The accounts receivable industry is about to make a lot of irresponsible AI claims. We'd rather tell you exactly where AI is and isn't used in our operation, and the regulatory lines we hold. This page is for the buyer whose legal team is nervous about every "AI-powered" sales deck on the market.
AI is useful for back-office work in our operation and unsuitable for unsupervised customer-facing decisions in this regulatory environment. We use it where the work is internal, the output is reviewed, and the regulatory exposure is governed. We do not use it to make collection decisions, generate customer-facing communications autonomously, or replace the human judgment that sits behind every consumer-facing action. When that calculus shifts, whether because the regulation evolves or the technology matures, we will say so publicly before we say so commercially.
Portfolio segmentation, reconciliation discrepancy review, placement quality checks, and internal reporting summaries draw on AI-assisted analysis. Every output is reviewed by a named human accountable for the underlying work before it informs a placement or client-facing decision.
Internal standard operating procedures (SOPs), training materials, agency-facing instructions, and reporting templates are drafted with AI assistance and reviewed by the operations lead accountable for the document. The artifact is a BPR document; the AI is a tool.
Reconciliation review, dispute log review, and complaint pattern analysis benefit from AI-assisted pattern detection. The detection is input to a human decision, not a decision itself.
Every customer-facing communication (call script, email, letter, response to a dispute) is authored by a person and reviewed before deployment. AI drafting is not used to generate consumer-facing language autonomously. The regulatory exposure under UDAAP and FDCPA is too sharp, and the buyer's brand risk is too real.
AI is not used to decide which accounts to call, when to call them, what to offer, when to escalate, or when to close. Those are human decisions governed by the placement instructions and the documented operating procedures. The audit trail says "human, then process," not "model output."
We do not deploy AI voice agents that take inbound or outbound consumer calls without human disclosure and consent under applicable state law. The TCPA and state-level consent regimes are sharp, and even where deployment would be technically permissible, it conflicts with brand-protective recovery as a principle.
Customer personally identifiable information (PII), financial data covered by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA), and HIPAA-adjacent information (where applicable) are not processed by AI systems outside controlled environments with documented data-handling protocols. When in doubt, the answer is no.
The regulatory perimeter on AI in consumer finance is changing. The CFPB has issued guidance on AI in credit and collections; states are moving on disclosure requirements for AI-generated communications; the FTC has signaled scrutiny of "AI washing." When our operating posture shifts in response to a regulatory development or a maturing technology, the change will be published on this page with an effective date and a description of what changed. Existing clients will be notified before the change reaches material engagements.
Current version: v1.0 · effective May 2026
The accounts receivable industry is about to make a lot of irresponsible AI claims.
We'd rather have the conversation in writing, with the people accountable for the answer in the room.
Start a conversation →