RMAI Update August 2026

In a series of recent Capitol Hill meetings, RMAI met with several congressional offices to discuss issues impacting the receivables industry. Discussions focused on medical debt, particularly the varying definitions across several bipartisan bills and the challenges created by differing state definitions. RMAI also discussed the future of the CFPB, complaint portal abuse, and credit repair and “finfluencer” activity.

There are extremely limited paths forward for federal legislation during the current congressional session. However, the bills discussed may serve as placeholders for future legislation in subsequent Congresses, making it important to identify and address potential challenges early in the process.

At the CFPB, Mark Paoletta became Acting Director on August 1 following the expiration of Russ Vought’s allowable tenure under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act. Paoletta, who had been serving as Deputy Director, is expected to provide continuity with the Bureau’s current regulatory, supervisory, and enforcement direction. He will serve while Brian Johnson’s nomination for permanent Director remains pending before the Senate.

The CFPB reported that it plans to release Company Portal updates in late August aimed at improving complaint integrity, including expanding two-factor authentication to existing accounts. Existing users will be required to verify a mobile phone number through an SMS code.

The Portal will also begin showing how each complaint was received, such as online, phone, mail, or referral from Congress, the White House, or another government agency. The intent of these changes is to help companies better understand a complaint’s origin and determine whether additional verification may be appropriate.

This week, the FTC obtained a temporary court order halting an alleged credit repair scheme involving Credit Glory, 16 related entities, and five principals. The FTC alleges the operation collected nearly $200 million through unlawful upfront and recurring fees while making misleading credit repair promises and, in some cases, impersonating creditors or debt collectors. The FTC alleges the companies disputed legitimate debts and sometimes filed false identity theft reports through IdentityTheft.gov without consumers’ knowledge.

Over the past year, RMAI has engaged with the FTC on issues involving credit repair activity and its impact on the receivables industry, sharing industry perspectives and examples to help inform the agency’s work. Additionally, RMAI has also advocated for greater scrutiny of questionable fraud affidavits and other documentation used to dispute legitimate debts, including instances involving incomplete or potentially misleading information. These discussions have focused on protecting consumers while reducing abuse of processes intended to address legitimate fraud and credit reporting concerns.

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:

Michigan HB 6205 – This bill would codify new exemptions from garnishment, including means-tested public assistance, unemployment compensation, federal and state earned income tax credits, disability benefits, and worker’s disability compensation benefits. The bill also sets the following limits on the amount of wages subject to garnishment: (1) for weekly gross wages up to $1,925, only the lesser of 20% of garnishable earnings or the amount exceeding 30 times the federal minimum wage can be garnished and (2) for wages above $1,925 per week, up to 30% of garnishable earnings may be garnished. [These changes aim to provide clearer protections for certain types of income and set more precise limits on wage garnishment, aligning with efforts to safeguard low-income individuals and those receiving public benefits from excessive debt collection.]

Pennsylvania HB 801 – This bill would enact 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. [RMAI spent over three years as an observer on the ULC drafting committee to ensure the uniform act, if adopted by a state, worked for RMAI’s members. A portion of the uniform act was modeled on provisions contained in the RMAI Certification Program. RMAI is in support of its adoption. The UCDDJA has been adopted into law in Virginia and Washington.]

Pennsylvania HB 1731 – This bill would enact the Consumer Debt Collection Fairness Act which would require debt collectors and debt buyers to provide the following documentation in a summons and complaint when initiating legal action: (1) the name of the original creditor; (2) the last four digits of the account number; (3) an itemized statement of the amount owed (including charge-off balance, post-charge-off interest or fees, and payments or credits applied); (4) proof of ownership of the debt (with a chain of title if the debt has been sold); and (5) a copy of the original contract or charge-off statement demonstrating the consumer’s liability. The bill also reduces the statute of limitations from 4 to 3 years. Furthermore, courts are prohibited from entering default judgments in consumer debt cases unless the plaintiff submits an affidavit of facts based on personal knowledge, all required documentation, and proof that the consumer was properly served and notified of their rights. Each lawsuit must also include a separate “Notice of Consumer Rights,” informing the consumer of their right to dispute the debt, request documentation, and seek legal assistance. [RMAI opposes this legislation. RMAI feels that the Uniform Law Commission’s uniform act of default judgments is a much better vehicle for reform. RMAI has retained a lobbyist to advocate our position.]

Seventh Circuit Rules No Private Right of Action for Text Messages Under TCPA § 227(c)(5)
Seth Steidinger et al. v. Blackstone Medical Services, No. 25-2398, 2026 WL 2028517 (7th Cir. July 14, 2026).

Consumers received numerous marketing text messages from a company which continued even after they replied “STOP” to the messages and added their numbers to the National Do-Not-Call Registry.  The consumers then filed a consolidated class action complaint alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. § 227.

The company moved to dismiss the TCPA claims, arguing that the provision under which the plaintiffs filed suit, § 227(c)(5), did not apply to text messages. The district court agreed, finding that § 227(c)(5), “which creates a private right of action for those who have received unwanted telephone calls, does not cover text messages.”  The consumers appealed.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit stated the appeal turned on a single issue: “whether text messages are telephone calls within the meaning of § 227(c)(5).”  That section states, in part:

A person who has received more than one telephone call within any 12-month period by or on behalf of the same entity in violation of the regulations prescribed under this subsection may, if otherwise permitted by the laws or rules of court of a State bring in an appropriate court of that State–

• • an action based on a violation of the regulations prescribed under this subsection to enjoin such violation,
  • an action to recover for actual monetary loss from such a violation, or to receive up to $500 in damages for each such violation, whichever is greater, or
  • both such actions.

The Court began by noting it was undisputed “that ‘telephone call’ couldn’t have been thought to cover text messages when the TCPA was enacted in 1991, because the first text message was not sent until the following year.”  Additionally, the dictionary definition of “telephone” in 1991 was “an instrument for reproducing sounds at a distance,” and “[t]ext messages do not reproduce sounds, suggesting that they do not qualify as a new application of telephone call within the meaning of that term.”

The Court also noted that “other subsections of § 227(c) consistently use the term ‘telephone solicitation,’ which the TCPA defines as ‘the initiation of a telephone call or message . . . [y]et § 227(c)(5) only creates a private right of action for the receipt of more than one ‘telephone call’ within a 12-month period. It doesn’t mention telephone messages, nor does it use the more encompassing term, telephone solicitation.”

The Court concluded:

Repeated, unwanted text messages are undoubtedly a nuisance. But they do not fall within the private right of action created by § 227(c)(5). Instead, spam messages may be curbed through agency action pursuant to other provisions of § 227, which we leave undisturbed. The district court’s rejection of the plaintiffs’ TCPA claims was appropriate, as was its dismissal of the present suit.

Tenth Circuit Establishes “Objectively and Readily Verifiable” FCRA Standard
Ward v. Nat’l Credit Sys., Inc., No. 25-1078, 2026 WL 2083123, at *___ (10th Cir. July 20, 2026).

A consumer’s daughter used the consumer’s personal information to apply for a rental property in the consumer’s name. After she failed to pay rent, she was evicted and a default judgment was entered against the consumer.  The debt was then assigned to a collection agency which reported the debt to credit reporting agencies (CRAs).

The consumer claimed he first learned of the rental in his name when he tried to refinance his mortgage.  He then filed disputes with the CRAs claiming identity theft, filed a FTC Identity Theft Report and Affidavit, in which he stated he had not authorized anyone to use his personal information for the rental. However, the collection agency discovered information that indicated the consumer may have been aware of his daughter’s activities and, after verifying the amount of the debt and “identifying documents” were correct, concluded the furnished information was correct and continued to report the debt.

The consumer sued the collection agency alleging it negligently failed to conduct a reasonable investigation of his dispute in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).  The collection agency moved for summary judgement, arguing that the consumer’s “negligence claim failed because he could not show [the collection agency] reported an inaccurate debt or that it conducted an unreasonable investigation.”  It also argued that the claim of identity theft “was not cognizable under the FCRA” because it raised a legal dispute.

The trial court denied the motion, and a jury returned a verdict for the consumer and awarded him $500,000 for alleged emotional distress.  The collection agency then moved for judgment as a matter of law, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b), arguing the “claim was not cognizable under the FCRA because it raised a legal dispute,” and “was not actionable because the information in dispute was not objectively and readily verifiable as inaccurate.”  The motion was denied and the collection agency appealed.

On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit explained that 15 U.S.C. § 1681o provides for a consumer to receive actual damages if a furnisher negligently fails to do the following, as required by § 1681s-2(b):

1. investigate the disputed information;
2. review all relevant information provided by the CRA;
3. report the results of the investigation to the CRA;
4. report the results of the investigation to all other CRAs if the investigation reveals that the information is incomplete or inaccurate; and
5. modify, delete, or permanently block the reporting of the disputed information if it is determined to be inaccurate, incomplete, or unverifiable.

It admitted, though, that it had “yet to authoritatively state whether an unreasonable-investigation claim under § 1681s-2(b) requires a consumer to prove the disputed information was in fact inaccurate.”

Reviewing opinions from other circuits, the Court joined the First, Fourth, and Eleventh Circuits in concluding that “a consumer must make a prima facie showing that the disputed information was in fact inaccurate or incomplete to prevail on a § 1681s-2(b) unreasonable-investigation claim.”

The Court concluded:

[F]or a consumer to establish a prima facie case under § 1681s-2(b) of the FCRA, the consumer must at least establish that: (1) he disputed the information through a CRA; (2) the information was in fact inaccurate or incomplete; (3) the furnisher’s investigation of his dispute was unreasonable; (4) he suffered an injury; and (5) the furnisher’s unreasonable investigation was the actual cause of his injury.

Following the Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Eleventh Circuits, the Court also determined that “under the FCRA ‘reported information is actionably inaccurate only if that information is objectively and readily verifiable’ by the furnisher as containing a mistake or error.”

Here, the Court found that the consumer’s claim did not meet this standard because the veracity of his identity theft assertion was not objectively verifiable, and the available objective evidence discovered by the collection agency suggested his involvement in the debt.   The court emphasized that a furnisher’s obligation to investigate is triggered only when the information is in fact inaccurate or incomplete.

Therefore, the court reversed and vacated the district court’s judgment against the collection agency and remanded with direction to enter judgment for the collection agency.

Seventh Circuit Rules CRAs Not Responsible for Inaccuracies that Require Legal Interpretation
Cassandra Sykes v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., No. 25-2279, 2026 WL 2198314 (7th Cir. July 30, 2026).

A consumer executed a deed in lieu of foreclosure in 2016 and subsequently filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy in 2018, receiving a discharge. The discharge did not specifically mention the mortgage debt.  A credit reporting agency (CRA) reported the events on the consumer’s credit report, including a past due balance and a future balloon payment on her mortgage account.  The consumer filed a lawsuit against the CRA alleging it violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) when it “conveyed a misleading impression of her credit status by reporting her bankruptcy as discharged while also reporting the mortgage account as an outstanding obligation,” and that the CRA “failed to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy in reporting information on the mortgage account.”

The CRA moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the consumer “failed to allege a factual inaccuracy or that [the CRA] knew that her mortgage debt had been discharged.”  The trial court granted the motion and the consumer appealed.

On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit noted that the FCRA, § 1681e, requires CRAs to “follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates.”  However, after a review of several of its previous FCRA opinions, the Court explained:

It is clear from these cases that CRAs must report facts that are ascertainable from available records (including legal documents) but have no obligation to discern the meaning of those documents. That is, the FCRA does not require CRAs to resolve legal disputes, interpret contracts or statutes, or determine the validity or enforceability of debts.

Here, since the discharge order was silent regarding the mortgage, the CRA would only have known of its discharge by performing legal analysis “on the effect of (1) the deed in lieu of foreclosure on her mortgage status (secured versus unsecured), and (2) the discharge order on that debt.”  The Court reiterated “[t]hat is exactly the type of determination we have held is beyond the scope of a CRA’s responsibility under § 1681e(b).”

Accordingly, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court.

Make a Donation to RMAI’s Legislative Fund
Thank you to those who donated to the Legislative Fund with the purchase of golf mulligans at the recent Executive Summit in Stevenson, WA! We raised $2,300 to help RMAI continue to engage and educate legislators across the country.  We are currently tracking over 700 bills to advocate for the industry and protect the business interests of our members. RMAI puts every dollar donated towards this continued advocacy, and we thank those who have made contributions to the Legislative Fund this year.

If you have not yet donated this year, please consider making a contribution to the RMAI Legislative Fund. You can make a one-time donation or even sign up for quarterly or monthly donations. Remember that together, we can make a difference! If you would like to contribute to the Legislative Fund and be featured on our website, you can donate here. You can view a list of current Legislative Fund donors here.

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.

Upcoming Webinars

Register for our August 18th webinar, AMA: Enforcement Trends, Litigation Risk, Recent Legislation and a Last Call For NYC Readiness. Our presenter, Don Maurice with Maurice Wutscher LLP, will cover key enforcement trends at the federal and state levels, evolving litigation risks, and recent legislative and regulatory activities covering junk fees, coerced debt and the use of AI in consumer financial products and services. Don will also touch on readiness issues concerning the amended NYC debt collection rules.

Register for our September 3rd webinar, Defeating Credit Repair Schemes in 2026. Our presenters, John Rossman with Rossman Kirk and Stephanine Rhay with IQOR, will explore the latest credit-repair strategies, including “credit sweeps,” mass and repetitive disputes, social-media-driven tactics, and high-volume dispute activity by credit-repair companies and law firms.

Register for our September 15th webinar, UDAAP by Analogy – Using Other Federal and State Statutes to Define and Enforce UDAAPs. Our presenters, Stefanie Jackman with Troutman Pepper Locke, Jo Ann Needleman with Clark Hill and Manny Newburger with Barron & Newburger, P.C., will provide an in-depth examination of UDAAP, exploring how both federal and state laws define unfair, deceptive, and misleading practices. We’ll also examine statutes such as FDCPA Section 15 U.S.C. § 1692d, which state regulators frequently rely on when pursuing state-level UDAAP actions – even against businesses that may not traditionally fall within the statute’s scope.

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), & and new and renewed Certified Receivables Business (CRB)!

CRCP New
Guy Fiorito, Velocity Portfolio Group
Michael Klein, Cavalry Portfolio Services
Danny Mezzencello, Absolute Resolutions Corp.

CRCP Renewals
Michael Adams, Cavalry Portfolio Services
Debra Ciskey, ARM Compliance Business Solutions
Jenny DeHoyos, Capio
Jon Gluckner, The Cadle Company
Al Hochheiser, Maurice Wutscher
Dean Hoover, Collection Attorneys USA
Monica Johnson, Absolute Resolutions Corp
Scott Kulaga, Halsted Financial Services
James Magnuson, Absolute Resolutions Corp
Colene McNinch, McNinja
Susan Namm, Velocity Portfolio Group
Sachit Rajan, Charter Mercantile Pty Ltd
Amber Russo, Kino Financial Co

CRB New
Top Line Collectors

CRB Renewal
Landmark Strategy Group
Recovery Management Solutions
Scott & Associates

View all certified businesses and vendors.
View all certified individuals.

Resources for Individual and Business/Vendor Certification
RMAI has developed certification resources for our members who are going through the individual or business/vendor certification and aren’t sure where to start or aren’t sure how long the process takes. These easy to follow resources will help you feel less intimidated and more confident in how to obtain certification at any level.

Individual Certification

• CRCP Timeline
• 7 Steps to Earn a Certified Receivables Compliance Professional (CRCP) Designation

Business/Vendor Certification

• CRB Timeline
• 7 Steps to Earn the Certified Receivables Business (CRB) Designation
• 7 Steps to Earn the Certified Receivables Vendor (CRV) Designation

View our full list of certification resources.

RMAI Membership Renewals Are Coming on October 1st
Be on the lookout for your 2027 renewal invoice which will be distributed on October 1^st. Things to review on your invoice include:

• Confirming the Primary Contact is accurate
• Confirming the correct Paid Additional Representatives, if applicable.
  • If you have updates (additions, removals, or substitutions of an existing representative for another employee), please provide those edits upon renewing. You can do this by mailing in your invoice and writing in the updates, or you can reach out to our Membership Marketing Coordinator, Nicole Canon at [email protected] and she will make the updates for you.
• Donate to RMAI’s Legislative Fund
• Take note of the voluntary donation on your invoice which goes toward RMAI’s Legislative Fund. You may choose to donate the suggested amount or an amount of your own choosing. All donations help RMAI to continue to fight for our industry across the nation!

Q4 Membership Promotion Starts October 1^st – Refer a Peer
Beginning October 1^st, our Q4 new membership offer ‘15 months for the price of 12’ will also take effect, making it a great time to refer an industry peer to join RMAI! If you know someone who would make a great member, let them know that new members joining October 1^st – December 31^st will receive membership for the remainer of 2026 through December 2027.

Offer to be a reference for them and direct them to our online application to take the first step towards membership. RMAI thanks you for your membership and your continued support, and we look forward to another amazing year with you!

Welcome, New Members
Pittenger Law Group, LLC | KS
Womens Financial Services Collective | TX
iTuring.ai | CA
Kream and Kream Attorney at Law | MA
Bell Mercantile Pty Ltd | Victoria
Comply Knight LLC | NY
Credit First National Association | OH
GAR Capital e Gestao Ltda | Brazil
Pinnacle Bank | FL

For a complete list of RMAI members (including contact information), login to check out the Member Directory.

2026 RMAI Executive Summit | August 4-6, 2026

2027 Annual Conference | February 8-11, 2027

RMAI LEGISLATIVE FUND CONTRIBUTORS AUGUST 1, 2025 – AUGUST 13, 2026

 

DIAMOND ($50,000+)

Crown Asset Management, LLC

PRA Group, Inc.

Resurgent Holdings, LLC

TITANIUM ($25,000+)

Absolute Resolutions Corp.

Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC

Midland Credit Management

Second Round, LP

TRAKAmerica

PLATINUM ($10,000+)

Blitt and Gaines, P.C.

Cascade365 Family of Companies

Financial Recovery Services, Inc.

First Financial Asset Management, Inc. (FFAM 360)

Garnet Capital Advisors, LLC

Halsted Financial Services, LLC

InvestiNet, LLC

Pharus Funding, LLC

Plaza Services

Rausch Sturm, LLP

Stenger & Stenger P.C.

T & I Enterprises, LLC

TrueAccord

GOLD ($5,000+)

Andreu, Palma, Lavin & Solis,  PLLC

D & A Services, LLC

Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC

Klima, Peters & Daly, P.A.

National Credit Adjusters, LLC

Pressler, Felt and Warshaw, LLP

Provana, LLC

Security Credit Services, LLC

Tromberg, Miller, Morris & Partners, PLLC

Velo Law Office

SILVER ($2,500+)

Central Portfolio Control, Inc

Corporate Advisory Solutions, LLC

Kino Financial Co., LLC

Mountain Peak Law Group, PC

Troutman Pepper Locke

Troy Capital, LLC

CONTRIBUTORS

Advancial Federal Credit Union

Aldridge Pite Haan, LLP

American Coradius International LLC

Arko Consulting LLC

ARM Compliance Business Solutions LLC

ARS National Services, Inc.

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.

Cohen & Cohen Law, LLC

Collection Attorneys USA LLC

CompuMail Information Systems

Connect International

ConServe

Consuegra & Duffy, PLLC

Converging Capital, LLC

Convoke, Inc.

Cornerstone Licensing Services

Cozen O’Connor

Credit Brokers LLC

Credit Control, LLC

Credit Management Corporation

D1AL

David Reid

Debt Sales Partners

Exelero Corp.

FDR Alliance LLC

First National Collection Bureau

Floatbot, Inc

FLOCK Specialty Finance

FMA Alliance, Ltd

FMS, Inc.

ForgiveCo PBC Inc

G. Reynolds Sims & Associates, P.C.

Genesis Recovery Services

Gordon, Aylworth & Tami, P.C.

Grassy Sprain Group, Inc

Guglielmo & Associates, PLLC

Healthcare Finance Direct, LLC

Hilco Receivables, LLC

Indiana Receivables, Inc.

Invenio Financial, a Phillips & Cohen Associates company

JT Lawson, LLC

Kompato AI Inc.

Landmark Strategy Group, 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.

National Recovery Solutions, LLC

NCB Management Services, Inc.

NICE

Nutun CX (PTY) LTD

Nuvei Technologies Inc.

Orbita Capital Group, LLC

Overtime.ai

PCI Group Inc.

Phin Solutions, LLC

Poser Investments, Inc.

Premier Bankcard

Premium Asset Recovery Corp (PARC)

Primeritus Financial Services, Inc.

Pro Forma Inc

Quality Acceptance

Quantum3 Group, LLC

RevSpring

Risk Strategies

Robinson Hoover & Fudge, PLLC

Roosen, Varchetti & Olivier, PLLC

Rossman Kirk, PLLC

SAM – Solutions for Account Management, Inc.

SCJ Commercial Financial Services

Scott & Associates, PC

Shepherd Outsourcing, LLC

Smith Debnam Narron Drake Saintsing & Myers, LLP

Solvo Solutions, LLC

Sonnek & Goldblatt, Ltd.

Stone, Higgs & Drexler

Superlative RM

Suttell & Hammer

The Cadle Company

The Forwarders List of Attorneys

The Law Offices of Ronald S. Canter, LLC

The Moore Law Group

The Oakes Law Firm, LLC

The Receivers Office

Tobin & Marohn

Vargo & Janson, P.C.

Velocity Portfolio Group, Inc.

VeriFacts, LLC.

Womble Bond Dickinson

World Credit Recovery LLC

Yrefy, LLC