Litigation and regulatory actions
In 2014, the Attorney General of New York obtained a settlement against PRA "for repeatedly bringing improper debt collection actions against New York consumers." The case involved uncontested default judgments levied against defendants who failed to respond to suits brought by PRA against them. The settlement required the abandonment of claims against debtors, changes in collection practices, and a civil fine.
In May 2015, a jury ordered Portfolio Recovery Associates to pay $82,990,000 in punitive damages for the malicious prosecution of Maria Guadalupe Mejia, a Kansas City woman who was pursued by PRA for a $1000 credit card debt she did not owe. The company was also fined $250,000 for violating the Fair Debt and Collection Practices Act.[10]
In September 2015, The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) ordered PRA to pay an $8m penalty and issue $19 million in consumer refunds. The company was also ordered to cease collection attempts on debt totaling more than $3 million. The CFPB found that PRA:
A 2019 court case between PRA Group's UK subsidiary and a debtor – Doyle vs PRA Group (UK) Ltd – clarified UK law around statute-barred debt, with the judge ruling that creditors were unable to pursue a debt if no action had been taken within six years of the initial default.[11][12][13]
In March 2023, PRA was fined $24 million for continued illegal debt collection practices and consumer reporting violations. The director of the agency stated that following the 2015 action, PRA continued "violating the law through intimidation, deception, and illegal debt collection tactics and lawsuits."
In 2024, PRA paid $5.5 million to settle a class action lawsuit that alleged the company violated North Carolina debt collection law by obtaining default judgments against debtors without filing sufficient evidence to substantiate the debts claimed to be owed.[14]
- Threatened and deceived consumers to collect on inaccurate debts;
- Stated incorrect balances, interest rates, and payment due dates in attempting to collect debts from consumers;
- Failed to provide documentation on debts;
- Filed court cases without documentation to mislead consumers, and collected default judgments when consumers failed to appear in court;
- Filed cases on debts that they knew were outside the statute of limitations.
