Massachusetts AG Bars Debt Collectors and Secures Approximately $52 Million in Consumer Debt Relief

On Sept. 14, 2026, Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell announced a consent judgment permanently barring three affiliated Avon, Massachusetts-based debt collection companies and their owner from collecting debts in or from the Commonwealth. The AG’s office estimates that the settlement will provide more than 6,000 Massachusetts consumers with approximately $52 million in relief from alleged debts.

The settlement resolves allegations that Champion Funding, Inc., Champion Funding, LLC, Judgment Acquisitions Unlimited, Inc., and their owner, Andrew Metcalf (collectively, the defendants), used unfair and deceptive debt collection practices, including seizing consumers’ vehicles to coerce payment. The judgment prohibits the defendants from selling or transferring Massachusetts consumer debts, thereby extending its impact to their existing portfolios, and imposes a suspended $650,000 monetary judgment.

The defendants deny the allegations beyond the facts specifically stipulated in the judgment and entered the settlement to resolve the litigation without further trial or adjudication.

The Massachusetts AG’s office alleged in its amended complaint that the defendants violated the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, General Law Chapter 93A, Section 2 through practices including:

• Seizing exempt vehicles. The defendants allegedly seized consumers’ cars to pressure them to pay, including vehicles that were exempt from seizure and were consumers’ only means of getting to work. According to the AG’s office, the alleged seizures involved cars unrelated to any auto loan the consumer may have had.
• Misrepresenting creditor identities. The defendants allegedly collected debts they did not own and misrepresented or concealed the entity that owned or controlled the debts, sometimes by altering documents.
• Other collection practices. The AG’s office also alleged unlicensed debt collection, unauthorized practice of law, overstated prejudgment interest in court filings, collection of debts outside the applicable statute of limitations, and consumer contacts exceeding legal limits.

The Massachusetts AG’s office filed its lawsuit in February 2024. A March 2024 preliminary injunction barred auctions of vehicles then held by the defendants or their agents, seizure of exempt vehicles, and court filings or appearances without counsel outside small claims court. A June 2025 injunction restricted the two Champion Funding entities’ debt transactions and barred all defendants from acquiring or collecting debts from specified sellers.

The consent judgment permanently prohibits the defendants from:

• Engaging in collection activity within or from Massachusetts, including on debts owed by consumers outside the Commonwealth;
• Collecting on, accepting payment for, purchasing, selling, assigning, or transferring debts owed or allegedly owed by Massachusetts consumers; and
• Applying for a debt collector license from the Massachusetts Division of Banks.

The defendants reported approximately 6,479 Massachusetts consumer debts with a stated balance of about $52.8 million. The judgment prevents the defendants from collecting or transferring those debts.

Metcalf must complete the permanent surrender of his debt collector license, dissolve Champion Funding, Inc., and revise specified business filings to reflect the Massachusetts restrictions. The judgment also reflects his representation that the defendants and their agents had released Massachusetts consumers’ personal property and dissolved applicable liens on Massachusetts real estate.

In civil and small claims cases involving the defendants or their predecessors in interest, the judgment requires dismissals within 120 days where no judgment has entered and satisfactions within one year where a judgment has entered. Both periods run from the judgment’s effective date. The defendants must submit monthly reports until those filings are complete and may not seek new judgments or adverse orders against Massachusetts consumers in the interim.

The $650,000 monetary judgment applies jointly and severally to all defendants but is suspended based on their reported financial condition. The full amount becomes due if the court determines that their financial disclosures were untruthful, inaccurate, or incomplete when made. Separately, the suspension may be lifted if, within 13 years of the judgment’s effective date, the court finds a violation of the injunctive terms.

For debt buyers and collectors, this settlement illustrates how enforcement remedies may affect existing portfolios and individual owners. The defendants cannot collect or sell Massachusetts consumer debts, and Metcalf is individually bound by the injunction and suspended monetary judgment. Debt buyers, collectors, and their service providers may wish to review:

• Creditor records and collection authority. Stakeholders should consider confirming that records identify the entity that owns or controls each debt and establish the authority to collect it.
• Litigation and collection procedures. Stakeholders may wish to review applicable statutes of limitations, court-filing practices, exemptions from property seizure, interest calculations, and limits on consumer contact.
• Licensing. Stakeholders should consider checking applicable debt collector licensing requirements in each state where their business operates.

Chapter 93A provides the AG with a robust enforcement mechanism, which includes the ability to seek statutory penalties of up to $5,000 per violation of Section 2. The Massachusetts action also highlights the value of maintaining controls that can be documented and tested before an investigation begins.