Medical debt collection in Nevada is about to change drastically on July 1, 2021 when Nevada’s Senate Bill (“S.B.”) 248 goes into effect. 

S.B. 248 imposes several new limitations on the ability to collect medical debt in the Silver State, including a requirement for the sending of a “60-day” notice. During these 60 days, no other collection action can be initiated by the debt collector – and that notice needs to be sent by registered or certified mail.

On June 25, 2021, Sessions, Israel & Shartle, LLC and Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, filed a Complaint and later, an Emergency Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Motion for Preliminary Injunction asking the District Court of Nevada to enjoin enforcement of S.B. 248. The Sessions Firm represents the ACA, debt collectors and a debt collection law firm from outside Nevada; Brownstein Hyatt represents debt collectors and a collection law firm from Nevada. A Nevada debt buyer is also a plaintiff.

As detailed in the attached suit, we believe S.B. 248 is unconstitutional because it is vague, ambiguous, and in direct conflict with the FDCPA, FCRA and Nevada state law. Any company attempting to collect medical debt in Nevada will be exposed to possible liability under state or federal law if continuing to collect while S.B. 248 is in effect.

As summarized in the complaint, some of the defects in S.B. 248 include:


  • a debt collector complying with the FDCPA, § 1692g by sending the federally required initial validation notice violates S.B. 248’s ban on any communication during the 60-day window;
  • by requiring the medical debt collector to notify a consumer that a payment is not “demanded or due” pursuant to § 7.5 of S.B. 248, a debt collector is required to mispresent the status of the debt in violation of the FDCPA;
  • B. 248 prohibits providing the required Mini-Miranda disclosure if a consumer calls the debt collector within the first 60 days;
  • B. 248 forbids “any action” for 60 days, unlawfully restricting the exercising of furnishing rights under the FCRA;
  • B. 248 attempts to regulate furnishers, but the FCRA expressly preempts state law concerning responsibilities of persons who furnish information to consumer reporting agencies; and
  • Nevada law currently requires a written notice to be sent to the debtor within 5 days after initial communication with the debtor, but S.B. 248 forbids this action for the first 60 days.


Despite our request before filing, the Nevada Attorney General refused to stay enforcement of S.B. 248.

While we litigate, we are here to answer your questions regarding S.B. 248 and will continue to provide updates as our lawsuit progresses.  

ACA et al. v. Nevada

Back to News & Resources