The CFPB Has Penalized Midland and Portfolio Recovery Associates Over $118 Million — Here's What That Means for Your Case

Before walking through the four enforcement orders, it helps to understand who the defendants actually are and how they relate to the companies that sue consumers in state court.

Encore Capital Group, Inc. is the parent company. It trades on NASDAQ under the ticker ECPG and is headquartered in San Diego, California. Encore is the largest debt buyer in the United States.

Midland Credit Management, Inc. (MCM) is an Encore subsidiary. MCM functions as the servicer — it manages day-to-day account operations and consumer-facing communications. When you receive collection letters, MCM is typically the sender.

Midland Funding, LLC is a separate Encore subsidiary. Midland Funding is the legal entity that owns the purchased debt portfolios. When Encore's operations sue a consumer in state court, the named plaintiff is almost always Midland Funding, LLC — not MCM and not Encore Capital Group directly.

Asset Acceptance, LLC was a separate company until 2013, when Encore acquired it. Before the acquisition, Asset Acceptance had its own Federal Trade Commission enforcement action — FTC v. Asset Acceptance (M.D. Fla., Jan. 31, 2012) — which resolved for a $2.5 million settlement for pre-acquisition conduct. That action was brought by the Federal Trade Commission, a different federal agency from the CFPB, and addressed conduct that occurred before Encore owned Asset Acceptance.

PRA Group, Inc. is an entirely separate company from Encore. PRA Group trades on NASDAQ under the ticker PRAA and is headquartered in Norfolk, Virginia. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC is a PRA Group subsidiary — the entity that purchases debt and sues consumers.

When Midland Funding LLC files a lawsuit against you, the CFPB enforcement record against Encore Capital Group applies as the corporate parent's regulatory history. When Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC files a lawsuit against you, the CFPB orders against PRA directly name the entity in your case.

When Midland Funding or Portfolio Recovery Associates files a lawsuit against you in state court, that court applies its own evidentiary rules and procedural standards. But the federal CFPB's documented findings about how these companies operate are part of the regulatory context that informs how courts and defendants should evaluate the evidence those companies put before the court.

The four CFPB enforcement orders collectively establish three things that matter in any state-court case.

First: the same federal regulator investigated each company twice in eight years and found the same problems both times — inadequate affidavit practices, insufficient documentation of the underlying debt, and collection on time-barred debt without required disclosures. The 2020 Encore action and 2023 PRA action both arose because the 2015 orders had not stopped the documented conduct.

Second: federal courts entered stipulated judgments against both companies confirming the regulatory findings. The 2020 Encore order and the 2023 PRA order are civil judgments entered by federal district judges — not just administrative agency findings.

Third: the documentation requirements the CFPB imposed — possess the original credit agreement, document the chain of assignment, substantiate the debt amount before filing — parallel the foundation requirements under state business records evidence rules in virtually every state. When a defendant raises a foundation challenge, the federal record establishes that the same regulator found the same documentation failures at both companies.

These orders apply in all 50 states. They do not substitute for state-specific procedural defenses, but they establish a documented factual foundation that supports specific challenges to specific affidavits, specific documentation claims, and specific time-barred-debt collection attempts.

On September 9, 2015, the CFPB simultaneously entered administrative consent orders against Encore Capital Group and Portfolio Recovery Associates. The same-day timing was deliberate: the CFPB had investigated both companies and found that the two largest debt buyers in the United States had engaged in similar misconduct, and it addressed both in coordinated enforcement actions.

CFPB v. Encore Capital Group (Sept. 9, 2015), In re Encore Capital Group, Inc., 2015-CFPB-0022: Total monetary remedy: $52 million — $42 million in consumer refunds and $10 million civil money penalty — plus an order halting collection on more than $125 million worth of debt Encore could not adequately document. Duration: 5-year conduct provisions. The CFPB found that Encore collected on unsubstantiated or inaccurate debt; filed misleading affidavits in collection actions; misrepresented its intent to prove debts if consumers contested them; and misrepresented that it had legally enforceable claims to debts outside applicable statutes of limitations. The CFPB press release covering both 2015 orders is at consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-takes-action-against-the-two-largest-debt-buyers-for-using-deceptive-tactics-to-collect-bad-debts/. The CFPB enforcement landing page for Encore is at consumerfinance.gov/enforcement/actions/encore/.

CFPB v. Portfolio Recovery Associates (Sept. 9, 2015), In re Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, 2015-CFPB-0023: Total monetary remedy: approximately $27 million — $19 million in consumer refunds and $8 million civil money penalty — plus required vacatur of approximately $3 million in court judgments already obtained against consumers. Duration: 5-year conduct provisions. The CFPB found that PRA collected on unsubstantiated or inaccurate debt; filed misleading affidavits in collection actions; falsely claimed attorneys were retained on accounts handled without attorney involvement; and made misrepresentations about time-barred debt. The CFPB enforcement landing page for PRA is at consumerfinance.gov/enforcement/actions/portfolio-recovery-associates/.

Both 2015 orders required the same core conduct reforms: substantiate debt amounts before suing or asserting collectibility; possess specific documents — including a signed credit agreement and account statements — before pursuing legal collection; properly investigate consumer disputes; and halt collection on time-barred debt without proper disclosure. The $3 million in judgments PRA was required to vacate represents cases where PRA had already obtained court judgments against consumers based on the practices the CFPB found inadequate. Both 2015 orders were administrative consent orders — entered by the CFPB as the supervising regulator, not by a federal court. That distinction matters for the 2020 and 2023 follow-up actions.

Five years after the 2015 administrative consent order, the CFPB concluded that Encore had violated it.

On September 8, 2020, the CFPB filed a civil lawsuit against Encore Capital Group, Midland Funding LLC, Midland Credit Management Inc., and Asset Acceptance Capital Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California — Encore's home federal district, where Encore is headquartered in San Diego. The court entered a stipulated final judgment on October 16, 2020 (Case No. 3:20-cv-01750).

Unlike the 2015 administrative consent order, the 2020 order is a civil judgment entered by a federal district judge. The stipulated final judgment is available at files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_encore-capital-group-et-al_proposed-stipulated-final-judgment-and-order_2020-10.pdf. The CFPB press release is at consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/consumer-financial-protection-bureau-settles-lawsuit-debt-collectors-and-debt-buyers-encore-capital-group-midland-funding-midland-credit-management-and-asset-acceptance-capital-corp/.

The CFPB alleged that Encore violated the 2015 consent order in specific, documented ways: it filed approximately 100 lawsuits to collect on time-barred debt — directly violating the 2015 order's explicit prohibition; it sent approximately 425,000 letters to consumers without the time-barred-debt disclosure the 2015 order required; and it committed additional violations of the 2015 order's substantiation, documentation, and validation requirements.

Monetary remedy: $15 million civil money penalty plus $79,308.81 in consumer redress. The smaller consumer redress figure reflects the narrower scope of violations alleged in 2020 compared to the 2015 order's $42 million in refunds — but the civil penalty was substantial.

Critically, the 2020 stipulated judgment extended the 2015 consent order's conduct provisions for an additional five years from the 2020 entry date, meaning Encore remains bound by the documentation and substantiation requirements through approximately 2025-2026.

For current cases: Encore was already under a court-enforceable obligation not to file on time-barred debt or send documentation-deficient letters when it violated those obligations. The 2020 action documented specific, quantified violations — 100 lawsuits, 425,000 letters. The federal court confirmed those violations by entering the stipulated judgment.

On March 23, 2023, the CFPB filed a civil lawsuit against Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The court entered a stipulated final judgment on April 13, 2023.

The CFPB's press release headline explicitly described PRA as a "repeat offender" — language CFPB Director Rohit Chopra used as part of a broader 2022-2023 enforcement focus on companies that had violated prior CFPB orders. Director Chopra's public statement said: "After getting caught red-handed in 2015, Portfolio Recovery Associates continued violating the law through intimidation, deception, and illegal debt-collection tactics and lawsuits. CFPB orders are not suggestions, and companies cannot ignore them simply because they are large or dominant in the market."

To be precise about the "repeat offender" label: it was Director Chopra's public characterization and the press release framing, not a formal court adjudication of "repeat offender" status as a legal conclusion. PRA settled without admitting wrongdoing. But the label accurately describes what the 2023 action alleged — that PRA had continued the same practices the 2015 order prohibited.

The press release is at consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-orders-portfolio-recovery-associates-to-pay-more-than-24-million-illegal-debt-collection-practices-reporting-violations/. The CFPB enforcement landing page is at consumerfinance.gov/enforcement/actions/portfolio-recovery-associates-llc/.

The 2023 action alleged PRA violated the 2015 order by: making at least tens of thousands of representations about unsubstantiated or disputed debts; sending millions of form letters about potential legal action without offering the documentation the 2015 order required; suing or threatening legal action without possessing required documentation; collecting on debt outside applicable statutes of limitations; failing to properly investigate and resolve consumer disputes about credit reporting under the Fair Credit Reporting Act; failing to inform consumers about investigation outcomes; failing to timely resolve disputes across tens of thousands of occasions; and conducting unreasonable investigations of fraud and identity theft claims.

Monetary remedy: $24.18 million total — $12 million civil money penalty deposited into the CFPB's victim relief fund, plus $12.18 million in consumer redress. The 2023 judgment also imposed new conduct restrictions on PRA's collection and credit-reporting practices, including affirmative requirements for documentation timing and dispute investigation that go beyond the 2015 order.

The combined federal regulatory monetary record against Encore and PRA between 2015 and 2023:

Encore Capital Group across both orders: $42 million in consumer refunds (2015) + $10 million civil penalty (2015) + $15 million civil penalty (2020) + $79,308.81 in consumer redress (2020) = approximately $67 million in total monetary remedies. This does not include the $125+ million in debt collection the 2015 order required Encore to halt — that was a required cessation, not a payment.

Portfolio Recovery Associates across both orders: $19 million in consumer refunds (2015) + $8 million civil penalty (2015) + $12 million civil penalty (2023) + $12.18 million in consumer redress (2023) = approximately $51.18 million in total monetary remedies. This does not include the $3 million in judgments the 2015 order required PRA to vacate.

Combined total: approximately $118.18 million across four enforcement actions over eight years.

The pattern across all four orders: inadequate substantiation of debt amounts before initiating legal action; filing of affidavits that did not accurately reflect the company's own records; collection on time-barred debt without required disclosures; and inadequate response to consumer disputes, particularly credit-reporting disputes for PRA. These are not four isolated incidents — they are four enforcement actions against two companies over eight years, all by the same federal regulator, all addressing overlapping categories of misconduct.

A note on current CFPB enforcement capacity: the 2025-2026 regulatory landscape has shifted substantially, with significantly reduced CFPB enforcement activity under new leadership. The four consent orders and stipulated judgments remain legally binding regardless of current CFPB staffing or enforcement priorities. Whether the CFPB actively monitors compliance in the current environment is a separate question from whether the obligations are still in effect — they are.

Federal CFPB orders do not directly resolve a state-court debt collection case. State courts apply state evidentiary and procedural rules. But the federal regulatory record provides meaningful support for specific defenses in four ways.

Documented pattern evidence: When Midland's affidavit appears in your state-court case, the federal record establishes that Midland's parent company's affidavit practices were the subject of two CFPB enforcement actions within the past decade — specifically for the kind of inadequate documentation that defeats foundation under state business records evidence rules. The 2020 action documented 100 specific lawsuits and 425,000 letters as concrete instances of deficient practices.

Credibility challenge foundation: When PRA's representative testifies about how PRA verified the underlying debt, the 2023 "repeat offender" record establishes that PRA's verification practices were specifically found by the CFPB to be inadequate as recently as 2023. The federal record does not automatically win a foundation challenge, but it is part of the documented context for raising one.

Settlement negotiation leverage: Companies with documented federal regulatory exposure face higher documented costs of operating in non-compliant channels. Defendants who raise specific, documented defenses based on the federal record may receive different responses to settlement discussions than defendants who do not raise those defenses.

Counterclaim support: The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and state-specific consumer collection practices statutes often parallel the documentation and validation requirements the CFPB imposed in its four orders. Where Midland's or PRA's collection conduct in your specific case mirrors the documented conduct — collecting on unsubstantiated debt, suing on time-barred debt without required disclosure, misrepresenting collectibility — that specific conduct may support FDCPA or state-law counterclaims.

The four CFPB federal enforcement actions are separate from — and do not duplicate — the state attorney general enforcement actions against Encore and PRA. They can run in parallel, and in multiple instances they have.

The 2018 42-state multistate settlement with Encore and Midland was a state AG action — 42 states and the District of Columbia, $6 million in state-level remedies, and up to $1,850 in judgment balance credits for qualifying consumers with judgments from January 1, 2003 through September 14, 2009. That settlement is described in full in the companion post at /blog/encore-midland-2018-multistate-settlement.

The 2011 Texas AG action against Midland — $500,000 in Harris County District Court — and the 2022 Massachusetts AG settlement with Encore — $12 million in Suffolk Superior Court — are state-specific enforcement actions that apply only within their respective states. Neither is a CFPB action.

The four CFPB orders apply nationwide, in all 50 states, regardless of whether your state participated in the 2018 multistate or had its own separate AG action.

For defendants in states that participated in the 2018 multistate: both the state AG settlement and the federal CFPB orders apply. They establish overlapping but separate regulatory obligations — the CFPB orders establish nationwide conduct requirements; the state AG settlement establishes participating-state-specific reform requirements and may provide direct consumer relief for qualifying consumers.

For defendants in non-participating states (California, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Texas, West Virginia): the 2018 multistate does not apply, but all four CFPB orders apply regardless. Massachusetts and Texas consumers may also have separate state AG frameworks to consult.

Two different companies are on each side of this federal enforcement record, and which company is suing you determines which orders are most directly on point.

If Midland Funding LLC is suing you: Encore Capital Group, Inc. is the corporate parent. The 2015 CFPB order (2015-CFPB-0022) and the 2020 stipulated final judgment (S.D. Cal., Case No. 3:20-cv-01750) are the directly applicable federal enforcement record. Both orders specifically address affidavit practices, time-barred debt collection, and documentation requirements — the same categories of defects that arise in virtually every Midland state-court case. The 2020 order documented 100 specific lawsuits filed in violation of the 2015 order's prohibition.

If Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC is suing you: PRA Group, Inc. is the corporate parent, but Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC is the entity directly named in both the 2015 and 2023 CFPB orders. The 2023 "repeat offender" action is less than three years ago — when PRA's complaint or affidavit in your current case raises documentation or validation questions, the federal record documenting those same issues as recently as 2023 is immediately relevant context.

The state-specific procedural defenses in your jurisdiction — foundation under the business records exception, chain of title, statute of limitations, FDCPA and state consumer-protection counterclaims — all operate alongside the federal regulatory record. The federal record does not replace state-law defenses; it provides a documented factual foundation for raising them.

For state-specific defense frameworks against Midland, see the Answered companion posts: Pennsylvania (/blog/midland-funding-suing-me-pennsylvania), California (/blog/midland-credit-management-suing-me-california), Texas (/blog/midland-credit-management-suing-me-texas), and Florida (/blog/midland-credit-management-suing-me-florida). For the PRA framework in New York, see /blog/portfolio-recovery-associates-suing-me-new-york.

I'm John DiSalle. In April 2026, I won my own debt-buyer case pro se in Eau Claire County, Wisconsin — Plaza Services LLC v. DiSalle, Case No. 2025SC000885, dismissed April 9, 2026. The federal CFPB record against Midland's and PRA's parent companies is not a magic bullet — state courts apply state evidentiary rules, and a CFPB press release does not automatically win a foundation challenge. But the federal record is part of the documented legal context that supports specific challenges to specific affidavits and specific documentation. I built Answered to give pro se defendants the framework for combining state-specific defenses with the federal regulatory record.

For the full story, visit /about/john-disalle.

First: identify the plaintiff. Confirm whether the named plaintiff in your case is Midland Funding LLC (Encore subsidiary — the 2015 and 2020 CFPB orders against Encore apply) or Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC (PRA Group subsidiary — the 2015 and 2023 CFPB orders against PRA apply). The orders against each company are separate and name different defendants.

Second: note the federal regulatory record in your defense framework, but lead with state-specific procedural defenses — foundation under the business records exception, statute of limitations, FDCPA and state-law counterclaims. The federal orders support those defenses; they don't replace them.

Third: request documentation from the plaintiff under state-specific procedural rules and FDCPA validation provisions. All four CFPB orders required both companies to possess — before filing a collection lawsuit — the original account agreement, documentation of the chain of assignment, and substantiation of the claimed debt amount. If the plaintiff cannot produce that documentation, the deficiency is consistent with the pattern documented across four federal enforcement actions.

Fourth: consider a counterclaim under the FDCPA and applicable state consumer-protection statutes if the plaintiff's collection conduct in your specific case violated federal or state law. The same conduct the CFPB documented — collecting on unsubstantiated debt, suing on time-barred debt, providing misleading documentation — may also support statutory counterclaims with per-violation remedies.

Fifth: for the 2018 multistate settlement and state-specific AG enforcement, see the companion post at /blog/encore-midland-2018-multistate-settlement. For state-specific defense frameworks: Pennsylvania (/blog/midland-funding-suing-me-pennsylvania), California (/blog/midland-credit-management-suing-me-california), New York (/blog/portfolio-recovery-associates-suing-me-new-york), Texas (/blog/midland-credit-management-suing-me-texas), and Florida (/blog/midland-credit-management-suing-me-florida).