Freshly Tapped CONSUMER News.
Stay updated with the latest developments in consumer law updates, including important topics like the California Lemon Law. From new lawsuits to changes in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and other regulations, The Draft List serves you the freshest insights—delivered crisp, cold, and easy to understand.
Enforcing Pre-Spokeo FCRA Settlements in a Post-Standing Era
Article III Limits, Contractual Finality, and the Proper Scope of Jurisdictional Doctrine
12/22/25- Recent appellate authority enforcing a Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) class action settlement—despite the later determination that the named plaintiff lacked Article III standing—clarifies an increasingly contested boundary in post-Spokeo jurisprudence. The decision confirms that constitutional standing doctrines limit the adjudicatory power of federal courts but do not retroactively invalidate private settlement agreements or deprive state courts of jurisdiction to enforce them. Attempts to use Spokeo and its progeny to unwind finalized FCRA settlements improperly transform standing from a jurisdictional threshold into a substantive nullification doctrine. Such an expansion threatens settlement finality, distorts federalism principles, and undermines the enforcement of statutory consumer rights.
Standing After Spokeo: From Gatekeeping to Erasure
The Supreme Court’s decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins reasserted that Article III standing requires a concrete injury, even where Congress has created a statutory cause of action. Subsequent decisions—most notably TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez—further narrowed the category of statutory violations sufficient to confer federal standing. Together, these cases reshaped federal consumer litigation, particularly under the FCRA.
Yet in practice, standing doctrine has increasingly been invoked for purposes beyond its constitutional function. Defendants now frequently argue not only that plaintiffs lack standing to pursue FCRA claims in federal court, but that the absence of standing renders settlements unenforceable—even where those settlements were negotiated and approved before Spokeo. This doctrinal drift raises a fundamental question: does the lack of Article III standing extinguish the legal force of a settlement resolving disputed statutory claims?
The emerging answer from state appellate courts is no.
The Decision: Enforcing a Pre-Spokeo FCRA Settlement
In the recent Missouri appellate decision at issue, the defendant sought to avoid enforcement of an FCRA class action settlement on the ground that the named plaintiff lacked standing to pursue the underlying statutory claims. The settlement had been executed prior to Spokeo, and the defendant argued that subsequent standing jurisprudence retroactively deprived the court of authority to enforce it.
The court rejected that argument, holding that:
- A settlement agreement constitutes an independent, binding contract.
- The plaintiff possessed a concrete interest in enforcing that agreement.
- State courts retain jurisdiction to enforce settlement contracts regardless of whether the underlying federal claims would satisfy Article III standing requirements.
Crucially, the court distinguished between standing to litigate a statutory claim and standing to enforce a settlement resolving that claim. The former implicates constitutional limits on federal judicial power; the latter arises from contract law and does not depend on Article III injury.
Article III as Jurisdictional Constraint, Not Substantive Undoing
The decision reflects a correct and necessary confinement of standing doctrine. Article III standing determines where a claim may be adjudicated, not whether parties may resolve disputes through binding agreement. To treat standing as retroactively voiding settlements would convert a jurisdictional doctrine into a substantive rule of invalidity.
Such an approach would produce several doctrinal and practical distortions:
- It would undermine the reliance interests inherent in settlement agreements.
- It would incentivize strategic behavior by defendants, encouraging post-settlement challenges based on evolving standing law.
- It would improperly extend federal constitutional limits into state court contract enforcement.
Standing doctrine has never operated as a declaration that underlying conduct was lawful, nor as a mechanism for nullifying private agreements. The Missouri court’s reasoning appropriately resists that expansion.
Federalism and the Role of State Courts
The enforcement of pre-Spokeo FCRA settlements also implicates federalism concerns. While Article III limits the jurisdiction of federal courts, it does not constrain state courts adjudicating contract claims or enforcing settlements. Allowing defendants to invoke federal standing doctrine to defeat state court enforcement would collapse the distinction between federal jurisdiction and state judicial authority.
As federal standing doctrine continues to narrow, state courts may play an increasingly significant role in:
- Enforcing FCRA settlements,
- Adjudicating state-law consumer protection claims paralleling federal statutes, and
- Preserving remedies grounded in contract rather than constitutional injury.
The decision thus reinforces the continued vitality of state courts as forums for enforcing consumer rights and negotiated relief.
Implications for FCRA Class Actions and Settlement Practice
For plaintiffs, the ruling provides assurance that settlements remain enforceable notwithstanding later shifts in standing jurisprudence. For defendants, it underscores that settlement agreements are final resolutions—not contingent bets on future Supreme Court decisions.
More broadly, the decision serves as a corrective to post-Spokeo litigation strategies that seek to reframe jurisdictional limits as substantive defenses. Courts appear increasingly unwilling to permit standing doctrine to be used as a tool for undoing settled obligations.
Conclusion
The enforcement of a pre-Spokeo FCRA settlement despite the absence of Article III standing reaffirms a foundational principle: constitutional limits on federal courts do not nullify private contracts or displace state court authority. By confining standing doctrine to its proper role, the court preserved settlement finality, respected federalism boundaries, and prevented the erosion of statutory consumer protections through jurisdictional overreach.
In the post-Spokeo era, standing may limit access to federal courts—but it does not erase agreements, extinguish obligations, or rewrite the law of contracts.
Practitioner Alert
Pre-Spokeo FCRA Settlements Survive Standing Challenges
Key Takeaway: A recent Missouri appellate decision confirms that FCRA class settlements entered before Spokeo remain enforceable—even if the named plaintiff would lack Article III standing under current federal law. Standing limits federal jurisdiction; it does not unwind settlement contracts or strip state courts of authority to enforce them.
What Happened
A defendant sought to avoid compliance with a previously negotiated FCRA class action settlement by arguing that, under Spokeo and TransUnion, the named plaintiff lacked standing to pursue the underlying claims. The court rejected that argument and enforced the settlement, holding that:
- A settlement agreement is a binding contract, independent of the underlying statutory claims.
- A party seeking enforcement has a concrete contractual interest, sufficient for standing
- State courts retain jurisdiction to enforce settlements regardless of Article III limitations.
Why This Matters
1. Standing Is Not a Settlement Escape Hatch
Courts are increasingly unwilling to allow defendants to weaponize post-Spokeo standing doctrine to undo finalized agreements. Once parties settle, later developments in standing law do not erase contractual obligations.
2. State Courts Remain a Viable Enforcement Forum
Even where federal courts may dismiss FCRA claims for lack of standing, state courts can still enforce settlement agreements arising from those claims. This reinforces the strategic importance of state-court enforcement actions.
3. Settlement Finality Is Back in Focus
The decision restores predictability to FCRA settlement practice by reaffirming that settlements are final resolutions—not contingent on future constitutional reinterpretations.
Practice Tips For Plaintiff-Side Counsel
- Do not assume a standing dismissal defeats enforcement of a prior settlement.
- Consider state-court enforcement actions where defendants raise post-Spokeo defenses.
- Emphasize the contractual nature of settlements in briefing.
Bottom Line
The post-Spokeo contraction of Article III standing does not retroactively invalidate FCRA settlements. Courts are drawing a clear line between jurisdictional limits and contractual finality—and that line favors enforcement.
Judicial Impartiality as a Consumer Safeguard
Judicial Independence, Constitutional Structure, and the Consumer’s Stake: A Legally Grounded Analysis
11/18/25- President Donald Trump’s recent call for the impeachment of U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, following the judge’s temporary injunction on a migrant removal directive, has triggered renewed attention to the constitutional boundaries between the executive and judicial branches. Although this specific dispute centers on immigration enforcement, its implications extend far beyond migration policy. Fundamentally, this moment invites a broader examination of the constitutional design protecting judicial independence—protections that directly affect millions of American consumers.
Note: this analysis is offered from a nonpartisan perspective: a stable constitutional order is essential to consumers regardless of political affiliation.
The Constitutional Architecture of Judicial Independence
Article III: Life Tenure and the “Good Behaviour” Clause
The Constitution’s explicit grant of life tenure to federal judges appears in Article III, Section 1, which provides:
“The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour.”
The framers adopted this language to ensure decisional independence—an idea deeply rooted in English common law and incorporated into American constitutionalism as a safeguard against political retaliation. Under the constitutional structure, a judge may only be removed through impeachment under Article II, Section 4, for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
In other words, judicial error or unpopular rulings were never meant to constitute impeachable offenses.
The Federalist Papers: The Intellectual Justification
Alexander Hamilton emphasized the importance of judicial insulation from political pressure in Federalist No. 78, noting:
“The independence of the judges is… requisite to guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals.”
He further stressed that courts must act as an “intermediate body between the people and the legislature,” ensuring that political actors adhere to the Constitution even when tempted by transient political pressures or majoritarian passions.
In Federalist No. 79, Hamilton explained that allowing judges to be removed for political reasons would “leave the judicial at the mercy of the legislative body,” collapsing the separation of powers.
These writings make clear: the framers designed a judiciary capable of protecting individual rights—including consumer rights—precisely because they understood that political actors, whatever their party, sometimes act from expediency rather than constitutional fidelity.
The Limited Scope of Impeachment: Historical and Legal Precedent
Supreme Court and Lower Court Precedents
While the Constitution outlines impeachment in broad strokes, both historical practice and judicial understanding demonstrate a consistent principle: impeachment is reserved for misconduct, not misjudgment.
Key cases and sources include:
- Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993)
Confirmed that impeachment is a political process, but the Court noted the long tradition of restricting it to actual misconduct. - United States v. Hatter, 532 U.S. 557 (2001)
Reaffirmed the centrality of judicial independence to the constitutional structure. - Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (1989)
Emphasized the judiciary’s essential role in the separation of powers and warned that undermining judicial independence breaks down the constitutional design.
Historically, only 15 federal judges have ever been impeached since 1789, and the overwhelming majority of those cases involved:
- Bribery
- Fraud
- Corruption
- Perjury
- Abuse of office
Never in American history has a judge been impeached solely for issuing an unpopular ruling.
Why Judicial Independence Is a Consumer Protection Imperative
Although this moment stems from a dispute over executive immigration authority, judicial independence plays an essential role in consumer protection. Article III courts routinely enforce the very laws that safeguard consumers, including:
- Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA)
- Truth in Lending Act (TILA)
- Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)
- Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
- State Lemon Laws and consumer fraud statutes
These statutes are often enforced against powerful corporate or governmental defendants. Consumers rely on the judiciary to interpret and enforce these protections without political influence.
Hamilton’s language in Federalist 78 about the judiciary protecting “the rights of individuals” applies directly to consumers who seek justice when:
- A bank violates lending law
- A car manufacturer ignores warranty obligations
- A debt collector engages in harassment
- A lender or servicer files an improper foreclosur
- A credit bureau reports inaccurate or harmful information
The judiciary is the consumer’s shield—and that shield only functions if judges are free from coercion.
Risks of Normalizing Political Retaliation Against Judges
The president’s recent impeachment suggestion—even if unlikely to be acted upon—carries systemic implications.
Undermining Separation of Powers
If political actors can threaten judges for adverse rulings, the separation of powers envisioned in Articles I–III collapses. Judicial oversight of the executive becomes illusory.
Chilling Effects on Judicial Decision-Making
Judges who fear political consequences may become more hesitant to issue rulings that check executive authority or large institutional actors. Even subtle shifts in judicial behavior can jeopardize:
- Consumer class action
- Enforcement of federal safety statute
- Borrower rights in mortgage litigation
- Claims under federal consumer-protection laws
Erosion of Public Confidence
In Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009), the Supreme Court emphasized that public trust in judges’ neutrality is essential for the rule of law. Political attacks on judges weaken this trust.
Bipartisan Risk
No political party is immune to the temptation to pressure the judiciary when it becomes expedient. The erosion of judicial independence today sets a precedent that could be used by future administrations of any political persuasion.
Conclusion: A Shared Constitutional & Consumer Interest
The debate over Judge Boasberg’s ruling offers an important reminder: judicial independence is not an abstraction. It is a constitutional safeguard with direct, tangible implications for consumers.
Whether one leans Republican, Democrat, or Independent, all Americans have a stake in:
- Courts that can check unlawful corporate behavior
- Judges who can restrain executive overreach
- A system where individual rights do not depend on political favo
- Legal protections that are applied uniformly, not politically
As Hamilton wrote, the judiciary must remain “the least dangerous branch”—not because it lacks power, but because it exercises judgment rather than political will.
That judgment must remain free.
Because when judicial independence erodes, it is not judges or politicians who suffer first—it is the public, including the consumers who depend on the courts to protect their rights.
What Counts as a “Consumer Report” in Job Background Checks?
Your FCRA Rights
10/23/25- Your Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) rights during hiring (disclosures, pre-adverse action copy of the report, and an opportunity to respond) kick in only if the employer used a consumer report from a consumer reporting agency (CRA). Not every internal screen, database ping, or informal note qualifies.
Why this matters now
Courts continue to dismiss FCRA employment claims where job applicants can’t show the employer actually used a consumer report from a CRA. The headline lesson for job seekers: before assuming your FCRA rights were violated, verify what info the employer used & where it came from.
The FCRA, in plain English
The FCRA is a federal law that governs the accuracy, privacy, and use of consumer reports. In hiring, it generally requires:
- Clear, stand-alone disclosure and written authorization before an employer obtains a consumer report.
- Pre-adverse action notice before a rejection or offer withdrawal: a copy of the report and a “Summary of Your Rights Under the FCRA,” giving you time to dispute.
- Adverse action notice after the final decision, with required details.
Key statutory anchors: 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(d) (definition of “consumer report”), § 1681b(b) (employment use), and § 1681m (adverse action notice).
So… what is a “consumer report”?
A consumer report is any communication of information by a consumer reporting agency (think: background-check companies and credit bureaus) that bears on your creditworthiness, character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living, and is used for employment purposes.Two parts must be true:
- The information came from a CRA (a business that regularly assembles and sells such information).
- It was used for employment (e.g., hiring, promotion, reassignment, retention).
Common examples that do qualify
- Criminal history, address history, or employment verification prepared by a background-check vendor
- Credit reports from Experian/Equifax
- Education or license checks provided by a reporting agency.
Things that often do NOT qualify
- Internal notes from an interviewer or hiring manager.
- Direct employer-to-employer reference calls (when not run through a CRA product).
- Public website searches an employer runs itself (e.g., Googling your name or scanning your LinkedIn) without using a CRA to compile and deliver the report.
- Off-the-shelf watchlist/ID tools that aren’t operating as CRAs for that transaction (this can be fact-specific).
Bottom line: If a third-party agency compiled and provided the information as a consumer report, your FCRA rights attach. If the employer just did its own research, the FCRA’s background-check procedures may not apply—even if the information feels “report-like.”
The employer’s checklist (when the FCRA applies)
- Before ordering the report - give a stand-alone disclosure (no extra legal clutter) and obtain your written authorization.
- Before taking adverse action: - Provide the pre-adverse action notice with (a) a copy of the report and (b) the FCRA Summary of Rights. Allow a reasonable time (often 5 business days, sometimes a bit more) for you to dispute.
- After the final decision - Send the adverse action notice identifying the CRA and stating that the CRA didn’t make the decision and can’t explain it; tell you your right to a free copy within 60 days and your right to dispute accuracy.
If any of those steps are missing—and a true consumer report was used—that’s where claims typically arise.
“Adverse action” is broader than rejection
It includes withdrawing a conditional offer, failing to promote, placing you on hold, or hiring you at worse terms (e.g., lower pay or different role) because of information in the report.
How to protect yourself (practical steps)
- Ask the magic question:
“Did you use a background-check company (a consumer reporting agency) to prepare a report about me? If so, which company and on what date?” - Request your paperwork: Pre-adverse action package: report + FCRA Summary of Rights. Adverse action notice after the decision.
- Get your file from the CRA:
You’re entitled to a copy and to dispute inaccuracies. Keep everything—emails, envelopes, timestamps. - Dispute quickly, in writing:
Explain what’s wrong, attach proof (court docket printouts, school registrar letters, license verifications, etc.). - Document “concrete harm”:
Keep rejection emails, notes of offers withdrawn, higher interest costs, out-of-pocket expenses, and detailed emotional distress notes; this evidence matters if you later pursue legal remedies. - Mind state and local add-ons:
- California (ICRAA/CCRAA) adds disclosure content/rules.
- NYC “Fair Chance Act” and many “ban-the-box” laws impose timing and individualized assessment requirements for criminal history.
- Check your city/state—protections vary.
Red flags that suggest a consumer report may exist
- You signed a separate background-check authorization.
- You received an email from a vendor (e.g., “Please log in to complete your background screening”).
- HR refers to a “report,” “package,” or “results from the screening company.”
- The employer gives you the FCRA Summary of Rights (or should have).
When to talk to a lawyer
If your offer was pulled (or your job affected) and you think an agency-prepared report was involved—or if you never got the pre-adverse action packet—speak with counsel. Deadlines apply, and strategic decisions early on (like whether to dispute through a portal that includes an arbitration clause) can affect your options.
Reminder: This post is general information, not legal advice. If something similar happened to you, talk to an attorney about your specific facts.
Robocalls, Robot Voices, and Your Rights
1. Robocalls Are Back—And Bigger Than Ever
If your phone feels like it’s buzzing more than ever with unwanted calls or texts, you’re not imagining it. In 2025, lawsuits under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)—the main federal law that protects you from robocalls, spam texts, and prerecorded messages—have surged to record highs:
- Over 500 new lawsuits were filed in just the first three months of the year—double last year’s pace.
- By mid-year, the number had nearly doubled again, putting us on track for the busiest year for TCPA cases in a decade.
- Nearly 8 out of 10 cases are class actions, meaning lawyers are representing groups of people who were all targeted in the same illegal campaign.
2. What’s Behind the Spike?
Courts Just Changed the Rules - In June 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that lower courts no longer have to follow the FCC’s interpretations of the TCPA. What does that mean for you? It makes the law less predictable—some judges may read the rules more strictly, others more loosely. That uncertainty is encouraging more lawsuits from people who feel their privacy was violated.
AI-Powered Marketing Is Flooding Inboxes - Marketers are now using AI to send calls and texts—and even create “synthetic” voices that sound human. But these tools can easily cross the line: sending messages without your permission; calling wrong or reassigned numbers; and using prerecorded voices without disclosure. Because AI can send messages to thousands of people in seconds, one mistake can trigger a massive lawsuit.
Lawyers Are Targeting Easy Wins - TCPA cases can be very profitable for consumers and their lawyers—$500 to $1,500 per illegal call or text. That means if you got even a dozen unwanted messages, you could be entitled to thousands of dollars. Multiply that across hundreds or thousands of people, and it’s easy to see why these cases are booming.
3. Why This Matters to You
The TCPA gives you real power to fight back against unwanted calls and texts:
- You have the right to say “STOP” to marketing texts and calls—and companies must honor it.
- Calls before 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. local time are generally off-limits.
- Businesses must get clear, written permission before sending marketing texts or using prerecorded voices.
If a company breaks these rules, you can take legal action—sometimes as part of a class action where you don’t even have to hire your own lawyer.
4. How to Protect Yourself Right Now
- Don’t Answer Unknown Numbers – Let them go to voicemail.
- Save Proof – Keep texts, call logs, or recordings of the messages.
- Opt Out Clearly – Reply “STOP” to texts or tell the caller “Put me on your do-not-call list.”
- Report Violations – File complaints with the FCC or FTC and consider contacting a consumer-rights attorney.
- Know Your State Laws Too – Some states add extra protections and penalties on top of the TCPA.
Bottom Line
The spike in TCPA lawsuits means two things:
- Companies are pushing the limits with aggressive—and often AI-driven—marketing.
- Consumers are fighting back using the laws designed to protect them.
If your phone is blowing up with robocalls or spam texts, know that you have rights—and the legal system is busier than ever making sure they’re enforced.
NJ Limits Medical Debt Collections
What’s Great for New Jersey Consumers About the Medical Debt Relief Act
What’s Great for New Jersey Consumers About the Medical Debt Relief Act
What’s Great for New Jersey Consumers About the Medical Debt Relief Act
08/08/25- New Jersey just flipped the script on medical debt—and for patients, that’s very good news. The Louisa Carman Medical Debt Relief Act is now fully in effect as of July 22, 2025, with key protections that began on July 22, 2024. If you’ve ever lost sleep over a surprise bill, collections calls, or your credit score taking a hit after getting care, this law is designed to protect you.
The headline: medical debt can’t wreck your credit anymore
What’s Great for New Jersey Consumers About the Medical Debt Relief Act
What’s Great for New Jersey Consumers About the Medical Debt Relief Act
For health care services provided on or after July 22, 2024, medical creditors and collectors cannot report your medical debt to credit bureaus. On top of that, paid medical debt and medical debts under $500 are off-limits for credit reporting, no matter when they were incurred. That means fewer credit score landmines when you’re trying to rent an apartment, buy a car, or apply for a job.
A cooling-off period before collections—and a real path to pay
What’s Great for New Jersey Consumers About the Medical Debt Relief Act
No more rushing you into collections. Collectors must wait at least 120 days after your first bill before taking collection actions, and they have to offer a reasonable payment plan first. You must also receive a clear 30-day notice before any collection action starts.
What’s a “reasonable” plan under this law?
If you’re appealing your insurance, collections must pause
- Payments you can actually afford—no more than 3% of your monthly income (if your income is known).
- A 6-month to 5-year timeline, adjusted to your situation.
- A 60-day grace period for late payments.
- A hard cap: interest can’t exceed 3% per year.
All of this must be put in a written agreement so you know exactly what you’re signing up for.
If you’re appealing your insurance, collections must pause
If you’re appealing your insurance, collections must pause
If you’re appealing your insurance, collections must pause
When you’re fighting an insurance denial—internal appeal, external review, or other appeal—collectors can’t call, sue, or arbitrate while that appeal is pending. And if a debt was reported to a credit bureau and the creditor learns you’re appealing (or that you’ve paid), they must tell the credit bureau to delete the entry. This gives yo
When you’re fighting an insurance denial—internal appeal, external review, or other appeal—collectors can’t call, sue, or arbitrate while that appeal is pending. And if a debt was reported to a credit bureau and the creditor learns you’re appealing (or that you’ve paid), they must tell the credit bureau to delete the entry. This gives you space to resolve coverage issues before collections turn up the pressure.
Your wages are safer
If you’re appealing your insurance, collections must pause
If you’re appealing your insurance, collections must pause
Wage garnishment can devastate a household. Under the Act, collectors cannot garnish wages to collect medical debt if your household income is below 600% of the federal poverty level. For many families, that removes the scariest threat in the collections playbook.
Interest is capped—and judgments can’t dodge the cap
If someone breaks the rules, the debt they reported can be void
Interest is capped—and judgments can’t dodge the cap
Whether you’re paying on a plan or there’s a court judgment, interest on medical debt can’t exceed 3% per year. That keeps balances from ballooning and makes repayment realistic.
Debt sales are tightly restricted
If someone breaks the rules, the debt they reported can be void
Interest is capped—and judgments can’t dodge the cap
The law reins in the practice of selling medical debt to aggressive buyers. A medical creditor can’t sell your debt unless the buyer agrees—in writing—not to resell it, not to report it to credit bureaus, and not to pursue other prohibited collection activity. This makes it far less likely your bill will ping-pong between collectors.
If someone breaks the rules, the debt they reported can be void
If someone breaks the rules, the debt they reported can be void
If someone breaks the rules, the debt they reported can be void
This one’s powerful: any portion of a medical debt reported to a credit bureau in violation of the Act is void. The Attorney General can also seek civil penalties and force restitution to consumers. That’s real leverage for patients when collectors overstep.
Effective dates (so you know what applies when)
Quick tips if you’re contacted about a medical bill
If someone breaks the rules, the debt they reported can be void
- Credit-reporting protections and some other provisions took effect July 22, 2024.
- The rest of the Act became effective on the one-year anniversary—July 22, 2025.
- Bottom line: Everything is now in force.
Quick tips if you’re contacted about a medical bill
Quick tips if you’re contacted about a medical bill
Quick tips if you’re contacted about a medical bill
- Ask about the 120-day rule and payment plans. If they’re pressing you sooner, that’s a red flag.
- Tell them if you’re appealing an insurance denial. They must pause collection efforts while it’s pending.
- Check your credit report. If you see paid medical debt, sub-$500 medical debt, or any post-7/22/24 medical debt, you may be able to get
- Ask about the 120-day rule and payment plans. If they’re pressing you sooner, that’s a red flag.
- Tell them if you’re appealing an insurance denial. They must pause collection efforts while it’s pending.
- Check your credit report. If you see paid medical debt, sub-$500 medical debt, or any post-7/22/24 medical debt, you may be able to get it removed—and possibly voided if it was improperly reported.
- Document everything. Keep copies of bills, appeal letters, and any payment plan you agree to.
Bottom Line
Quick tips if you’re contacted about a medical bill
Quick tips if you’re contacted about a medical bill
New Jersey set out to stop medical bills from turning a health crisis into a financial catastrophe—and this law does exactly that. If you’re dealing with a medical bill or collections notice and want help asserting your rights under the Medical Debt Relief Act, we’re here to help.
This post is for general information only and isn’t legal
New Jersey set out to stop medical bills from turning a health crisis into a financial catastrophe—and this law does exactly that. If you’re dealing with a medical bill or collections notice and want help asserting your rights under the Medical Debt Relief Act, we’re here to help.
This post is for general information only and isn’t legal advice. If you have questions about your specific situation, contact a lawyer.
Hurricane Texts Blow Back
Florida Court Says Two Unwanted Messages Can Cost You
Dated: August 6, 2025
Case: Helena Germain v. Mario’s Air Conditioning & Heating, Inc., SEHS HVAC Mario’s LLC, and Whitwild Management, LLC
U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division — Order on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment (Aug. 5, 2025; Judge Tom Barber)
What sparked the lawsuit?
While preparing for Hurricane Ian in September 2022, Florida homeowner Helena Germain—whose number was safely on the National Do Not Call Registry—received two text messages from “Mario’s AC.” The first reminded her to flip her breaker “during a hurricane,” the second offered 24/7 emergency service. Germain saw them as unwanted ads and sued under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
Why this matters to consumers
- Your Do Not Call registration has teeth. If you still get marketing texts, you may sue for $500 per text—or up to $1,500 if the violation is willful
- Safety tips can be sales tactics. Courts look at the intent behind the message, not just the words on the screen.
- Screenshots are your best friend. Time-stamped proof of unwanted texts is gold in court.
- Corporate confusion is no defense. Even if multiple entities point fingers, you can proceed and let a jury decide who pays.
- No robots required. Under the Do Not Call portion of the TCPA, human-typed spam is still spam.
Bottom line
The decision in Germain v. Mario’s shows that businesses can’t hide a sales pitch behind a storm-prep tip. If you’re on the National Do Not Call Registry and still receive marketing messages, the law is on your side—and, as this case reminds companies, it can be an expensive mistake to ignore it.
This article provides general information, not legal advice. If you believe your rights under the TCPA have been violated, consult a qualified attorney.
When Medical Debt Costs More Than Care
The Fallout of Reversing the CFPB Rule
08/04/25 - On July 11, 2025, U.S. District Judge Sean D. Jordan of the Eastern District of Texas struck down a landmark Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) rule that would have stripped unpaid medical debt from consumers’ credit reports. Intended to relieve financial burdens for roughly 15 million Americans carrying an estimated $49 billion in medical debt, the decision instead leaves these individuals vulnerable to damaged credit scores, higher borrowing costs, and prolonged financial uncertainty.
Background on the CFPB’s Medical Debt Rule
The Rule’s Provisions
In January 2025, the CFPB finalized a rule to:
- Exclude medical collection accounts under $500 from credit reports.
- Remove older unpaid medical debt after one year on a consumer’s report. The agency estimated these changes would boost credit scores by an average of 20 points and facilitate approximately 22,000 additional mortgage approvals each year.
Rationale for the Rule
The CFPB found that medical debt is a poor predictor of overall credit risk, prone to inaccuracies from insurance denials and billing errors. By easing the reporting of such debt, the agency aimed to ensure that consumers weren’t unfairly penalized for circumstances largely beyond their control.
The Court’s Decision
Judge Jordan vacated the rule on the grounds that the CFPB lacked authority under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). According to the court, Congress explicitly permits credit reporting agencies to include properly coded medical debt information, and the CFPB overstepped by redefining what constitutes “permissible” reporting under FCRA.
- Legal Basis
“The Bureau has no such power to define what in a consumer report is ‘permissible,’” Judge Jordan wrote, emphasizing that statutory authority rests with Congress, not a federal agency.
- Appeal Uncertainty
While the CFPB could, in theory, appeal, the agency’s rulemaking ability is currently hamstrung by a leadership memo halting new and pending regulations.
Harmful Impacts on Consumers
- Credit Score Damage
With medical collections back on reports, millions may see their scores undercut—limiting access to favorable interest rates on mortgages, auto loans, and credit cards. For communities already disproportionately affected by medical debt, such as Black (28 %) and Latino (22 %) households, the ruling compounds existing inequities.
- Increased Borrowing Costs
Lower credit scores translate to higher interest rates. Even a 20-point drop can add thousands in interest over the life of a mortgage or car loan, effectively costing consumers tens of billions in extra payments nationwide.
- Debt Collection Pressures
Medical providers and debt collectors regain leverage to pursue unpaid bills. Consumers already juggling high healthcare costs and disputes over billing accuracy now face renewed collection efforts, which can include wage garnishment or legal judgments.
- Financial Uncertainty and Stress
Research links credit score anxiety and collection notices to negative health outcomes, including increased stress and difficulty accessing essential services. The reversal erodes consumer confidence in financial protections designed to shield them from medical system complexities.
Broader Policy Implications
- Regulatory Overreach vs. Consumer Protection
The ruling underscores a broader tug-of-war between consumer advocates’ calls for stronger financial safeguards and industry or judicial limits on agency authority. As courts and lawmakers debate CFPB powers, consumers may find themselves caught in the crossfire, losing temporary regulatory reprieves.
- State-Level Responses
In lieu of federal action, some states (e.g., Colorado and New York) have enacted their own protections, such as capping medical collections or mandating longer grace periods. These patchwork measures, however, leave many without recourse in states lacking similar statutes.
- Future of CFPB Rulemaking
With the CFPB’s rulemaking function under a freeze, broader consumer financial reforms—ranging from junk fee curbs to overdraft limits—are similarly at risk. Restoring and reinforcing the agency’s authority will be key for long-term structural protections.
Conclusion and Call to Action
The reversal of the CFPB’s medical debt rule represents a significant setback for consumer financial health. Without federal safeguards, millions will continue to see their medical struggles reflected in lower credit scores and higher borrowing costs. To mitigate harm:
- Advocate for State Protections: Support legislation in your state that limits medical debt reporting or extends billing dispute processes.
- Monitor Your Credit Reports: Regularly check for inaccuracies and file disputes on erroneous medical entries.
- Engage with Consumer Groups: Join or donate to organizations pushing for broader, permanent reforms at both the state and federal levels.
Only through coordinated policy advocacy and individual vigilance can consumers hope to reclaim fair treatment in credit reporting—and shield their financial futures from the burdens of medical debt.
Consumer Rights News: The Spill on What's Brewing in Consumer Law
🟡 🍋 Sour Pour of the Month: California's Lemon Law Gets a Squeeze
Starting in 2025, updates to California’s Lemon Law will significantly impact consumers, particularly those purchasing used vehicles, as consumer law updates are set to narrow the coverage for warranties on these cars. The timelines for filing claims are also tightening, making it increasingly important for buyers to be aware of their rights.
Bottom line: If your ride has spent more time in the shop than in your driveway, don’t delay in making a claim. The clock is ticking faster than it used to under the California Lemon Law.
📵 📞 TCPA Gets Spicier: SCOTUS Rewrites the Robocall Recipe
The Supreme Court recently ruled that district courts don’t have to blindly follow FCC rulings when interpreting the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). This decision means that the rules surrounding robocalls and text spam just became more complex—and potentially more protective for consumers. In light of recent consumer law updates, courts may now offer greater protection to individuals where the FCC has previously fallen short. Translation: That 'free cruise' call might end up costing them more than just your time.