BOSTON — More than 6,000 Massachusetts consumers will receive approximately $52 million in debt relief under a consent judgment that permanently bars Avon-based debt buyer and collector Judgment Acquisitions Unlimited, Champion Funding Inc., and owner Andrew Metcalf from operating a debt-collection business in the Commonwealth.

Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell announced the agreement Sept. 14, resolving a 2024 enforcement action that accused the defendants of unfair and deceptive collection practices, including allegedly seizing consumers’ vehicles to pressure them to pay old debts. The vehicles reportedly were unrelated to any auto-finance obligation and, in some cases, were legally exempt from seizure because of their low value.mass

Broad prohibition on collection activity

The agreement prohibits Metcalf and the companies from buying, selling, transferring, assigning, or collecting debts allegedly owed by Massachusetts consumers. It also permanently bars them from applying for a Massachusetts debt-collector license or conducting collection activity from or within Massachusetts — including activity involving consumers who live outside the state.mass

The relief applies to more than 6,000 consumers and approximately $52 million in alleged debt. Before the agreement, the defendants reported holding roughly 6,479 Massachusetts consumer accounts with a stated balance of about $52.8 million.natlawreview

“This settlement resolves the AGO’s lawsuit against the Defendants, permanently bars the companies and Andrew Metcalf from operating a debt collection business in Massachusetts, and delivers essential debt relief for thousands of residents across the Commonwealth,” the Attorney General’s Office said.mass

Attorney General Campbell said the settlement is intended to protect consumers facing financial pressure from allegedly unlawful collection conduct.

“As Massachusetts residents continue to face rising costs, they should not be subject to aggressive and unlawful debt collection practices like those Andrew Metcalf allegedly engaged in,” Campbell said. “Because of this settlement, thousands of families in the Commonwealth will be provided with debt relief and these predatory companies will never be allowed to operate in Massachusetts again.”mass

Allegations centered on vehicle seizures

The state alleged that the defendants used vehicle seizures as leverage to compel payment on debts they claimed to own. According to the AG’s office, these were not conventional repossessions in which a secured auto lender reclaims collateral after a borrower defaults on an auto loan.

Instead, the state said the seized cars had no connection to a consumer’s auto loan. Some were allegedly exempt from seizure under state law because of their value, while others were consumers’ only practical means of traveling to work.mass

The allegations extended beyond the vehicle seizures. In its case, Massachusetts also alleged that the defendants collected without required licensing, engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, misrepresented creditor information, overstated prejudgment interest, pursued time-barred debt, and exceeded state limits on communications with consumers. Those allegations were resolved through the consent judgment and should not be read as findings following trial.natlawreview

The Attorney General’s Office filed suit in February 2024 under the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act and later obtained two preliminary injunctions restricting the companies’ conduct while the litigation was pending.mass

Court cases, liens and vehicles

The settlement’s consumer impact may reach beyond account-level forgiveness. Earlier reporting on the proposed settlement indicated that the relief was designed to unwind collection-related consequences, including vacating or rolling back certain court decisions, releasing liens on consumers’ homes, and returning vehicles that had been seized.wgbh

The proposed judgment also required the defendants to wind down their Massachusetts litigation footprint. Pending civil and small-claims cases without a judgment were to be dismissed within 120 days, while satisfactions in cases with existing judgments were to be filed within one year, according to an analysis of the court filing.natlawreview

The enforcement matter coincides with a separate class-action resolution involving Metcalf. In that case, he agreed to void debt-related court judgments and dismiss pending matters involving more than 1,300 people and roughly $3 million in alleged debt, according to GBH News.wgbh

Suspended $650,000 penalty

The consent judgment includes a $650,000 suspended monetary penalty payable to the Commonwealth if the defendants breach the settlement or if their financial disclosures are determined to have been untruthful.mass

The penalty’s suspension was based on the defendants’ claimed financial condition, but it can become due upon a compliance violation or a finding that their inability-to-pay representations were inaccurate.natlawreview

Compliance takeaway

For debt buyers, collection agencies and collection-law firms, the Massachusetts action underscores that enforcement risk can extend well beyond call practices and documentation deficiencies. Licensing, litigation conduct, interest calculations, time-barred debt controls, creditor identification, property-exemption rules and post-judgment enforcement procedures all remain potential exposure points.

The case also illustrates a central distinction that collection operations should maintain in their policies and vendor controls: a lawful, properly documented repossession of secured collateral is fundamentally different from using a consumer’s unrelated vehicle or other exempt property as leverage to collect an unsecured or unrelated obligation. Massachusetts’ settlement treats the alleged misuse of that distinction as a serious consumer-protection violation, with the ultimate result being a permanent market exit for the defendants and the cancellation of tens of millions of dollars in asserted consumer debt.