EOS CCA is a debt collection agency, which receives a lot of consumer complaints to our law firm for debt harassment. Find out who they are, why they might be calling, and how you can stop them.
What is EOS CCA?
EOS CCA , Inc. (EOS) is a third-party debt collection agency based in Massachusetts. EOS has received consumer complaints alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), such as attempting to collect debts not owed and failing to provide written verification of debts. If EOS has contacted you about delinquent collection items, make sure you understand your rights before taking action.
Have questions? Call us now at 475-277-1600 for a Free Case Evaluation.
Our services are absolutely FREE to you.
The harassing company pays our fees.
Is EOS CCA a scam?
They’re legit. According to the Better Business Bureau (BBB), EOS CCA, Inc. was founded and incorporated in 1991. The BBB established a profile page for EOS in 2004. The BBB lists EOS CCA as a collection agency with an estimated 850 employees that uses the alternate business names, EOS Healthcare and Collecto, Inc. Buzzfile estimates EOS CCA’s annual revenue at $47 million and the size of its headquarters staff at 388 employees, with an estimated total of 538 employees across all locations.
According to its website, EOS “is a professional debt collection company…that helps companies come to amicable agreements with consumers with outstanding debts.” In its “early days, …EOS …provided basic collection services…and has since developed into a premier agency for all stages of receivables management.” EOS states that its goal is “to work with consumers with the utmost respect and professionalism to resolve their outstanding debt issues.”
Who does EOS CCA collect for?
EOS CCA collects delinquent debts for many types of businesses and industries, including banks and other financial services companies; education lenders, including colleges, universities, and other student loan finance companies; telecommunications companies; and many other types of businesses. EOS “works on behalf of the original supplier based on a Debt Assignment Agreement.”
The EOS website does not provide a lot of detailed information about their actual debt collection or other business practices. Their Frequently Asked Questions page provides some general information for site visitors with questions about how to respond to collection notices. However, the EOS website does not provide any detailed information about their regulatory compliance polices, or any links or references to consumer protection resources, laws, or enforcement agencies.
Who are we? We are Lemberg Law, a Consumer Law Firm
Lemberg Law is a consumer law firm helping victims of collection harassment and abuse. We are ranked A+ by the BBB. We’ve helped more than 15,000 consumers stop harassment and recover money from debt collectors. Harassed? Abused? Misled by a collector? Call our Helpline today! There is no charge unless we win.
How many complaints are there against EOS CCA?
As of November 2019, the BBB has closed 237 complaints against EOS CCA in the preceding 3 years, with 71 complaints closed in the previous 12 months. Most of those complaints cited problems with billing and collections, although several complaints also cited problems with customer service. As of July 2013, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has closed 1,781 complaints involving EOS. Justia lists at least 7 cases of civil litigation involving EOS.
It is illegal for a debt collector to make empty threats to sue you or garnish your wages. It is also unlikely EOS CCA would sue you for a debt you may not owe or they cannot validate. However, debt collection agencies are known to have summoned debtors to court and garnish wages after a default judgement. Contacting an attorney BEFORE this could possibly happen would be a smart move. We’ve helped thousands of consumers fight back against unscrupulous debt collection harassers. Find out if we can help you too today!
In September 2015, in United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, a judge issued an opinion in a case alleging EOS CCA had violated certain provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). In this case, the plaintiff had acquired cable and internet service from AT&T, who provided him with a modem. However, when the plaintiff “attempted to use it, he discovered it could not obtain a proper signal, so he promptly returned it. Nevertheless, AT&T billed him and, eventually, turned his account over to EOS for collection.” About four months later, the plaintiff was applying for a home mortgage loan. “The broker obtained his credit report and discovered derogatory information from EOS related to the AT&T account. The broker told the plaintiff that this information posed a problem and needed to be removed.” As a result, the plaintiff contacted AT&T, who “informed EOS that the account was deactivated and closed and should be deleted.” Regardless, “the derogatory information remained on his credit report.” 5 months later, “the broker again obtained a copy of the plaintiff’s credit report and found the derogatory information from EOS was still being reported.” The following month, the plaintiff “sent a letter disputing the account information to the credit reporting agencies,” in which he “noted that the reported information was incorrect, that the plaintiff had returned the modem to AT&T, and that AT&T had previously advised the account should be deleted.” Three months later, the credit reporting agency sent the plaintiff’s “dispute to EOS for verification using an electronic form called an… Automated Credit Dispute Verification,” or ACDV. “EOS, through a company it controls in India, investigated and determined that the plaintiff’s account should in fact be removed from credit reporting, and it ‘coded’ the account for deletion that same day. Two days later, however, the credit reporting agency sent EOS another ACDV related to the plaintiff’s account. EOS alleges that in response to the second ACDV, it once again reviewed the plaintiff’s account, which at that point had been markedfor deletion, and responded to the credit reporting agency that the account information was correct—in other words, since it had already marked the account for deletion two days earlier, the information showing deletion was accurate.” As a result of the poor communication, the deletion request was not communicated to the credit reporting agency, and the plaintiff’s credit was damaged. The plaintiff alleged that he was “denied credit as a result of the failure to remove the derogatory information from his credit file” and sued EOS for failing “to conduct a reasonable investigation into his dispute, in violation of the FCRA.” He also sought additional damages because the “erroneous reporting… caused him to suffer emotional distress, despair, anxiety, and loss of sleep.”
Attorneys for EOS CCA argued that the plaintiff’s claim failed to meet the legal standard necessary to award damages, claiming that there is no specific set of guidelines to allow the court to determine whether an investigation of a consumer complaint is reasonable. However, because EOS had so poorly managed the request to delete the item from the plaintiff’s credit report, the court agreed that the plaintiff’s claim of negligence had merit. EOS also attempted to argue that the plaintiff had not provided any evidence to support his claim for additional damages. The court disagreed with the reasoning of EOS’s attorneys here, too, stating that there was “evidence in the record …indicating that the plaintiff suffered from physical maladies (inability to sleep, anxiety), for something much more than a ‘brief’ period, as a result of EOS’s conduct.” As a result, EOS’s Motion for Summary Judgement was denied, and the plaintiff was allowed to continue with his complaint.
Here are some past Press Releases of Lawsuits Brought On By Lemberg Law
February 18, 2013. A report and recommendation from a magistrate judge means that Butto and Houser vs. Collecto, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York, Case No. 2:10-cv-02906(ADS)(AKT)) is one step closer to receiving class certification. Lemberg & Associates is representing Victoria Butto, who are suing Collecto, Inc. (doing business as EOS/CCA) for unlawful and predatory debt collection practices. The suit alleges that Verizon Wireless turned over Ms. Butto’s debt to Collecto for collection. Collecto sent her a debt collection letter that added collection fees to the amount owed. Collecto had made arrangements with Verizon that they would receive their payments when Collecto had successfully collected on the debts. If Collecto didn’t collect on the debt, they weren’t entitled to any fees. Because no monies had been recovered at the time Collecto sent the letter, it was not entitled to its collection fees. The suit alleges that Collecto therefore misled Ms. Butto by creating a false impression that they incurred collection fees and owed that money, in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
The Report and Recommendation filed by the court recommended that the presiding judge grand class certification to the following: New York consumers who were sent a collection letter by Collecto, Inc. DBA EOS/CCA for a Verizon Wireless account, which included a collection fee for Verizon Wireless service that hadn’t yet been incurred when the letter was sent.
EOS CCA Calling You?
Federal laws protect you. The Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA) regulates the behavior of collection agencies by prohibiting actions such as the use of abusive or threatening language; harassment; or the use of false or misleading information to collect a debt. The FCRA regulates how collection agencies and creditors report delinquent debts to credit reporting agencies. Additional consumer protection laws include the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA).
Consumers have reported this agency harassing them from the following numbers:
Can I sue EOS for harassment?
Yes. If you want to enforce your rights, or recover money for violations — you need to sue. Federal laws provide individuals like you with a means to seek monetary damages in court. For example, the FDCPA allows consumers who have been violated to recover damages of up to $1,000, plus attorney fees and court costs.
“I just wanted to take a minute to say thank you! Being in debt is difficult enough without being harassed by collection agencies, but thanks to you I no longer need to be a victim. I didn’t know what to expect when I emailed your company, but from the start you guys were on the ball.”
“I found your site. She listened intently and addressed every one of my worries. She instantly forwarded me an email and advised that I wouldn’t be billed for services rendered. She made me feel confident and assured, and that somebody was in my corner.”
“I was struggling so hard and the collection calls were quite painful. Your specialist team sorted out all of these issues. My life is my own again. Thank you.”
Can You Help Me Delete EOS CCA from My Credit Report?
The brief answer is yes. We can help. Call us today.
Share your story
Have you had a bad experience with this agency’s debt collectors? Sound off and share your experience with other visitors in the comment box below.
About the Author:
Sergei Lemberg is a lawyer whose practice focuses on consumer law, class actions and personal injury litigation. He has been repeatedly recognized as the “most active consumer attorney” in the country. In 2020, Mr. Lemberg represented Noah Duguid in the United States Supreme Court in the case entitled Duguid v. Facebook. He is the author of Defanging Debt Collectors, a book that teaches consumers how to battle debt collectors and win.