The 2018 Encore-Midland 42-State Multistate Settlement: What It Says, Who Qualifies, and How It Affects Your Case

The 42 state attorneys general jointly investigated Midland's collection and litigation practices. Their investigation focused on a single core practice: Midland's filing of affidavits in state courts across the country at high volume without verifying the information in them.

In debt collection litigation, affidavits serve as the primary sworn evidence. When Midland files a lawsuit against a consumer, the affidavit signed by a Midland or MCM employee typically attests to the amount of the debt, the date of last payment, the chain of title from the original creditor to Midland, and other facts essential to proving the case. The affidavit is often the only evidence Midland offers at the early stages of a case — and it is what the court relies on if the consumer does not respond and a default judgment is entered.

The industry term for signing these documents in bulk without actually reviewing the underlying account records is "robo-signing" — a practice that gained broad public attention during the mortgage foreclosure crisis and that the state attorneys general found equally prevalent in Midland's consumer debt collection operations.

The state attorneys general specifically alleged that Midland's affidavit-signing process produced affidavits that did not accurately reflect Midland's own account records at the time the affidavits were signed. In other words: Midland employees were signing sworn statements about account facts that Midland's own internal systems did not support. The DC Attorney General's announcement of the settlement, available at oag.dc.gov/release/ag-racine-announces-midland-pay-6-million-illegal, described the practice as "illegal debt collection practices" under DC consumer protection law.

The settlement was announced in December 2018. Encore Capital Group, Midland Credit Management Inc., and Midland Funding LLC entered the agreement as defendants.

Important framing: this is a settlement, not a court judgment. Midland did not admit wrongdoing. The settlement resolved the state attorneys general's investigation without any finding of liability or adjudication on the merits.

The financial terms:

$6 million total to the participating states, paid within 30 days of settlement entry.

$25,000 per participating state (43 jurisdictions × $25,000) allocated to a consumer restitution fund for direct payments to consumers in three specific categories, described in the next section.

Up to $1,850 per qualifying consumer in judgment balance reduction credit. Eligibility criteria for this relief are strict and described in full below.

The $6 million total payment is distinct from the per-state restitution funds. The $6 million goes to the states. The restitution funds are a separate pool for direct consumer payments.

In addition to the financial terms, the settlement required Midland to implement specific reforms to its affidavit and account-documentation practices in the 42 participating states and the District of Columbia.

The required reforms require Midland, before filing a collection lawsuit, to possess: (1) account documents about the debt, including the amount of the debt claimed; (2) proof of an agreement between the consumer and the original creditor; and (3) an explanation of why any additional fees or interest beyond the original debt are justified.

Midland is also required to verify the information in affidavits before filing them in court proceedings, and to present accurate documents in court.

These reforms are not novel legal obligations — they are baseline requirements that should have governed debt-buyer litigation from the start. Their significance in the settlement context is that they create explicit, documented state AG enforcement leverage if Midland fails to comply. A court filing that lacks the documentation Midland is now affirmatively required to possess before suing is not just a litigation defect — it is a violation of a binding settlement obligation enforceable by 43 state attorneys general.

For defendants sued by Midland in participating states today: compare Midland's complaint against these three requirements. If the complaint does not identify or attach the original account agreement, does not document the chain of title, or does not explain the basis for additional fees — those are defects consistent with the robo-signing practice the 2018 settlement was designed to stop.

The settlement created a per-state consumer restitution fund for direct payments to consumers who were harmed by Midland's inaccurate affidavit practices. The fund covers three categories of consumers:

First: consumers who made a payment to Midland on a debt that was NOT actually owed by the consumer — meaning Midland collected on a debt the consumer did not legally owe — and where Midland did not refund that payment.

Second: consumers who made a payment to Midland in EXCESS of what was actually owed on the account — meaning Midland overcollected — and where Midland did not refund the excess.

Third: consumers who made a payment to Midland AFTER Midland submitted an affidavit in a collection lawsuit, where the amounts stated in that affidavit did not accurately reflect Midland's own account records of the consumer's debt at the time the affidavit was executed. In other words: the consumer paid based on a sworn statement that Midland's own records contradicted.

How to apply: contact your state attorney general's consumer protection division. Each participating state managed its own intake process for the 2018 settlement. Some state intake processes may still be open; others may have closed since the December 2018 announcement. The state AG office is the authoritative source for whether intake is still active and how to submit a claim.

A separate and larger relief category in the settlement provides up to $1,850 in judgment balance reduction per qualifying consumer. This relief applies to old Midland judgments, not new lawsuits.

All of the following must be true to qualify:

(1) The judgment was taken in a court in a participating state — one of the 42 states or the District of Columbia listed in the next section.

(2) The consumer disputed the debt with Midland before Midland filed the collection lawsuit.

(3) Midland filed the collection lawsuit AFTER the consumer disputed the debt.

(4) A law firm requested an affidavit from Midland to support the lawsuit — meaning Midland's collection counsel obtained or used a Midland affidavit in connection with that specific case.

(5) The covered time window: the judgment must have been entered in a case that falls within the January 1, 2003 through September 14, 2009 period.

(6) The consumer NEVER made a payment to Midland in connection with the debt.

How notification works: Midland is required by the settlement to notify qualifying consumers by mail of the judgment balance reduction. No further action is required from a qualifying consumer to receive the credit — Midland must apply it proactively.

If you believe you qualify and did not receive mail notification from Midland: contact your state attorney general's consumer protection division. If Midland failed to notify consumers it was required to notify, that is a compliance issue for the state AG to pursue.

Practical note for Pennsylvania consumers: Then-AG Josh Shapiro announced at the time of the settlement that 155 Pennsylvania consumers received over $256,000 in debt relief through the settlement. If you are a Pennsylvania consumer with an old Midland judgment from the 2003-2009 window who disputed the debt and never paid, the PA AG's office is the best starting point for eligibility information.

The following 42 states and the District of Columbia participated in the December 2018 multistate settlement with Encore Capital Group, Midland Credit Management, and Midland Funding:

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming.

If your state appears on this list, the settlement applies to your state and the up-to-$1,850 judgment balance reduction may be available for qualifying judgments from the 2003-2009 window.

Answered currently covers state defense playbooks for consumers in many of these participating states. For state-specific defense guidance, visit the Answered state defense pages for your state. For the Midland Funding deep-dive posts for the five states in this series: 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).

Eight states did not participate in the December 2018 multistate settlement:

California — did not participate. No separate California AG enforcement action against Midland at scale has been verified. California consumers sued by Midland have the federal CFPB orders available as regulatory background but not this settlement.

Kansas — did not participate. No separate Kansas AG enforcement action against Midland has been verified.

Maryland — did not participate. No separate Maryland AG enforcement action against Midland has been verified.

Massachusetts — did not participate in 2018. Massachusetts took its own separate action: in 2022, then-AG Maura Healey reached a $12 million settlement with Encore Capital Group in Suffolk Superior Court. That Massachusetts-specific settlement is separate from and in addition to the 2018 multistate. Massachusetts consumers should check with the Massachusetts Attorney General's office for eligibility under the 2022 settlement.

Minnesota — did not participate. No separate Minnesota AG enforcement action against Midland has been verified.

New York — did not participate. No separate New York AG enforcement action against Midland at scale has been verified. New York consumers sued by Midland have the federal CFPB orders and New York's Consumer Credit Fairness Act (/blog/portfolio-recovery-associates-suing-me-new-york) as their primary framework.

Texas — did not participate in 2018. Texas took its own separate earlier action: on July 8, 2011, then-AG Greg Abbott filed an enforcement action in Harris County District Court against Midland Funding LLC, Midland Credit Management Inc., and Encore Capital Group Inc., resolving in a $500,000 settlement over robo-signed affidavits. The 2011 Texas action predates the 2018 multistate and addressed the same underlying practice at the state level. Texas consumers should check with the Texas Attorney General's Consumer Protection Division for any continuing obligations from the 2011 settlement.

West Virginia — did not participate. No separate West Virginia AG enforcement action against Midland has been verified.

If you live in a non-participating state, the 2018 multistate settlement does not apply directly to your case. However, the federal CFPB enforcement actions against Encore (2015: $52 million; 2020: $15 million + $79,308.81 in redress) apply nationwide regardless of your state.

The settlement applied uniformly in structural terms across all 42 participating states and the District of Columbia. The financial terms — $6 million total, $25,000 per state consumer restitution fund, up to $1,850 judgment balance credit — were the same in every participating state. State attorneys general disclosed different levels of detail about consumer impact at the time of the announcement.

Pennsylvania: Then-AG Josh Shapiro announced that 155 Pennsylvania consumers received over $256,000 in debt relief through the settlement. Pennsylvania was among the states with the most detailed disclosure of consumer-specific outcomes.

Florida: Then-AG Pam Bondi stated that the settlement "establishes further safeguards to protect future borrowers from bad collection practices, in addition to providing judgment relief to existing debtors." Florida-specific consumer count and dollar figure were not separately disclosed in available public announcements.

Other states: State-specific consumer count and dollar figure data was disclosed selectively by state attorneys general at the time of announcement. Some state AGs issued detailed press releases; others issued brief statements or no separate statement. For state-specific eligibility and consumer-impact information, the authoritative source is your state attorney general's consumer protection division.

The settlement agreement itself was the governing document. Consumers should not rely on press release summaries for eligibility determinations — contact the state AG directly.

The 2018 state multistate settlement is entirely separate from the federal CFPB enforcement actions against Encore Capital Group. They involve different regulators, different remedies, different geographic scope, and overlapping but distinct factual findings.

The federal CFPB enforcement record:

CFPB v. Encore Capital Group (Sept. 9, 2015): $52 million total — $42 million in consumer refunds, a $10 million civil money penalty, and an order halting collection on more than $125 million in debt Encore could not adequately document. 5-year consent order duration. The CFPB press release is at consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-takes-action-against-the-two-largest-debt-buyers-for-using-deceptive-tactics-to-collect-bad-debts/.

CFPB v. Encore Capital Group (Oct. 16, 2020): $15 million civil money penalty + $79,308.81 in consumer redress. Found Encore violated the 2015 order — still suing consumers without required documentation and sending 425,000 letters missing required time-barred-debt disclosures. Extended the 2015 consent order provisions for an additional five years. 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 enforcement landing page for Encore is at consumerfinance.gov/enforcement/actions/encore/.

Adding the federal and state totals: the 2015 CFPB action ($52M), the 2018 multistate ($6M), and the 2020 CFPB action ($15M + $79K) together represent more than $73 million in regulatory consequences against Encore and Midland in a single decade — for overlapping conduct involving defective affidavits, unverified debts, and documentation failures.

There are also separate state-specific actions that are neither the 2018 multistate nor the federal CFPB orders. The 2011 Texas AG action ($500,000, Harris County District Court) predated the 2018 multistate and resolved separately. The 2022 Massachusetts AG action ($12 million, AG Healey) postdated the 2018 multistate and resolved separately. None of these actions cancel out or replace the others — all apply within their respective geographic and temporal scope.

For consumers in the 42 participating states: both the 2018 multistate and the federal CFPB orders apply to Midland's conduct in your state.

For consumers in non-participating states: only the federal CFPB orders apply directly. Texas and Massachusetts consumers may have separate state AG frameworks to check.

If you live in a participating state and Midland has filed a new lawsuit against you in 2026: the required reforms from the 2018 settlement apply. Midland is required, before filing, to have account documents about the debt (including the amount), proof of the original agreement, and an explanation of any additional fees. If Midland's complaint lacks these elements — if it attaches only a generic affidavit without the original cardholder agreement, without a documented chain of assignment, without an itemized fee explanation — those are defects consistent with the documented robo-signing practice the settlement was designed to address. They are also potential defects under your state's pleading rules. Your Answer should raise them.

If you have an old Midland judgment from 2003-2009 in a participating state: check whether you qualify for the up-to-$1,850 balance reduction. The criteria are: participating state, you disputed before Midland sued, Midland sued after your dispute with an affidavit from a law firm, the case falls in the January 1, 2003 through September 14, 2009 window, and you never paid Midland. Midland should have sent you mail notification. If you did not receive one and believe you qualify, contact your state attorney general.

If you live in a non-participating state: the 2018 multistate does not apply directly to your case. However, the federal CFPB orders — which found the same robo-signing and documentation failures — apply nationwide. The documented regulatory pattern is part of the relevant context for challenging Midland's affidavit evidence even in non-participating states. And if you are in Texas or Massachusetts, separate state AG enforcement actions provide additional regulatory background.

The practical defense value of the 2018 multistate for current cases: it documents that 42 state attorneys general, after conducting a joint investigation, found Midland's affidavit practices systematically inadequate. That regulatory finding does not automatically win your case — but it is part of the documented pattern that supports challenging the specific affidavit Midland is using against you.

For consumer restitution from the $25,000 per-state fund: contact your state attorney general's consumer protection division. Most state AGs maintain active consumer complaint intake processes and can tell you whether the intake for the 2018 settlement is still open and how to submit a claim.

For judgment balance reduction (up to $1,850): first check your records for mail notification from Midland referencing the 2018 multistate settlement and a judgment balance credit. Midland is required by the settlement to send this notification to qualifying consumers without any action required on the consumer's part. If you believe you qualify and did not receive notification, contact your state attorney general's consumer protection division.

For federal CFPB-related information: visit consumerfinance.gov/enforcement/actions/encore/ for the complete public record of the CFPB enforcement actions against Encore.

For separate state AG actions: Texas consumers can contact the Texas Attorney General's Consumer Protection Division regarding the 2011 Harris County settlement. Massachusetts consumers can contact the Massachusetts Attorney General's Office regarding the 2022 AG Healey settlement.

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. Wisconsin is one of the 42 participating states in the 2018 multistate settlement. The settlement documented that 42 state attorneys general found Midland's affidavit practices systematically inadequate — exactly the practice I challenged through the arbitration motion that resolved my case.

I built Answered to give pro se defendants the playbook for using regulatory records like the 2018 multistate, combined with state-specific procedural defenses, to push back against debt-buyer lawsuits. For the full story, visit /about/john-disalle.