
T & I Enterprises, LLC
TrueAccord
GOLD
Klima, Peters & Daly, P.A.
SILVER
Andreu, Palma, Lavin & Solis, PLLC
D & A Services, LLC
DebtNext Software, LLC
Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC
National Credit Adjusters, LLC
Pressler, Felt and Warshaw, LLP
Security Credit Services, LLC
Velo Law Office
BRONZE
Central Portfolio Control, Inc
Couch Lambert
Mountain Peak Law Group, PC
Stillman Law Office
Tromberg, Miller, Morris & Partners, PLLC
Troy Capital, LLC
BRASS
Advancial Federal Credit Union
Aldridge Pite Haan, LLP
American Coradius International LLC
Arko Consulting LLC
ARM Compliance Business Solutions LLC
Balbec Capital
Bankrupt Debt Services
Basham & Scott, LLC
Bread Financial
Buffaloe & Vallejo, PLC
Call Center Services International
CASA Receivables Management, LLC
CBE Companies
CNG/Axcess Financial Services, Inc.
Collection Attorneys USA LLC
CompuMail Information Systems
Connect International
ConServe
Cornerstone Licensing Services
Cozen O’Connor
Credit Brokers LLC
Credit Control, LLC
Exelero Corp.
FDR Alliance LLC
Floatbot, Inc
FLOCK Specialty Finance
FMA Alliance, Ltd
FMS, Inc.
- Reynolds Sims & Associates, P.C.
Genesis Recovery Services
Gordon, Aylworth & Tami, P.C.
Grassy Sprain Group, Inc
Guglielmo & Associates, PLLC
Invenio Financial, a Phillips & Cohen Associates company
Kino Financial Co., LLC
Latitude Software
LexisNexis Risk Solutions
Mandarich Law Group LLP
Markoff Law LLC
National Enterprise Systems, Inc.
National Loan Exchange, Inc.
National Recovery Associates, Inc.
NCB Management Services, Inc.
NICE
Nutun CX (PTY) LTD
Nuvei Technologies Inc.
Orbita Capital Group, LLC
PCI Group Inc.
Phin Solutions, LLC
Premier Bankcard
Premium Asset Recovery Corp (PARC)
Primeritus Financial Services, Inc.
Quality Acceptance
RevSpring
Risk Strategies
Robinson Hoover & Fudge, PLLC
Roosen, Varchetti & Olivier, PLLC
SAM – Solutions for Account Management, Inc.
Scott & Associates, PC
Shepherd Outsourcing, LLC
Stone, Higgs & Drexler
Suttell & Hammer
The Cadle Company
The Forwarders List of Attorneys
The Moore Law Group
The Oakes Law Firm, LLC
Tobin & Marohn
Troutman Pepper Locke
VeriFacts, LLC.
Vertican Technologies, Inc.
Womble Bond Dickinson
World Credit Recovery LLC
Yrefy, LLC
OTHER
Cohen & Cohen Law, LLC
Consuegra & Duffy, PLLC
Converging Capital, LLC
Convoke, Inc.
Credit Management Corporation
D1AL
David Reid
Debt Sales Partners
First National Collection Bureau
ForgiveCo PBC Inc
Hilco Receivables, LLC
Indiana Receivables, Inc.
Kompato AI Inc.
National Recovery Solutions, LLC
Poser Investments, Inc.
Pro Forma Inc
Rossman Kirk, PLLC
SCJ Commercial Financial Services
Smith Debnam Narron Drake Saintsing & Myers, LLP
Sonnek & Goldblatt, Ltd.
Superlative RM
The Law Offices of Ronald S. Canter, LLC
Vargo & Janson, P.C.