Concora Credit TCPA Settlement: October 19, 2026 Claim Deadline

People whose cell phone number was not assigned to a Concora Credit accountholder, and to which Concora placed an artificial or prerecorded voice call between May 2, 2021 and May 31, 2026, have until October 19, 2026 to submit a claim in a $9,375,000 TCPA settlement. The court-authorized notice estimates approved claimants will receive $250 to $650. The court has not yet granted final approval.

Information last verified on October 12, 2026. This is a developing story; we update it as the record changes.

Status: The court entered an order preliminarily approving this settlement on August 5, 2026 in Seals v. Concora Credit Inc., No. 3:25-cv-00728-AN (D. Or.). Final approval has NOT been granted. The final fairness hearing is scheduled for November 24, 2026 at 1:00 p.m., and both the order and the notice warn that date can change without further notice. No money is distributed unless and until the court grants final approval.

Jurisdiction scope: This article addresses a federal class action settlement under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. The class is nationwide, so the deadline applies regardless of which state you live in. It does not address state telemarketing statutes or any other settlement. For the underlying law, see our explainer on the TCPA.

What Happened

Alexis Seals sued Concora Credit Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, in a case captioned Seals v. Concora Credit Inc., No. 3:25-cv-00728-AN. The claim was brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and concerned artificial or prerecorded voice calls placed to cellular numbers that did not belong to Concora customers.

If the company name does not sound familiar, that is the first thing worth knowing. Concora Credit Inc. is the company formerly known as Genesis FS Card Services, and it services Indigo-branded credit cards. The complaint quotes the prerecorded message the named plaintiff received:

"This is Genesis FS Card Services calling regarding an important business matter about your Indigo account. Please call me back at 800-353-5920 at your earliest convenience."

The complaint further alleges that calling (800) 353-5920 back plays a greeting that says "Welcome to Concora Credit. We're happy to help you with your Indigo Mastercard account." Those names and that callback number are what a class member is most likely to actually recognise.

Who is in the class

On August 5, 2026 the court entered an order preliminarily approving a class settlement and certified the settlement class, for settlement purposes, as:

"All persons throughout the United States (1) to whom Concora Credit Inc. placed, or caused to be placed, a call, (2) directed to a telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone service, but not assigned to a Concora Credit Inc. accountholder, (3) in connection with which Concora Credit Inc. used, or caused to be used, an artificial or prerecorded voice, (4) from May 2, 2021 through May 31, 2026."

Read element (2) carefully, because it is the one people get wrong. The test is the number, not the person. The definition asks whether the cellular number was assigned to a Concora accountholder, not whether you personally ever gave Concora your number and not whether you have any relationship with the company. Someone whose number Concora obtained from a reference on another person's application, or through a mistyped digit, is inside the class just as squarely as someone who inherited a reassigned number.

Element (3) does real work too: the call has to have used an artificial or prerecorded voice. A call handled by a live agent is outside the class. So is a text message, which cannot carry a prerecorded voice. A prerecorded voicemail, by contrast, is the core of the case.

The order's numerosity discussion describes the class empirically as roughly 147,083 cellular numbers that Concora dispositioned as a wrong number, or that had been permanently disconnected and made available for reassignment.

What the money actually is

The headline figure and the figure available to claimants are not the same, and the notice separates them. Concora is to pay $9,375,000 in total. The notice states that this total "includes a mandatory TCPA minimum compliance spend in the amount of $1,000,000 within three years of the settlement," directed at reassigned-number compliance procedures including use of the Federal Communications Commission's Reassigned Numbers Database, periodic internal auditing, employee training and related TCPA compliance policies. That million dollars funds Concora's own compliance program and is not distributed to class members.

The other $8,375,000 is the cash fund. The notice says Concora "also will pay $8,375,000 into a settlement fund to compensate members of the settlement class." The two components add to the $9,375,000 total; the fund is not money on top of it. Out of that fund the notice lists what comes off the top:

"b. Notice and administration costs not to exceed $340,000; c. An award of attorneys' fees not to exceed $3,000,000, subject to the Court's approval; d. Litigation costs and expenses incurred in litigating the TCPA claims in this matter not to exceed $25,000, subject to the Court's approval; and e. An incentive award to Ms. Seals not to exceed $10,000, subject to the Court's approval."

Those caps are not hypothetical. Class counsel have already moved for the full $3,000,000 in fees, the full $25,000 in costs and the full $10,000 incentive award, and that request is pending before the court.

Each approved claimant then receives an equal share of what remains. On the realistic outcome, the court-authorized notice carries an estimate rather than a ceiling: "It is estimated that each participating and approved member of the settlement class will receive between $250 and $650." The notice immediately qualifies that the actual amount "may be more or less depending on the number of participating settlement class members who submit approved claims." That range is class counsel's projection from historical claims rates, reproduced in the notice the court approved. It is still the only sourced number on this record, and it beats arithmetic performed off the headline figure by a third party.

The dates the court set

The schedule published by the settlement administrator, Rust Consulting, tracks the preliminary approval order:

• August 5, 2026: order preliminarily approving the settlement entered
• September 4, 2026: defendant funds the settlement fund, and notice sent
• October 19, 2026: deadline to submit claims, send an exclusion request, or file an objection
• October 25, 2026: motion for final approval filed
• November 24, 2026: final fairness hearing, 1:00 p.m.

The single October 19 date carries three different decisions, which is unusual and easy to misread. A class member who does nothing by that date receives no payment and still releases the TCPA claims the settlement covers, because releasing claims is the default for anyone who does not exclude themselves.

The three are also not a free menu. Under the preliminary approval order, an objection that also asks for exclusion is treated as an exclusion rather than an objection, and anyone who submits both is treated as having excluded themselves and has no standing to object. An objection additionally has to carry the items the notice lists, including the phone number Concora called and the factual and legal basis for the objection.

How to actually file, which is the part with a deadline problem

There are two tracks, and the notice is explicit about which one applies to whom.

If you received a postcard notice with a detachable claim form in the mail, you can submit online at www.SealsTCPASettlement.com by October 19, 2026, or mail the form postmarked by that date.

If you did not receive a postcard, online filing is not open to you. The notice says you must write to the Seals v. Concora Credit Inc., Settlement Administrator - 9243, PO Box 2599, Faribault, MN 55021-9599 to request a claim form, and submit proof that you received an artificial or prerecorded voice call or message from Concora on your cellular telephone between May 2, 2021 and May 31, 2026. If you get a form that way, you must complete and return it postmarked by October 19, 2026.

With one week left, that two-way mail round trip is the practical constraint, and the mail route is postmark-based rather than receipt-based. Recording Law is not the administrator, is not the court, is not counsel for any party, and cannot file, check or process a claim for anyone.

What the Law Actually Says

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(A)(iii), makes it unlawful to call a cellular number using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice unless the call is made for emergency purposes or with the prior express consent of the called party. The statute carries private enforcement with statutory damages per violation, which is what makes class treatment viable at all, and we cover how those damages work in TCPA damages and lawsuits.

The reassigned-number scenario is the specific problem behind this case, and it turns on a gap in the statute. The TCPA does not define "called party." The Ninth Circuit, whose law governs in the District of Oregon, held in N.L. v. Credit One Bank, N.A. (9th Cir., June 3, 2020) that consent from the person the caller meant to reach is not sufficient: consent has to come from the current subscriber or the phone's customary user. So when a number changes hands, consent the company obtained from the earlier subscriber does not carry over to whoever holds the number now.

The FCC's rules leave callers one narrow way out, at 47 CFR 64.1200(m): a caller escapes liability for calling a reassigned number only if it queried the Reassigned Numbers Database, got a response indicating no reassignment, and the database turned out to be wrong. That mechanism is why a compliance commitment pointed at that database is worth paying for, and it is what the $1,000,000 in this settlement is aimed at.

Because these were collection-style calls, readers sometimes assume a TCPA claim and a debt collection claim are the same thing. They are different statutes with different elements: the TCPA regulates the technology and consent for the call, while the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and state analogues regulate the content and conduct of collection activity, which we cover separately under debt collection law. A call can violate one and not the other.

This settlement is also a useful contrast with the consent-revocation rules the FCC adopted in September 2026, which we covered when the FCC adopted its TCPA consent revocation order. Those rules, which are adopted but not yet in effect, will govern how a consumer withdraws consent they once gave. The class here never gave consent at all, so revocation was never the issue.

Analysis: Why This Matters

The following is analysis from the Recording Law Editorial Team.

The structure of this settlement is worth noticing because of how often the top-line number gets reported on its own. Of the $9,375,000, one million dollars is a compliance commitment by the defendant, and of the $8,375,000 that reaches the fund, as much as $3,375,000 can come off for fees, costs, administration and the incentive award before any claimant is paid. That is why the notice's own $250 to $650 estimate, rather than the headline figure, is the number with information in it. A reader who sees "$9.4 million settlement" and nothing else has been told almost nothing about what a claim is worth.

The compliance spend itself is the more interesting feature. Injunctive or programmatic relief in a TCPA settlement tends to be vague. Here the notice names a specific tool, the FCC's Reassigned Numbers Database, alongside auditing and training, and that tool is the same one the FCC's own safe harbor is built around. Whether it produces fewer wrong-number calls is an empirical question nobody can answer from this record, but it is at least a term that can be checked, which is more than a general promise to comply with the law.

The filing mechanics deserve a comment of their own. A claims process that opens online filing only to people who already received a postcard, and routes everyone else through a request-by-mail step that also demands proof of the call, places the heaviest procedural burden on exactly the class members the defendant's records failed to identify. That is a design feature of this notice plan, not an accusation about anyone's motives, and it is visible on the face of the notice.

We are not going to predict whether the court grants final approval on November 24, and nobody should treat the schedule as a guarantee that it will. Preliminary approval means the court looked at the deal on a preliminary examination, found that it appears fair, reasonable and adequate, and authorised notice to the class. The binding determination comes at the final fairness hearing. Objections filed by the October 19 deadline are precisely the material the court weighs there, and the notice is explicit that the court can approve or reject the settlement but cannot rewrite it, and that it may decide at the hearing, postpone a decision, or continue the hearing.

How This Affects You

As general information rather than advice about anyone's situation: the question that decides class membership here is factual and narrow. Was the number a cellular number, was it a number not assigned to a Concora accountholder, was the call an artificial or prerecorded voice call rather than a live person, and did it fall between May 2, 2021 and May 31, 2026. If a prerecorded voicemail from Genesis FS Card Services about an Indigo account, or a callback number of 800-353-5920, rings a bell, that is the fact pattern at issue.

People who received a postcard notice with a detachable claim form in the mail were identified from the defendant's records, and that mailing is how most class members learn they are included. The court-approved notice plan in this case is postcard mail plus the question-and-answer notice on the settlement website. It does not include email, so an email claiming to be the official notice in this matter is a reason for suspicion rather than a claim form.

Anyone who thinks the definition may describe them should read the official notice at the administrator's site and decide before October 19, because the same date closes all three options. Doing nothing is itself a choice with a consequence: no payment, and the release still applies. Whether a particular person is within the class, and whether excluding themselves to pursue an individual claim makes sense, depends on facts a lawyer licensed in their jurisdiction would need to review.

One practical caution. The only place to file is the official administrator. In this settlement the claim asks for your name, your address and the phone number Concora called, and nothing more, so a site demanding a Social Security number or the login to your bank is not the claim process. Account details for a direct deposit, or a tax form, can legitimately come up after a claim is approved and being paid, but never as the price of filing, and never your banking credentials. If a site asks for those, stop.

What Happens Next

Three events are on the calendar. The claim, exclusion and objection window closes October 19, 2026. Class counsel file the motion for final approval by October 25, 2026. The court is scheduled to hold the final fairness hearing on November 24, 2026 at 1:00 p.m. Both the order and the notice warn that the hearing date may be postponed, adjourned or continued without further notice, and the notice tells class members to check the settlement website or the court's PACER system rather than assume it holds.

The notice does give a payment window, conditioned on approval: if the court grants final approval, payments go to approved claimants no later than 30 days after the judgment in the lawsuit becomes final, and the notice adds that an appeal can delay payment. No calendar date exists yet, because when the judgment becomes final depends on the hearing and on whether anyone appeals.

If the court denies approval, the notice says no settlement payments go out and the lawsuit continues. We are tracking the docket and will update this article when the court rules.

This is general legal information, not legal advice. It covers a federal TCPA class action settlement pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon and reflects sources verified on October 12, 2026. The settlement has preliminary approval only; final approval has not been granted and no payment date has been set. Recording Law is not the settlement administrator, the court, or counsel for any party. Laws change and this matter is developing; consult a lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction about your specific situation.

Related articles

• The TCPA explained: robocall, text and telemarketing law
• TCPA damages and lawsuits
• Debt collection law
• FCC adopts its TCPA consent revocation rule

---

Last updated: 2026-10-12. This is a developing story; details verified as of 2026-10-12.

Frequently Asked Questions

Has this settlement been finally approved?

No. The court granted preliminary approval on August 5, 2026 and has scheduled the final fairness hearing for November 24, 2026 at 1:00 p.m. in Seals v. Concora Credit Inc., No. 3:25-cv-00728-AN (D. Or.). No payments issue unless and until the court grants final approval, and both the order and the notice warn the hearing date can change without further notice.

What is the deadline to file a claim?

October 19, 2026. That same date is also the deadline to exclude yourself from the class and the deadline to object. Mailed claims must be postmarked by that date. The court set it as 75 days after entry of the preliminary approval order.

Who is in the settlement class?

The order certifies the class as all persons in the United States to whom Concora placed a call directed to a cellular number that was not assigned to a Concora accountholder, using an artificial or prerecorded voice, from May 2, 2021 through May 31, 2026. The test is the number, not the person: a customer called about their own account is outside it, and whether you ever gave Concora the number is not part of the definition.

How do I file if I never got a postcard in the mail?

Online filing is open only to people who received a postcard notice and claim form. If you did not, the notice says you must write to the Seals v. Concora Credit Inc., Settlement Administrator - 9243, PO Box 2599, Faribault, MN 55021-9599 to request a claim form and submit proof that you received an artificial or prerecorded voice call from Concora on your cell phone in the class period, then return the completed form postmarked by October 19, 2026.

How much will each person get?

The court-authorized notice estimates between $250 and $650 for each participating and approved class member, and says the actual amount may be more or less depending on how many valid claims are submitted. Nobody can promise a figure, because each approved claimant receives an equal share of what remains in the fund after court-approved deductions. The range is class counsel's projection reproduced in the notice.

Why is the fund $8,375,000 when the settlement is $9,375,000?

The two are parts of the same total, not separate pots. The $9,375,000 includes a mandatory $1,000,000 TCPA compliance spend by Concora over three years, directed at reassigned-number procedures including the FCC's Reassigned Numbers Database. That million is not distributed to class members. The remaining $8,375,000 is the cash settlement fund.

What happens if I do nothing?

You receive no payment, and if you are a class member you still release the TCPA claims the settlement covers. Releasing claims is the default for anyone who does not submit a timely exclusion request by October 19, 2026.

Can I object and also ask to be excluded?

Not usefully. Under the preliminary approval order, an objection that includes a request for exclusion is treated as an exclusion, and a class member who submits both is treated as having excluded themselves and has no standing to object. The notice also states the court can only approve or reject the settlement; it cannot order a different one.

Why was someone who never did business with Concora called at all?

The claim concerns calls to cellular numbers that were not assigned to Concora accountholders, including numbers that had been reassigned or that the company dispositioned as wrong numbers. Consent obtained from an earlier subscriber does not carry over to whoever holds the number next, which is the problem the compliance component of this settlement is aimed at.

Does this settlement cover text messages or live calls?

No. The definition requires that Concora used an artificial or prerecorded voice, which includes the prerecorded voicemails at the centre of this case. A call handled by a live person, and a text message, fall outside it.

When would payments actually go out?

The notice says that if the court grants final approval, payments go to approved claimants no later than 30 days after the judgment becomes final, and that an appeal can delay payment. There is no calendar date yet, because when the judgment becomes final depends on the hearing and on any appeal.