On September 14, 2026, Massachusetts Attorney General (AG) Andrea Campbell announced a settlement with several debt buying and debt collection companies and their owner, resolving a lawsuit that accused them of seizing consumers’ cars to coerce payments on unrelated debts. The defendants are now permanently barred from buying or collecting on debts in the state, leaving them unable to recover approximately $52 million in alleged loans to more than 6,000 Massachusetts consumers.
Background
The Massachusetts AG sued Andrew Metcalf and his debt buying and collection companies, Champion Funding, Inc., Champion Funding, LLC, and Judgment Acquisitions Unlimited, in state court in 2024.
The amended complaint, filed in 2025, alleged the defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive debt collection practices in violation of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, including seizing exempt vehicles from consumers, using vehicle seizures “as a means of persuasion rather than satisfaction,” making misrepresentations to consumers, engaging in unlicensed debt collection, engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, overstating prejudgment interest in court filings, collecting debts outside the applicable statute of limitations, exceeding legal contact limits, and engaging in unfair, deceptive, or unreasonable debt collection generally. The amended complaint alleged that some seized vehicles were worth so little they were exempt from seizure under state law, and that the seizures had nothing to do with any unpaid car loan.
The court issued two preliminary injunctions against the defendants during the litigation. The first barred them from auctioning off seized vehicles, seizing exempt vehicles from consumers, and appearing in court without an attorney. In granting the second, the court found the AG likely to succeed on claims that the defendants were collecting debt they did not own and concealing who actually held it. That order barred the Champion Funding entities from purchasing, selling, or collecting on any debts or judgments. Litigation continued for more than two years before culminating in this settlement.
Terms of the Settlement
The consent judgment includes several key provisions:
Debt forgiveness. The defendants effectively agreed to walk away from roughly $52 million in claimed debt, providing relief to more than 6,000 Massachusetts consumers whose debts had purportedly been acquired by the companies.
Permanent collection ban. The defendants are permanently enjoined from any collection activity within or from Massachusetts, or on debts owed by Massachusetts consumers. They may not buy, sell, assign, or transfer those debts, may not accept payment from Massachusetts consumers (i.e., any payment received must be returned), and may not apply for a Massachusetts debt collector license.
Wind-down obligations. Metcalf must surrender his debt collector license, dissolve Champion Funding, Inc., amend Judgment Acquisitions Unlimited’s corporate description to reflect that it no longer collects from Massachusetts consumers, dismiss all pending cases within 120 days, and file satisfactions of judgment in decided cases within one year. He has also certified by affidavit that all seized personal property has been released and related real estate liens dissolved.
Suspended penalty. A $650,000 penalty was imposed but suspended; it becomes payable only if the defendants later violate the settlement’s terms or misrepresent their financial condition within the next 13 years.
The settlement includes no admission of liability.
The Broader Context
The settlement lands amid a marked shift in which regulators police debt collection. As the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has scaled back its supervisory and enforcement functions, state AGs and state financial regulators have moved to fill the gap, and debt collection has been among the most active areas.
Massachusetts has been signaling interest in this space for some time. The AG’s office announced in 2023 that it was investigating entities collecting, servicing, and funding motor-vehicle-secured contracts, and it has separately pursued violations of the state’s two-call-per-week contact limit, the same theory underlying one of the counts here.
Why It Matters
This settlement fits within a broader pattern of state-level consumer protection enforcement against debt buyers and collectors, and it offers several takeaways for companies operating in this space:
Collateral seizure tied to unrelated debt invites heightened scrutiny. The core allegation here was not simply aggressive collection, but the use of vehicle repossession as leverage on debts that had nothing to do with the vehicle itself. Collection practices that blur the line between a specific secured obligation and unrelated unsecured debt are likely to draw regulatory attention.
State exemption laws remain a compliance floor, not a technicality. The allegation that some seized vehicles were low enough in value to be statutorily exempt from seizure underscores that debt buyers and collectors must build exemption analysis into their operational practices, not treat it as an afterthought.
A state-specific settlement can still force a shutdown of the broader business. Although the injunction reaches only Massachusetts consumers and collection activity within or from the state, the judgment also requires Metcalf to dissolve one of his corporate entities and surrender his debt collector license altogether. An enforcement action limited to a single state’s residents can still compel structural changes that affect the entire company, not just its book of business in one state.
Private litigation and state AG enforcement can compound exposure. The same underlying conduct, unlawful seizure or collection practices, can trigger both public enforcement and private causes of action. Companies facing a state AG consumer protection action should assume the same practices may draw parallel or follow-on litigation from individual consumers under state law or federal statutes like the FDCPA. Conversely, significant private litigation can prompt regulatory scrutiny.
Suspended penalties incentivize compliance. The $650,000 suspended penalty reflects that the Massachusetts AG here was more concerned with injunctive relief and monetary relief for consumers than with penalties payable to the state. Suspended penalties can provide a strong financial incentive for compliance with settlement terms, but may be preferable to a lesser penalty that is payable immediately.
Troutman Pepper Locke State Attorneys General Team
| Ashley Taylor – Co-leader and Firm Vice Chair Ashley is co-leader of the firm’s nationally ranked State Attorneys General practice, vice chair of the firm, and a partner in its Regulatory Investigations, Strategy + Enforcement (RISE) Practice Group. He helps his clients navigate the complexities involved with multistate attorneys general investigations and enforcement actions, federal agency actions, and accompanying litigation. |
|
| Clay Friedman – Co-leader Clay co-leads the firm’s State Attorneys General practice and is nationally ranked by Chambers USA for AG Government Relations and in Best Lawyers for Advertising Law. He has dedicated his entire career to state attorney general and federal work, serving for nearly a decade in a senior role and more than 25+ years in private practice. Clay focuses his practice on helping industry-leading companies mitigate the risks associated with state and federal regulatory investigations and associated litigation. |
|
| Chris Carlson Chris advises clients on regulatory, civil, and criminal investigations and litigation. With a background as an assistant attorney general, he provides practical guidance to clients with matters involving state attorneys general and federal regulatory agencies. |
|
| Lauren Fincher Lauren has vast experience handling state attorneys general investigations, navigating complex regulatory compliance matters, and providing strategic counsel in enforcement actions across various industries. She helps clients manage high-stakes regulatory matters and guides them through complex legal landscapes. |
|
| Stephen Piepgrass Stephen leads the firm’s Regulatory Investigations, Strategy + Enforcement (RISE) Practice Group, representing clients in single and multistate enforcement actions, including inquiries and investigations involving state attorneys general and other state and federal governmental enforcement bodies including the CFPB and FTC. He regularly represents clients in highly regulated sectors such as financial services, emerging technologies, health care, insurance, and education. |
|
| Michael Yaghi Mike handles high-profile investigations led by state attorneys general, the FTC, and other federal and state regulatory bodies. He assists clients through these complex government inquiries, assisting them throughout the entire life cycle of investigations, from regulatory enforcement through formal litigation. |
|
| Matthew J. Berns Drawing on his experience in senior leadership roles in the New Jersey Attorney General’s and Governor’s Offices and as a trial attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice, Matt provides an insider’s perspective when guiding clients through complex government investigations, litigation, and other actions. |
|
| Jeff Johnson Jeff helps clients navigate complex regulatory and litigation challenges with local, state, and federal authorities. His clients benefit from his decade of broad litigation experience, understanding of emerging state and federal regulatory issues, and strong relationships with attorneys general across the U.S. In addition to handling cases from trial through state or federal appeals, Jeff serves as amicus counsel in advancing legal rules to support his clients’ vital interests. |
|
| Jay Myers Jay assists clients in heavily regulated industries, including health care, energy, insurance, emerging industries, and data privacy. He provides both regulatory legal advice and government relations strategies. Jay’s past and current clients include Fortune 10 companies, startups, nonprofits, industry associations, and advocacy groups. Recognizing that state government matters are often complex and multifaceted, he utilizes regulatory guidance, government advocacy, or both in tandem to deliver tailored solutions for each client’s unique needs. |
|
| Zoe Schloss Zoe represents clients in litigation and government investigations. As former deputy attorney general for the Delaware Department of Justice, she is an experienced litigator who understands the enforcement priorities that impact her clients. Zoe works with individuals and corporate entities in highly regulated industries, including financial services, health care, and energy. |
|
| Jessica Birdsong Jessica is an associate in the firm’s Regulatory Investigations, Strategy + Enforcement Practice Group. She received her J.D. from the University of Richmond School of Law, magna cum laude, where she served as associate articles editor of the Journal of Law & Technology. |
|
| Sydney Goldberg Sydney is an associate in the firm’s Regulatory Investigations, Strategy + Enforcement (RISE) Practice Group. She advises clients on regulatory compliance and state attorney general (AG) investigations in highly regulated industries, including health care and life sciences. She routinely helps clients navigate alcohol compliance and licensing issues, helping proactively manage regulatory risk. |
|
| Troy Homesley Troy is an accomplished litigator who has represented and defended clients across a wide range of complex, high-stakes disputes at both the trial and appellate levels. He has represented technology companies, business executives, law firms, investment funds, high-ranking federal officials, international non-profits, and asylum seekers. Troy draws on his broad litigation experience to advise clients before litigation arises, while claims are pending or threatened, and leading up to and through trial and appeals. |
|
| Namrata Kang Namrata (Nam) is an associate in the firm’s Regulatory Investigations, Strategy + Enforcement (RISE) Practice Group, based in the Washington, D.C. office. She routinely advises clients on a wide variety of state and federal regulatory matters, with a particular emphasis on state consumer protection laws relating to consumer financial services and marketing and advertising. Nam’s experience transcends multiple industries, including financial services, telecommunications, media, and sports betting. |
|
| Michael Lafleur Michael is an associate in the firm’s Regulatory Investigations, Strategy, and Enforcement Practice Group. Based out of the firm’s Boston office, Mike has deep experience in litigation, investigations, and other regulatory matters involving state-level regulators and state attorneys general. |
|
| William LaRosa Bill represents clients in complex regulatory investigations, state attorneys general matters, and enforcement proceedings. He draws on his experience as a former assistant U.S. attorney and as a private-sector litigator advising corporations in high-stakes litigation and regulatory investigations, including multistate AG investigations. |
|
| Lane Page Lane represents financial institutions and other clients in federal and state regulatory investigations and complex civil litigation. He is particularly focused on consumer protection and fair lending issues. |
|
| Dascher Pasco Dascher provides strategic counsel and representation to clients navigating regulatory compliance, enforcement, and high-stakes litigation. She regularly represents clients in both single and multistate state attorney general (AG) investigations and enforcement actions, as well as before other state enforcement bodies and local government agencies. |
|
| Kyara Rivera Rivera Kyara is an associate in the firm’s Regulatory Investigations, Strategy + Enforcement Practice Group. She received her J.D. from the University of Richmond School of Law, cum laude, where she served as publications and online editor of the Public Interest Law Review. |
|
| Timothy Shyu Timothy advises clients on regulatory compliance and enforcement in highly regulated industries, including health care and life sciences, data privacy and cybersecurity, and emerging technology. He assists companies in navigating complex investigations and enforcement actions, helping them mitigate regulatory risk proactively. |
|
| Trey Smith Trey focuses his practice on representing and advising regulated utilities before state public utility commissions. He routinely helps clients obtain certificates of public convenience and necessity for transmission infrastructure. In this role, Trey works with his clients’ subject-matter experts to manage administrative proceedings, including by preparing initial filings; responding to discovery requests; drafting rebuttal testimony; and litigating any disputed issues. |
|
| Daniel Waltz Dan helps clients navigate all aspects highly regulated relationships between industry participants and federal, state and local governments. Whether engaging with regulators, negotiating transactions or representing clients in the courtroom, he delivers solutions that help his clients achieve their strategic goals. |
|
| Stephanie Kozol Stephanie is Troutman Pepper Locke’s senior government relations manager in the state attorneys general department. |
Recent Comments