The McCarthy, Burgess and Wolff lawsuit record includes several federal proposed class actions filed under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, challenging the wording and timing of the agency’s collection letters and its contact practices with consumers. The outcomes have been mixed: one case ended in summary judgment for the company, another was voluntarily dismissed within weeks, and others show only an initial filing in the available record.
Who McCarthy, Burgess & Wolff Is
McCarthy, Burgess & Wolff, Inc. (MB&W) is a third-party debt collection agency headquartered at 26000 Cannon Road in Bedford Heights, Ohio.1Better Business Bureau. McCarthy, Burgess & Wolff, Inc. It collects both consumer and commercial debts — credit cards, loans, service bills, and charged-off commercial accounts — for creditors including Verizon Wireless and the Home Shopping Network.2Donaldson Williams. McCarthy Burgess Wolff
Federal FDCPA Cases Filed Against MB&W
The reported federal cases all turn on the same statute, the FDCPA, but each targets a different alleged violation.
Rossiter v. McCarthy Burgess & Wolff (E.D. Wis., 2017)
Gloria Rossiter filed a proposed class action in March 2017 alleging that an MB&W collection letter failed to make clear that consumers had to dispute the debt in writing to trigger the FDCPA’s verification protections. The complaint argued that the letter’s invitation to call a representative “to discuss this matter further” overshadowed the required debt validation notice and discouraged consumers from exercising their written-dispute rights.3Classaction.org. Rossiter v. McCarthy Burgess & Wolff, Complaint Less than a month later, Rossiter filed a notice of voluntary dismissal, and Judge J.P. Stadtmueller dismissed the action with prejudice on April 20, 2017, with no costs to either party.4Midpage. Rossiter v. McCarthy Burgess & Wolff Inc.
Vogel v. McCarthy, Burgess & Wolff (N.D. Ill., 2017)
In September 2017, Erin Vogel sued MB&W in the Northern District of Illinois over a letter that stated only a lump-sum total of $3,036.83 on a car rental debt, without breaking out late fees, miscellaneous costs, and optional services. Vogel argued the lack of itemization was misleading under the FDCPA.5GovInfo. Vogel v. McCarthy, Burgess & Wolff, Inc.
The court granted summary judgment for MB&W. It held that the FDCPA does not impose a blanket duty on collectors to itemize the components of a debt. Because the charges all came from the underlying rental contract with the creditor, Payless, and MB&W had not added any collection-related fees, the letter accurately stated “the amount” of the debt. The court’s line: collectors must itemize when they add their own fees to a balance, but they are not required to dissect the original creditor’s charges.5GovInfo. Vogel v. McCarthy, Burgess & Wolff, Inc.
Aviles v. McCarthy, Burgess & Wolff and HSN (E.D. Wis., 2017)
Luisa Aviles filed a proposed class action on September 29, 2017, against both MB&W and HSN, Inc. (doing business as the Home Shopping Network), docketed as 17-cv-1338. She alleged that the defendants sent a premature collection letter on her HSN credit card account while her payments were still current under two previously agreed-upon modified payment plans.6Classaction.org. Lawsuit: Home Shopping Network Debt Collector Sends Pre-Mature Collection Letter7Classaction.org. Aviles v. McCarthy, Burgess & Wolff, Complaint The available record does not reflect a final resolution.
Phillips v. McCarthy, Burgess & Wolff (C.D. Cal., 2017)
Christopher Phillips, a Ventura County resident, sued MB&W in April 2017. He alleged that the company called him in 2016 to collect a debt he said he did not owe, and continued to contact him directly after learning he was represented by an attorney. He sought $100,000 in actual damages plus statutory damages of at least $1,000.8Legal Newsline. Man Claims McCarthy Burgess Wolff Unlawfully Contacted Him The available record covers only the initial filing.
Complaints Outside of Court
MB&W holds an A+ rating from the Better Business Bureau, and the BBB profile shows 100 complaints filed in the three-year period ending in mid-2026, with 19 closed in the most recent 12 months. Of the 100, 81 were classified as billing issues and 14 involved customer service concerns.9Better Business Bureau. McCarthy, Burgess & Wolff, Inc. – Complaints
Recurring themes in the complaints include consumers disputing whether they owe the debt at all, allegations of aggressive or rude collection tactics, contact with third parties such as family members or employers, and failures to provide original contract documentation when consumers request validation. In its responses, MB&W typically says it forwards disputes to the underlying creditor, places accounts in cease-and-desist status on request, or returns accounts to the creditor for further handling.9Better Business Bureau. McCarthy, Burgess & Wolff, Inc. – Complaints As of year-end 2015, the company was ranked 172nd out of 2,458 companies in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s debt collection complaint database.10Cardoza Law Corp. McCarthy, Burgess & Wolff, Inc. Complaints and Lawsuits
Verizon Wireless is one of the recurring creditor names. MB&W has stated in BBB responses that it does not report Verizon accounts to credit bureaus and does not have the authority to remove entries from a consumer’s credit report; when a Verizon-related debt is disputed, MB&W requests invoices and contract documents from Verizon, provides them to the consumer, and either resolves the account or returns it. One documented complaint shows how added fees can enlarge a balance: a Verizon Wireless account with an original balance of $1,248 grew to $1,472.69 after MB&W added administrative fees, and the consumer ultimately settled for $550.11Better Business Bureau. McCarthy, Burgess & Wolff, Inc. – Complaints Page 4
When MB&W Sues Consumers
MB&W can also appear as a plaintiff in state court, filing collection lawsuits when authorized by the creditor and when the debt is still within the statute of limitations. The company’s stated approach is to pursue litigation only after other collection efforts have been exhausted. If a consumer does not respond within the court’s deadline (typically 14 to 30 days depending on the state), MB&W can obtain a default judgment and use it to pursue wage garnishment, bank levies, or property liens.2Donaldson Williams. McCarthy Burgess Wolff
What to Do If MB&W Contacts You
The FDCPA gives you 30 days after receiving an initial collection letter to dispute the debt in writing. A written dispute obligates the collector to stop collection efforts and provide verification of the debt before resuming contact. Oral disputes do not trigger these protections.3Classaction.org. Rossiter v. McCarthy Burgess & Wolff, Complaint Send the dispute in writing, keep a copy, and use a mailing method that gives you proof of delivery.
If MB&W sues you, file a written answer with the court before the deadline stated on the summons. Common defenses include challenging the accuracy of the debt amount, asserting mistaken identity, arguing that the statute of limitations has expired, or showing that the debt has already been paid. Settling for less than the full balance is often possible, particularly with a lump-sum offer, but get any settlement agreement in writing before you pay.2Donaldson Williams. McCarthy Burgess Wolff