ACA International v. Maura Healey, 457 F.Supp.3d 17

ACA International (trade association for debt-collection industry) sued Massachusetts AG Maura Healey seeking a TRO/PI to block 940 CMR 35.00, emergency COVID-19 regulation effective Mar. 26, 2020.
The Regulation bars defined “debt collectors” from initiating telephone calls to debtors for 90 days and forbids certain debt-collection remedies, including initiating new collection lawsuits during the State of Emergency; several categories (mortgage, tenant, utilities, certain others) are exempt.
ACA members (small agencies and medical-collection vendors) said the telephone ban and lawsuit moratorium would devastate revenue, force layoffs/closures, and prevent time-sensitive consumer outreach.
The court treated the phone contacts as commercial speech subject to Central Hudson intermediate scrutiny and treated the lawsuit prohibition as implicating the First Amendment petition/right-of-access to courts.
The court found the phone ban not narrowly tailored given existing federal/state consumer-protection laws and exceptions, and found the lawsuit moratorium unlawfully burdened the right to petition; it entered a TRO enjoining enforcement of the telephone ban (940 CMR 35.04) and the prohibition on initiating lawsuits (940 CMR 35.03) as applied to the defined debt collectors.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Commercial-speech challenge to telephone ban	Ban targets commercial speech; not narrowly tailored; fails Central Hudson	Regulation protects consumers/residential tranquility and financial well-being during pandemic	Court: speech is commercial; phone ban fails Central Hudson tailoring/less-restrictive-alternatives analysis; enjoined
2. Right-to-petition / lawsuit moratorium	Moratorium prohibits access to courts and petitioning; unconstitutional suppression of petition rights	Temporary delay is procedural and justified by emergency to protect consumers; statutes of limitation tolled	Court: moratorium impermissibly burdens right of access/petition; enjoined
3. Authority under Chapter 93A / state-law overreach	AG exceeded statutory/constitutional authority in promulgating Regulation	AG acted under delegated authority in Chapter 93A and emergency rulemaking	Court: declined to decide novel state-constitutional questions in federal forum; noted Regulation adds nothing beyond existing Chapter 93A/FDCPA/FTC protections and is unconstitutional on federal grounds
4. Irreparable harm & balance of equities	Members face imminent business collapse, lost revenue, client loss — irreparable harm	Regulation temporarily protects consumers; public interest favors consumer protection	Court: First Amendment likelihood of success presumes irreparable harm; balance/public interest favor relief to preserve businesses and credit-market functioning

Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 447 U.S. 557 (1980) (framework for reviewing commercial-speech restrictions)
Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 471 U.S. 626 (1985) (commercial-speech protection and disclosure rules)
In re R.M.J., 455 U.S. 191 (1982) (distinguishing misleading commercial speech)
44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 517 U.S. 484 (1996) (government must show regulation advances interest to a material degree)
Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288 (1984) (time, place, manner test for speech restrictions)
Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (limits on federal injunctive relief against state officials)
Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984) (federal courts should not instruct state officials on state-law duties)
Home Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398 (1934) (emergency-state action and constitutional limits)
Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri, 564 U.S. 379 (2011) (Petition Clause protects access to courts and forums)
McDermott v. Marcus, Errico, Emmer & Brooks, P.C., 775 F.3d 109 (1st Cir. 2014) (Massachusetts Chapter 93A incorporates FTC Act and FDCPA interpretations)