State complaint profile

Debt collection complaints in Texas

154,773 CFPB complaints filed against 2,454 debt collectors active in Texas.

Complaints
154,773
Collectors
2,454
Per 100k
507

This data comes from the CFPB Consumer Complaint Database and reflects consumer complaints, not proven violations.

Texas Debt Collection Laws

Texas Finance Code Chapter 392 mirrors federal FDCPA protections and applies to both debt collectors and original creditors.

State Mini-FDCPA

Contact your state attorney general for current enforcement information.

Insights: Debt Collection in Texas

Consumers in Texas have filed 154,773 CFPB debt collection complaints against 2,454 different collectors — a rate of 507.4 complaints per 100,000 residents. Complaint volume reflects both the size of the collection industry operating in Texas and the willingness of residents to escalate disputes through the federal regulatory process rather than handle them privately with the collector.

Higher per-capita complaint counts in some states correlate with a combination of stronger state-level consumer-protection statutes (which often add private rights of action on top of the federal FDCPA), more active state attorneys general, and more public outreach from the CFPB itself — not necessarily worse collector behavior. The pattern can also reflect debt-buyer concentration: states where large secondary-market buyers route accounts tend to generate elevated complaint flow regardless of the underlying account's origin.

The most-complained-about collector active in Texas is EQUIFAX, INC., but national-scale buyers and servicers typically dominate complaint volume in every state. For the practical Texas-specific protections that go beyond the federal FDCPA — licensing requirements, statute-of-limitations rules, and exempt-property thresholds — see the state rights note above and our FDCPA rights guide.

Active Debt Collectors — Page 16

Sorted by most complaints

Credit International Corporation

C
7 total complaints 2 last 12mo ↑ rising

Critical Resolution Mediation LLC

F
11 total complaints 0 last 12mo → stable

Stellantis Financial Services US Corp.

D
21 total complaints 14 last 12mo ↑ rising

Collection Service of Nevada

D
6 total complaints 4 last 12mo ↑ rising

McNeil & Meyers Asset Management Group, LLC

F
12 total complaints 4 last 12mo ↑ rising

GLOBAL CLIENT SOLUTIONS, LLC

D
7 total complaints 1 last 12mo ↓ falling

Mnet Financial Inc

C
37 total complaints 3 last 12mo ↑ rising

FlexShopper, Inc

D
7 total complaints 1 last 12mo ↑ rising

Stallings Financial Group, Inc.

D
2 total complaints 0 last 12mo → stable

C/C Financial

F
22 total complaints 7 last 12mo ↑ rising

Denefits LLC

F
11 total complaints 6 last 12mo ↑ rising

Credit Counsel, Inc.

C
3 total complaints 0 last 12mo ↑ rising

The J. G. Wentworth Company

D
8 total complaints 6 last 12mo ↑ rising

RICHLAND HOLDINGS, INC.

F
1 total complaints 1 last 12mo → stable

Nathan & Nathan, P.C.

C
1 total complaints 0 last 12mo ↑ rising

Sherloq Group, Inc

C
2 total complaints 1 last 12mo ↓ falling

Debt Management Incorporated

F
8 total complaints 7 last 12mo ↑ rising

Scott Fetzer Financial Group Inc.

C
9 total complaints 3 last 12mo ↑ rising

Mediation Recovery Center

C
18 total complaints 4 last 12mo ↑ rising

MS SERVICES LLC

D
2 total complaints 0 last 12mo ↑ rising

JNR Adjustment Company, Inc

C
12 total complaints 0 last 12mo ↓ falling

EZCORP, INC.

D
46 total complaints 0 last 12mo → stable

Action Collection Service

D
2 total complaints 2 last 12mo ↑ rising

ULRS, Inc.

D
4 total complaints 2 last 12mo ↑ rising

Trojan Professional Services, Inc.

C
2 total complaints 0 last 12mo → stable

Diversified Acceptance Corporation

F
3 total complaints 0 last 12mo ↑ rising

Mid-Atlantic Finance Co., Inc.

D
28 total complaints 7 last 12mo ↑ rising

Rosebud Economic Development Corporation

C
11 total complaints 6 last 12mo ↑ rising

Orion Capital Solutions LLC

D
11 total complaints 4 last 12mo → stable

JP RECOVERY SERVICES, INC.

C
2 total complaints 0 last 12mo → stable

Scheer, Green & Burke L.P.A.

D
10 total complaints 3 last 12mo ↑ rising

Berman & Rabin, P.A.

D
8 total complaints 4 last 12mo ↑ rising

DFC Global Corp.

D
5 total complaints 0 last 12mo ↓ falling

Sunset Management, Inc

C
1 total complaints 0 last 12mo ↑ rising

ROC Asset Solutions, LLC

F
5 total complaints 0 last 12mo ↓ falling

DigniFi

D
22 total complaints 11 last 12mo ↑ rising

Consolidated Recovery Group, LLC

D
11 total complaints 1 last 12mo ↓ falling

S & S Recovery, Inc.

D
57 total complaints 37 last 12mo ↑ rising

Collection Management Company

C
8 total complaints 0 last 12mo → stable

Credit Bureau of the South, Inc.

C
11 total complaints 2 last 12mo ↑ rising

Americor Funding, LLC

F
7 total complaints 3 last 12mo ↑ rising

CORELOGIC INC

C
9 total complaints 2 last 12mo ↑ rising

STATE FARM BANK, FSB

D
8 total complaints 0 last 12mo → stable

Nationwide Debt Management Solutions, LLC

F
5 total complaints 0 last 12mo → stable

Eaton Group Attorneys LLC

D
5 total complaints 0 last 12mo ↑ rising

American Capital Enterprises, Inc.

C
2 total complaints 0 last 12mo ↓ falling

Healthcare Receivables Group, Inc.

C
1 total complaints 0 last 12mo → stable

Second Alliance, Inc.

C
10 total complaints 9 last 12mo ↑ rising

AR Resources, Inc. (FL)

C
6 total complaints 0 last 12mo → stable

Centron Services

C
4 total complaints 1 last 12mo → stable

Related

Data sourced from the CFPB Consumer Complaint Database. See our methodology for details. Retrieved and formatted by PlainCollector Editorial

About These Collectors

Every collector listed for Texas appears here because at least one consumer from this state filed a complaint with the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) naming that company. The page is a per-state slice of the federal Consumer Complaint Database. Most entries are credit-reporting agencies (Equifax, TransUnion, Experian) and large national debt-buyers (Encore Capital, Portfolio Recovery, Resurgent Capital). Smaller regional collectors appear only when complaint volume from Texas residents passes the dataset's inclusion threshold.

What the Grade Means

Each company's letter grade combines four signals: total CFPB complaint volume normalized against fleet medians (size-adjusted), timely-response rate (the share of complaints answered within the federal 15-day window), monetary-or-non-monetary relief rate (the share of complaints resolved with corrective action versus closed with explanation only), and consumer-narrative tone (a sentiment signal extracted from the redacted public complaint text). The composite is bucketed A through F; the lowest 10% of scores fleet-wide land in F. Click any company to see the breakdown.

Filing a Complaint as a Texas Resident

If you believe a collector named on this page has violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) or otherwise mishandled your account, you have three parallel channels. First, the CFPB at consumerfinance.gov/complaint — the federal channel that powers this dataset. Second, the Texas attorney general's consumer protection division, which enforces state-level debt-collection statutes. Third, the state banking-and-finance regulator (which may license debt collectors operating in Texas). The three channels serve different purposes and can be pursued in parallel; we recommend the CFPB first because it produces a public record and a required company response within 15 days.

Methodology Note

State-of-residence in the CFPB record is the consumer's address at the time of complaint, not the collector's address. National collectors operate from a small number of corporate centers (typically Texas, Arizona, Florida, California) but appear on every state's per-state page when consumers from that state file. The state ranking and the per-state collector counts therefore reflect consumer experience, not corporate footprint. For collector headquarters and licensing detail, see the individual collector detail page.

Reading This Page Alongside the National View

Every collector listed here also appears on the national rankings page and on the recent-12-month leaderboard. The state-page slice gives you the Texas-specific complaint volume and per-state collector mix; the national pages give you the full nationwide context for understanding whether a collector's behavior in Texas reflects a structural pattern or a localized issue. We recommend reading both before deciding whether to file a complaint or pursue state-channel remedies — a collector with high state volume but low national volume points toward a regional portfolio acquisition or enforcement gap, while a collector with high state AND national volume points toward a structural compliance issue.

What the Per-Capita Rate Means

The complaints-per-100,000-residents rate normalizes absolute complaint volume against Texas's population, which makes cross-state comparison meaningful. Populous states naturally generate higher absolute complaint counts, but per-capita rate surfaces states where consumers are disproportionately likely to file federal complaints. A high per-capita rate typically reflects some combination of (a) higher uninsured-rate medical-debt activity, (b) weaker state-level debt-collection licensing enforcement, (c) longer statute-of-limitations periods on consumer debt, or (d) active consumer-advocacy infrastructure that directs residents toward the federal complaint channel. None of these factors implies misconduct by any specific collector — they shape the volume at which consumers in a state are willing and able to file complaints with the federal government.