Medical debt reporting
ACA International v. Fulford
Date: Nov. 5, 2025
Issue: Whether Colorado’s medical debt reporting ban is preempted by the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and violates the First Amendment.
Case Summary: ACA International and Creditors Bureau USA sued administrator of the Uniform Consumer Credit Code, Martha Fulford, in Colorado federal court to block a Colorado law banning medical debt from credit reports.
In 2023, the Colorado General Assembly enacted HB 23-1126, which barred consumer reporting agencies (CRAs) from including any adverse medical debt information in credit reports, even though the FCRA allows coded medical-debt reporting. The ban applies automatically and does not require consumer action. The law includes only three exceptions: medical charges on general credit cards (unless opened for medical expenses), reporting tied to high-value single-family home loans above the Federal Housing Finance Agency conforming limit, and positive or non-adverse medical-debt information. Plaintiffs contended that these narrow, content-based exceptions underscore how Colorado’s approach conflicts with Congress’s goal of maintaining uniform national credit-reporting standards — a conflict that has already led courts to invalidate similar federal rules.
In its complaint, Plaintiffs argued the FCRA preempts HB 23-1126. Plaintiffs explained that Congress created the FCRA to establish uniform national credit-reporting standards and prevent states from imposing conflicting rules. In Plaintiffs’ view, HB 23-1126 violates this framework because it bans reporting of medical-debt information that federal law expressly allows, including coded medical information allowed under the FCRA. Moreover, the FCRA’s express preemption clause bars states from regulating the content of consumer reports, and Colorado directly intruded into that protected area. Plaintiffs also argued HB 23-1126 frustrates Congress’s goals of accuracy, fairness, and national uniformity.
Plaintiffs also emphasized that CFPB confirmed the FCRA’s broad preemption authority. On Oct. 27, 2025, the CFPB issued an interpretive rule stating that “the FCRA generally preempts state laws that touch on broad areas of credit reporting,” consistent with Congress’s intent to create national credit-reporting standards.
Plaintiffs also argued that HB 23-1126 violates the First Amendment. In Plaintiffs’ view, 23-1126 suppresses protected commercial speech by preventing credit reporting agencies from communicating accurate adverse medical-debt information. The First Amendment protects both the right to speak and the right to receive information, and content-based laws are “presumptively unconstitutional” and often “dispositive” of viewpoint discrimination, according to Plaintiffs. HB 23-1126 fits that description because it targets unpaid medical debt while allowing the same speech for preferred purposes, such as large home-loan transactions or positive medical-debt reporting.
Bottom Line: Plaintiffs seek a declaration that HB 23-1126 is preempted by the FCRA and violates the First Amendment.
Document: Complaint
