What Is the Lexington Law Lawsuit?
The Lexington Law lawsuit is a federal enforcement action by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau against Lexington Law and the Progrexion companies. It was filed on May 2, 2019 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah as Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection v. Progrexion Marketing, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00298-BSJ.
The Bureau is a government agency, so no private plaintiff or class of consumers brought the case. Searches for a Lexington Law class action lawsuit usually point to this case and its refund checks.
CreditRepair.com is a co-defendant in the same case, not a separate lawsuit. The case ended in a settlement judgment, and the refund payments continue.
“Plaintiff Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (‘Bureau’) commenced this civil action on May 2, 2019, to obtain injunctive and monetary relief and civil penalties. The suit alleges, among other things, that the Defendants violated the credit repair advance fee provision of the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR), 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(a)(2), by billing clients for credit repair services before the timeframes required by the advance fee provision had expired.”
Source: U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection v. Progrexion Marketing, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00298-BSJ, Stipulated Final Judgment and Order, Document 600 (filed August 30, 2023), Parties' Statement
Why Was the Lexington Law Lawsuit Filed?
The Lexington Law lawsuit was filed because the CFPB alleged the defendants billed for credit repair before the law allowed and marketed it through deceptive telemarketing. The Telemarketing Sales Rule bars a telemarketed credit repair company from collecting any fee until the promised timeframe has passed and a consumer report shows the results were achieved more than six months earlier.
The Bureau also alleged that Progrexion relied on marketing affiliates to generate sales for Lexington Law and CreditRepair.com. The amended complaint says certain affiliates used bait advertising and then live-transferred consumers to the defendants' sales agents.
The defendants disputed the court's March 2023 ruling and said they intended to appeal, before they agreed to settle the case.
What Harms Does the Lexington Law Lawsuit Allege?
The Lexington Law lawsuit alleges two harms, both financial rather than physical. The summaries reviewed describe no bodily injury claim.
The first harm is a legal finding, while the second remains an unproven allegation.
Illegal Advance Fees
An advance fee is a charge collected for a service before the service has been completed.
Count I alleged that the defendants charged clients for telemarketed credit repair before the Telemarketing Sales Rule allowed it. On March 10, 2023 the court granted the Bureau partial summary judgment on this count.
The court held that all defendants had violated the advance-fee provision, 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(a)(2), since March 8, 2016. That ruling decided liability only, and the court had not yet decided what relief to order.
Deceptive Bait Advertising by Marketing Affiliates
Bait advertising is an offer that attracts a consumer's interest in one product but is really used to sell a different one.
Counts II through V alleged deceptive acts under the Consumer Financial Protection Act and deceptive telemarketing under the Telemarketing Sales Rule. The amended complaint says certain affiliates, called Hotswap Companies, advertised products such as rent-to-own homes and loans.
The complaint alleges an affiliate agent would then pitch credit repair and transfer the call to a Lexington Law or CreditRepair.com agent. In the final order, the Progrexion defendants neither admit nor deny these counts, and no court has ruled on them.
The 2019 complaint was summarized by the trade publication insideARM as alleging fake real estate ads, fake relationships with lenders and false credit guarantees. That summary describes allegations, not findings.
What Is the Current Status of the Lexington Law Lawsuit?
The current status of the Lexington Law lawsuit is closed at the district court, with refund payments still being distributed. The court entered a stipulated final judgment on August 30, 2023 and closed the case.
This page checked the court's own orders and the CFPB's payment pages as of October 18, 2026. The defendants' separate Chapter 11 cases in Delaware are listed below as their own proceeding.
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection v. Progrexion Marketing, Inc., et al.
District Judge Bruce S. Jenkins presided over the Utah case. He granted partial summary judgment on liability on March 10, 2023 and entered the parties' stipulated final judgment on August 30, 2023.
The final order states that the case “shall be and hereby is closed.” It also bans the defendants from telemarketing credit repair services for ten years.
| Court | U.S. District Court, District of Utah, Central Division |
| Case Number | 2:19-cv-00298-BSJ |
| Judge | District Judge Bruce S. Jenkins |
| Filed | May 2, 2019 (amended complaint August 17, 2022) |
| Plaintiff | Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection |
| Defendants | PGX Holdings, Inc., Progrexion Marketing, Inc., Progrexion Teleservices, Inc., eFolks, LLC, CreditRepair.com, Inc., and John C. Heath, Attorney at Law, PC d/b/a Lexington Law |
| Claims Alleged | Advance-fee violation of the Telemarketing Sales Rule (Count I) and deceptive acts and telemarketing practices (Counts II to V) |
| Consumer Redress | $2,660,926,481 ($2,641,926,481 on Count I and $19,000,000 on Counts II to V) |
| Civil Money Penalties | $45,817,452 against the Progrexion defendants and $18,408,726 against Heath PC |
| Conduct Relief | Ten-year ban on telemarketing credit repair services and an annual independent audit for three years |
| Current Stage | Final judgment entered and case closed on August 30, 2023; redress payments continuing |
In re PGX Holdings, Inc., No. 23-10718 (CTG)
The defendants filed voluntary Chapter 11 petitions in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware on June 4, 2023. The final order records that these cases are jointly administered under the lead case In re PGX Holdings, Inc.
The order provides that the defendants' monetary obligations are subject to Bankruptcy Court approval and are treated as unsecured claims in those cases.
| Court | U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Delaware |
| Case Number | 23-10718 (CTG), jointly administered |
| Filed | June 4, 2023 |
| Relationship to the Utah Case | Judgment paragraphs 79 and 80 give the Bankruptcy Court exclusive jurisdiction over plan and sale orders affecting the monetary obligations |
| Current Stage | A third-party docket listing reports a plan confirmation date of December 26, 2023, which this page did not verify against the court's own records |
How Much Is the Lexington Law Lawsuit Payout Per Person?
The Lexington Law lawsuit payout per person is a pro rata share of the fees each consumer paid, so no single amount applies.
The CFPB says a payment may not cover all of the fees a consumer paid to Lexington Law or CreditRepair.com, and it has not published a per-person amount. Only the administrator can confirm what a specific consumer received.
The CFPB is distributing about $1.8 billion to 4,313,921 consumers, which averages roughly $417 per person by simple division. That figure is arithmetic, not a published payout, and real checks vary with each consumer's fees.
The final judgment ordered about $2.7 billion in total, and the CFPB's payment notice describes the $1.8 billion as civil penalty funds and consumer redress. The sources reviewed do not explain the difference between the two figures.
Under the final order, an Affected Consumer is anyone who paid for Lexington Law or CreditRepair.com credit repair bought through telemarketing between March 8, 2016 and August 30, 2023. It also covers anyone who paid between July 21, 2011 and August 30, 2023 after a marketing affiliate live-transferred them. The CFPB says it identified eligible consumers from company records, so no claim form was ever required.
The CFPB set aside another $117,058,683.11 for second payments, according to the administrator's website. Consumers qualify if they cashed their first check on or before June 30, 2026 and their calculated payment is at least $10. Second checks are mailed from late September through October 2026, and the USPS may take one to three weeks to deliver them.
Lexington Law Lawsuit Updates and Case Status
Here is the current status of the Lexington Law lawsuit, updated with new filings, rulings, and case-count reports as they're confirmed. As of October 2026, the CFPB enforcement action against Lexington Law and the Progrexion companies reached a settlement, described in the timeline below. See the full timeline below for every confirmed development since the litigation began.
Lexington Law Lawsuit Timeline
Court's liability period for the advance-fee violation begins
Judge Bruce S. Jenkins later held that all defendants had violated the Telemarketing Sales Rule's advance-fee provision since March 8, 2016. The same date opens the final order's definition of Affected Consumers for telemarketed sales.
CFPB sues Lexington Law and the Progrexion companies in Utah
The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection filed Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection v. Progrexion Marketing, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00298, in the District of Utah. It alleged advance-fee and deceptive telemarketing violations.
CFPB files an amended complaint
The amended complaint named PGX Holdings, Progrexion Marketing, Progrexion Teleservices, CreditRepair.com, eFolks and John C. Heath, Attorney at Law, PC as defendants. Heath PC faced only Count I.
Judge Jenkins grants the CFPB partial summary judgment
The court held in Document 508 that every defendant had violated the advance-fee provision of the Telemarketing Sales Rule. The order decided liability on Count I and left relief for later.
CFPB asks the court for more than $3 billion
AccountsRecovery.net reported on April 13, 2023 that the Bureau sought roughly $3.1 billion in redress and penalties. The court's June 7 order says the Bureau initially sought $3,112,176,549 and later reduced its request to $2,713,027,165.
Defendants file Chapter 11 in Delaware
The Progrexion defendants and Heath PC filed voluntary Chapter 11 petitions in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware on June 4, 2023. The cases are jointly administered as In re PGX Holdings, Inc., No. 23-10718 (CTG).
Court denies the CFPB's motion for relief without prejudice
After oral argument on June 1 and 2, Judge Jenkins found that disputed facts barred the requested relief and scheduled a final pretrial conference for July 10, 2023. The defendants argued the award should be between $0 and nearly $1 billion.
CFPB files a proposed stipulated final judgment
The Bureau and all defendants jointly asked the court to enter a settlement judgment. In it the defendants waived their right to appeal the March 10, 2023 order.
Court enters the stipulated final judgment and closes the case
Document 600 imposed $2,660,926,481 in consumer redress and civil money penalties of $45,817,452 and $18,408,726. It also banned the defendants from telemarketing credit repair services for ten years.
CFPB begins paying about $1.8 billion to consumers
The CFPB announced that more than 4 million consumers, listed as 4,313,921 in its state table, would receive checks without filing a claim. Mailing was reported to run from December 5, 2024 into early January 2025.
Cutoff date set for second payments
The administrator's website says consumers who cashed their first check on or before June 30, 2026 and whose calculated payment is at least $10 are eligible for a second payment.
Second payments begin to be mailed
The CFPB allocated another $117,058,683.11 for second payments. The administrator says checks are mailed from late September through October 2026.
How Can You Check the Status of a Lexington Law Lawsuit Check?
You can check the status of a Lexington Law lawsuit check by contacting the settlement administrator or by reviewing your bank records. The administrator is JND Legal Administration, reachable at 1-855-680-8991 on business days from 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. ET or at cfpb-lexlaw.org.
The administrator's site says to review bank records for a payment between December 5, 2024 and June 30, 2026. A consumer who cashed a check in that window may qualify for a second payment.
A void check needs a written reissue request with the consumer's Unique ID, name and current address. Reissue requests are processed in monthly mail runs around the fourth week, and reissued checks are valid for 90 days. Someone who requests a reissue should not cash the earlier check.
The CFPB says it never charges a fee or asks for banking details to send a check. Anyone who offers to speed up a payment is a warning sign, and the CFPB also lists a verification line at 855-411-2372.
What Did Lexington Law Allegedly Know About Its Marketing Affiliates?
Lexington Law allegedly knew its marketing affiliates used deceptive practices, according to the Bureau's complaints, and no court has made a finding on that allegation. The amended complaint says Progrexion paid those affiliates for each credit repair sale despite knowing about the deception.
insideARM's summary of the 2019 complaint says it alleged the misrepresentations were known and allowed to continue. The court's March 2023 order separately quotes a 2014 Progrexion memorandum calling the company the dominant provider of credit repair services in the United States.
| Defendant | Group in the final order | Counts alleged |
|---|---|---|
| PGX Holdings, Inc. and its subsidiaries | Progrexion defendants | Counts I to V |
| Progrexion Marketing, Inc. | Progrexion defendants | Counts I to V |
| Progrexion Teleservices, Inc. | Progrexion defendants | Counts I to V |
| eFolks, LLC | Progrexion defendants | Counts I to V |
| CreditRepair.com, Inc. | Progrexion defendants | Counts I to V |
| John C. Heath, Attorney at Law, PC d/b/a Lexington Law | Heath PC | Count I only |
The final order also requires the defendants to review their top 25 marketing affiliates twice a year. It requires them to refund consumers within 45 days if an affiliate is found to have used material misrepresentations.
How Does the Lexington Law Lawsuit Compare to Other Lexington Law Cases?
The Lexington Law lawsuit differs from other Lexington Law cases in who sued, what was alleged and how consumers were paid. This page covers the CFPB enforcement action.
A second, unrelated case is easy to confuse with it. A 2019 text-message class action against the Lexington Law Firm reached an $11 million settlement, and it is a private case separate from the CFPB action.
| Case | Who sued and what was alleged | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection v. Progrexion Marketing, Inc. (this case) | A federal agency alleged illegal advance fees and deceptive telemarketing | Stipulated final judgment on August 30, 2023; about $1.8 billion paid to consumers without a claim form |
| Telephone Consumer Protection Act text-message class action, Southern District of Florida | A consumer alleged unsolicited texts sent by John C. Heath, Attorney at Law, PLLC, known as Lexington Law Firm, without proper consent | AccountsRecovery.net reported an $11 million settlement with preliminary approval in September 2019; final approval was not verified |
The text-message class action covered about 1.9 million people, and class members who opted in were to receive $6.15 each, according to AccountsRecovery.net. Its case number and payout dates were not confirmed, and the sources reviewed do not connect it to CFPB refund checks.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Lexington Law lawsuit about?
The Lexington Law lawsuit is about a CFPB enforcement action over credit repair billing and marketing. The Bureau alleged Lexington Law and CreditRepair.com charged fees too early and used deceptive telemarketing partners.
Is the Lexington Law lawsuit a class action?
The Lexington Law lawsuit is not a class action. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau brought it as a government enforcement case, and the CFPB identified eligible consumers from company records, so none had to file a claim.
Did Lexington Law settle the lawsuit?
Yes. Lexington Law and the Progrexion companies settled the CFPB lawsuit through a stipulated final judgment entered on August 30, 2023. The defendants neither admitted nor denied the deception counts.
Can you still file a claim in the Lexington Law lawsuit?
No. The CFPB says all eligible consumers have already been identified and no claim opportunity exists. A consumer who thinks a check is missing can contact the administrator, JND Legal Administration, at 1-855-680-8991.
Is there a second Lexington Law lawsuit payment?
Yes. The administrator's website says the CFPB allocated another $117,058,683.11 for consumers who cashed their first check by June 30, 2026 and have a calculated payment of at least $10. Those checks are mailed from late September through October 2026.
Is CreditRepair.com part of the Lexington Law lawsuit?
Yes. CreditRepair.com, Inc. is a named defendant in the Lexington Law lawsuit and part of the Progrexion group. Consumers who paid CreditRepair.com after telemarketing are Affected Consumers under the final order.