In This Update
Recent activity in Washington, DC includes a focus on fraud prevention, consumer complaint processes, and the evolving structure of federal financial regulators. Several legislative proposals and regulatory developments could influence the operating environment for RMAI members.
On Capitol Hill, Senators Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) and Bernie Moreno (R-OH) have introduced the SCAM Act (S. 3774), legislation aimed to combat online fraud by imposing new obligations on social media platforms. Under the proposal, platforms would be required to screen advertisers, verify user identities, implement fraud detection systems, promptly investigate scam reports, and remove fraudulent advertisements within defined timeframes. Greater scrutiny of online advertising may curb fraudulent debt management schemes that frequently circulate on social media.
Representative Andy Barr (R-KY) has introduced the Eliminating Fraud in the CFPB’s Complaint Database Act (H.R. 7588). The proposal would alter the operation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s complaint portal. Key provisions include requiring consumers to submit verified and sworn statements with complaints, directing consumers to first contact the company involved before filing with the Bureau, allowing companies to dismiss certain complaints, and removing public access to complaint narratives. The bill reflects ongoing concerns about inaccurate or duplicative complaints appearing in the database.
Moving legislation through Congress remains a challenge.
Relatedly, RMAI recently submitted comments to the CFPB in response to a public notice on the consumer intake form of the CFPB complaint portal. RMAI recommended the CFPB strengthen the verification processes to prevent third-party misuse and ensure complaints provide practical value to respondents. Additionally, RMAI noted the need to reduce unnecessary reporting fields in the consumer intake form, update the burden estimates to reflect real compliance costs, and ensure the system aligns with the CFPB’s prior representations under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Litigation surrounding the CFPB itself remains active. Last month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard arguments related to the Trump administration’s effort to significantly reduce the agency’s operations. Acting Director Russ Vought previously sought to dismiss a large portion of the agency’s staff. While the administration has expressed support for downsizing the Bureau, government attorneys argued in court that the CFPB will continue carrying out its statutory responsibilities with a smaller workforce. Meanwhile, nearly 200 members of Congress filed an amicus brief opposing efforts to dismantle the Bureau.
At the Federal Communications Commission, regulators are considering proposals intended to encourage companies to bring call center jobs back to the United States and improve service quality. Proposals under discussion include requiring call center agents to be proficient in American Standard English and examining tools such as tariffs or bonds to address robocalls originating from overseas. The proposals remain under review as RMAI assess which industries would fall within their scope.
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:
Indiana SB 197 – This bill would increase the 30x federal minimum wage garnishment exemption to 83x federal minimum wage. It would also establish increase the bank exemption from $300 to $1,500. [This bill would increase the annual exemption by 175 percent – from $11,310 to $31,200. While RMAI would agree that an increase in the exemption is probably warranted, RMAI believes the increase is too dramatic. RMAI retained a lobbyist to seek amendments to the bill consistent with RMAI policy on garnishment. The bill has died in 2026 but is expected to be reintroduced in some form in 2027.]
Indiana SB 225 [Chapter 124] Effective: July 1, 2026 – This bill had a definition of “medical debt” that exempted financial institutions but did not exempt 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.]
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 will be testifying to obtain amendments at the Maryland Statehouse on March 11.]
Virginia HB 444 – This bill would enact 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 is in support of its adoption. The bill has passed both houses and will be enacted pending the Governor’s signature.]
Virginia SB 189 – This bill would create a new prohibited practice related to consumer debt collection proceedings. Specifically, it requires that in any civil action or legal proceeding to collect or enforce a consumer debt, the attorney of record must provide the consumer with their full name and Virginia State Bar number, business address, direct telephone number and email address, and, if different, the direct contact information for the office or individual responsible for handling the consumer’s account. This information must be included in the initial pleading or any subsequent filing by the attorney. [RMAI is opposed to this bill. We feel the prohibitions are unnecessary. RMAI believes a better approach to reform would be Virginia HB 444. This bill has died.]
Washington SB 5720 – 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. 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. The bill has passed both houses and will be enacted pending the Governor’s signature.]
Vermont HB 385 – This bill would establish protections and remedies for victims of a debt incurred 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 – This is comprehensive consumer data privacy legislation setting forth consumer rights regarding the processing of personal data by businesses. The bill 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.” [The bill has passed both chambers and is now awaiting concurrence on House amendments. RMAI supported this legislation due to the GLBA exemptions and the lack of a private right of action.]
Oregon SB 1546 – This bill establishes restrictions and requirements for operators of artificial intelligence companions and platforms within the state. The bill 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.” [The bill has passed both chambers and will now go to the governor for signature.]
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 Holds Website’s “Hybrid” Offer Reasonably Conspicuous for Arbitration Agreement
Dahdah v. Rocket Mortg., LLC, 166 F.4th 556 (6th Cir. 2026)
On several occasions a consumer visited a mortgage-referral website affiliated with a mortgage lender. The consumer entered personal information, including his phone number, and clicked various buttons to obtain refinancing estimates. The webpages stated that by clicking the button a user acknowledged and agreed to the Terms of Use, which were accessible by hyperlink and contained an arbitration provision. The consumer never entered into financial transaction with the lender.
Although the consumer’s cellphone number was listed on the National Do-Not-Call Registry, he later received numerous telemarking calls from the lender and filed a putative class action lawsuit alleging the lender violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) by calling consumers on the Do-Not-Call Registry, calling consumers who had opted out of communications, and calling at prohibited hours.
The lender moved to compel arbitration since the consumer had repeatedly interacted with the website which included an arbitration provision. The trial court denied the motion and the lender appealed.
On appeal, the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals described the scenario as involving a “hybrid” offer which includes a hyperlink to a proposal’s terms. “Yet unlike clickwrap offers, the offers do not call the user’s specific attention to the terms through a pop-up box or similar feature that requires them to click an explicit ‘I agree’ button. Rather, the websites include language that the users will manifest their acceptance if they take other action (such as creating an account or clicking an entry button).”
To determine the enforceability of the arbitration agreement, the Court analyzed whether there had been “offer” and “acceptance” of the agreement, with emphasis on whether the website provided reasonably conspicuous notice that clicking the button would signify assent to the Terms of Use. The Court addressed four questions to determine “whether a ‘reasonably prudent Internet user’ would have found a website’s proposed terms ‘conspicuous.’”
- “Did the website display the offer on an ‘uncluttered’ page, or on a page filled with items that will ‘draw the user’s attention away from’ the proposal?” The Court found that the webpage in question “followed a ‘simple design’ that did not contain much clutter.”
- “Did the website operator place the proposed offer close to—or away from—the button that a user must click to signal the user’s acceptance of the proposal?” The Court observed that “the ‘spatial and temporal coupling’ of the proposal with the key buttons made it even more conspicuous.” Any proposal generated was placed “directly below the action button on each of the pages . . . it used a ‘dynamic scrolling function’ in which these pages automatically scrolled down as users inputted information in the boxes . . . [s]o users would always see the offer on the same screen as the action buttons.”
- “Did the website operator use a font size or color that would draw attention to the proposal?” The Court noted that although the font size was small, the Terms of Use button was highlighted with a bright font that “contrasted sharply” with the background.
- Did the website operator and users engage in the kind of interaction that one would expect to include contractual terms?” The Court concluded that the context was one “in which one would expect an ‘ongoing relationship.’” The court explained that the website “matches users with one or more lenders so that the lenders can contact users in the future about mortgage refinancing using the provided contact information. Reasonable mortgagors thus would expect a further relationship. And reasonable users also would expect that the free referral service comes with some contractual strings attached (most obviously, that they consent to receive the communications for which they are signing up).”
Based on this, the Court reversed the trial court’s ruling and remanded the matter for proceedings consistent with its opinion.
Fifth Circuit Rules Prior Express Written Consent Unnecessary for Telemarketing Calls
A consumer entered into an agreement with a company for certain home-related services. The consumer provided the company with his cell phone number and, during the course of the service agreement, the consumer received multiple prerecorded calls including several to schedule “renewal inspections.” He did schedule renewal inspections and renewed the service agreement four times.
The consumer eventually filed a putative class action lawsuit against the company, alleging it violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) by making the prerecorded telemarketing calls for inspection renewals without his “prior express written consent.” (emphasis added). The trial court granted the company’s motion for summary judgment and the consumer appealed.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit began by explaining that “the TCPA makes it ‘unlawful for any person within the United States’ to ‘make any call (other than a call made for emergency purposes or made with the prior express consent of the called party) using any automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice’ to ‘any telephone number assigned to,’ among other things, a ‘cellular telephone service, . . . or any service for which the party is charged for the call.’ 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1), (b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(A)(iii).”
The Court noted, though, that by regulation the Federal Communications Commission made a distinction between telemarketing and non-telemarketing calls, requiring “’prior express written consent’ for pre-recorded telemarketing calls to wireless numbers, but not for ‘informational calls,’ for which it ‘maintain[s] flexibility in the form of consent needed.’ Implementing the TCPA, 27 FCC Rcd. at 1831, 1841, 1869.”
That distinction had no basis in the statute, according to the Court, which explained that when the TCPA was enacted, “’express consent’ meant consent that is ‘directly given, either viva voce or in writing. It is positive, direct, unequivocal consent, requiring no inference or implication to supply its meaning.’”
Thus, contrary to the FCC’s regulation, Congress permits either written or oral consent for any auto-dialed or pre-recorded call, as the TCPA specifically permits such calls if the caller has “the prior express consent of the called party.”
Accordingly, the Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court.
Ninth Circuit Disallows Bona Fide Error Defense for “Plainly Incorrect View of Settled Law”
A consumer filed a lawsuit against a bank and a collection law firm after his funds in the bank, which consisted of exempt Social Security benefits, were frozen and subjected to garnishment proceedings in connection with a collection action filed by the law firm. The consumer alleged the law firm violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), and made claims against the bank for unjust enrichment, conversion, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the law firm and the bank, and the consumer appealed.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit first addressed the bona fide error defense the law firm asserted at trial. The Court explained that under the FDCPA, the “defense requires [the law firm] to establish that the violation was unintentional, resulted from a bona fide error, and occurred despite the maintenance of procedures reasonably adapted to avoid the violation.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(c).
Here, the Court noted that at some point the law firm became aware that the account consisted solely of Social Security benefits but “nevertheless continued to defend the garnishment for months, arguing that federal regulations protected only two months’ worth of benefits from garnishment.” However, “those regulations do not limit, override, or diminish the broader statutory exemption for Social Security benefits; indeed, they expressly preserve an individual’s right to assert further exemptions under federal law.”
The Court therefore rejected the bona fide error defense: “Given the clarity of the governing law, [the law firm’s] position lacked any objectively reasonable basis in law. An error resting on a plainly incorrect view of settled law cannot qualify as bona fide within the meaning of § 1692k(c).”
The Court agreed with the trial court’s rulings regarding the bank. The unjust enrichment claim failed because the bank was authorized to freeze funds in response to legal process. The conversion claim failed “because deposits into a general bank account transfer possessory rights to the bank absent a special deposit with notice to the bank, which [the consumer] did not establish.” The intentional inflection of emotional distress claim failed because a “two-and-a-half-month delay in restoring access to funds does not constitute extreme and outrageous conduct as a matter of Arizona law.”
The Court vacated the trial court’s order granting summary judgment on the FDCPA claim against the law firm and and affirmed the dismissal of the claims against the bank.
ANOTHER ANNUAL CONFERENCE SILENT AUCTION IN THE BOOKS!
Thank you to all of our 2026 Annual Conference Silent Auction donors, bidders, and winners! We received 61 auction items and raised over $22,000 – 100% of the proceeds go directly to RMAI’s Legislative Fund. Thank you for your continued support of our silent auctions!
RMAI’S LEGISLATIVE FUNDRAISING COMMITTEE GEARS UP FOR ANOTHER GREAT YEAR
The Legislative Fundraising Committee is working hard again this year to secure donations for RMAI’s advocacy efforts. Committee members will be conducting outreach, so keep an eye out for their correspondence. 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. For information on legislative issues our industry is facing, please read our State Legislative section of the mid-month update to see if any could affect you.
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 March 24th, The Big Apple’s Big Changes: A Survivor’s Guide to the DCWP Final Rule webinar where our presenters will strip away the legal jargon and look at the reality of the September 1, 2026 effective date, and tackle the heavy lifting required to get your business compliant.
RECORDED WEBINARS
Recorded on January 27, 2026 you can register for Year in Review (Top 5 things to think about in 2026) where our presenters will discuss the things you may have missed throughout the year that may be important for us to think about in 2026.
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
Jordan Hill, Primary Debt Solutions
Eric Lee, Intercap Services
Erik Stein, Stein Law dba Mountain Peak Law Group
M’Cori Van Ess, Gurstel Law Firm
CRCP RENEWALS
Celeste Anderson, Equifax
Brian Becker, Scott & Associates
Lisa Burch Scluter, Connect1
Miles Fisher, Genesis Recovery Solutions
Gretchen Frascella, US Mortgage Resolution
Brian Glass, Halsted Financial
Jake Jones, Resurgent Holdings
Lindsay Love, National Credit Adjusters
Anne Thomas, Cavalry Portfolio Services
Linh Tran, Quantum3 Group
Sara Woggerman, ARM Compliance Business Solutions
CRB NEW
Nexa Asset Acquisitions
CRB RENEWALS
Capio Partners
Metacorp
National Debt Holdings
O & L Law Group dba Singer Weissman
Quantum3 Group
Stone, Higgs & Drexler
First Financial Asset Management
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.
Alerts and News
Are you making the most of your RMAI Membership? To ensure that you are getting the most up to date information on events unfolding in the industry, confirm your email address is accurate to receive all Member Alerts. Let the community know what you’re up to! You can share news and press releases with RMAI members, right on our website. Just review our Submission Guidelines and contact Aurora Sain to get started.
Advertise with RMAI
Take advantage of broad access to RMAI members and establish brand awareness with advertising through RMAI’s media channels. Whether you advertise through the RMAI website, social media, RMAI Insights magazine, or the RMAI Update e-newsletter, you can extend your reach in the receivables management industry. RMAI’s Advertising Kit details the advertising opportunities available to you as well as ad specifications, deadlines, and cost.
Save the Date for the 2026 RMAI Executive Summit
This year’s Executive Summit will be held August 4-6, 2026, at the Skamania Lodge in Steveson, Washington. Registration will be launching on April 1, so mark your calendar and take advantage of the early registration rate! If you know someone who is interested in attending the Executive Summit and would make a great member, refer them to join RMAI and gain access to member-only pricing for this end-of-summer networking event.
Welcome, New Members
- ClarityPay Inc | NY
- Weisberg Law | PA
- Foothill Capital Solutions LLC | AZ
- GM Financial | TX
- The Parnell Law Group LLC | AL
- Manulife/Comvest Credit Parters/OAG | FL
- PMD Investing LLC | MI
- Sunbit | CA
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 MARCH 1, 2025 – MARCH 10, 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
MauriceWutscher LLP
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
Yrefy, LLC
OTHER
AuthVia
Avtal
Bedard Law Group, P.C.
Bounce AI, Inc.
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
Frost Echols LLC
Hasson Law LLC
Hilco Receivables, LLC
Indiana Receivables, Inc.
Kaufman Dolowich
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 Bureaus, Inc.
The Law Offices of Ronald S. Canter, LLC
UHG I LLC
Vargo & Janson, P.C.
Venable LLP