House Member Issues Resolution Opposing CFPB’s Medical Debt Advisory Opinion

The resolution has been referred to the House Financial Services Committee.

U.S. Rep. Gary Palmer, R-Ala., has introduced a resolution for Congress to review and disapprove the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s October advisory opinion concerning medical debt collections.

House Resolution 220 has been referred to the House Financial Services Committee for consideration.

The resolution states:

“Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to ‘Debt Collection Practices (Regulation F); Deceptive and Unfair Collection of Medical Debt.’

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to ‘Debt Collection Practices (Regulation F); Deceptive and Unfair Collection of Medical Debt’ (89 Fed. Reg. 80715; published Oct. 4, 2024), and such rule shall have no force or effect.”

ACA International will provide updates for members on the resolution.

Meanwhile, ACA and member company Collection Bureau Services have filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to halt the CFPB’s advisory opinion, ACA previously reported.

The bureau failed to follow the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), rewrote the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which it has no authority to do, and created conflicts with existing law, among other infirmities, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit from ACA and legal partner Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP seeks:

• A declaration that the CFPB’s advisory opinion is arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise contrary to law within the meaning of the APA.
• A declaration that the CFPB’s advisory opinion is in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right within the meaning of the APA.
• A declaration that the CFPB’s advisory opinion is without observance of procedure required by law within the meaning of the APA.
• A declaration that the CFPB’s advisory opinion is unconstitutional because it was funded in violation of the Appropriations Clause.
• Several other additional remedies as outlined in the complaint.