CClaimWatch
Claims closedfinance

Morales v Healthcare Revenue Recovery Group Settlement

Last verified September 14, 2026Source: atticusHow ClaimWatch verifies cases

This settlement is closed to new claims. You can still see what it was about and follow the case in court below. Looking for money you can still claim? Browse open settlements →

What happened

Healthcare Revenue Recovery Group, LLC allegedly violated federal law by sending collection letters between December 2, 2014 and December 2, 2015 that exposed visible barcodes which could be scanned by smartphones to reveal an internal reference number and the first ten characters of the recipient's street address. The defendant denies any wrongdoing, and the settlement does not establish that any law has been broken.

Do you qualify?

Class members are individuals who received collection letters from Healthcare Revenue Recovery Group, LLC between December 2, 2014 and December 2, 2015 that contained the allegedly problematic visible barcode.

How to file

Specific instructions on how to file a claim are not provided on this page. Visit the official settlement website at https://www.hrrgsettlement.com/ for complete claim filing instructions and deadlines.

Common questions

Is the Morales v Healthcare Revenue Recovery Group Settlement notice real, or a scam?
Atticus Administration is the settlement administrator for this case. Claims are filed at hrrgsettlement.com. Filing a class action claim is always free — no legitimate settlement charges you to claim, and no administrator will ask for payment, a gift card, or your full Social Security number by email or text. If a notice asks for any of those, it is not from the administrator. When in doubt, ignore the link you were sent and go to the official settlement website directly.
When will payments from the Morales v Healthcare Revenue Recovery Group Settlement be sent?
Class action payouts typically take 12 to 24 months after the claim deadline, and longer if the settlement is appealed. The final approval hearing for this case is set for August 27, 2025; no payments can be issued before a settlement receives final approval.

Who's involved

Plaintiffs

  • ALEJANDRO MORALES

Defendants

  • JOHN DOES 1 TO 10
  • HEALTHCARE REVENUE RECOVERY GROUP, LLC

Parties and counsel from the public court docket. Listing an attorney here isn't an endorsement, and ClaimWatch isn't affiliated with any of them.

New to class actions?

This summary was generated from public settlement documents and may contain errors. Confirm eligibility, deadlines, and payment terms on the official settlement website before filing. ClaimWatch is not a law firm and this is not legal advice. Filing a claim is free.

More finance settlements

View all →
September 17, 2026finance

Patton v Trinity Settlement

Trinity Operating allegedly failed to pay statutory interest on late payments to owners for oil and gas production proceeds from Oklahoma wells under the Purchaser's Royalty Status Act. Trinity denies all wrongdoing but agreed to settle to avoid litigation costs and uncertainty.

…more

Distribution will be made pursuant to the Allocation Methodology as outlined in the Settlement Agreement; amount depends on individual claim details

November 5, 2026No proof neededconsumer products

Schnucks Markets Rewards Points Sales Tax Settlement

Schnucks Markets allegedly charged customers sales tax on the full price of purchases before applying loyalty rewards points discounts, instead of calculating tax on the discounted price after points were redeemed. The lawsuit claimed Schnucks illegally collected excess sales tax and failed to properly inform customers about this practice.

…more

Up to $7

November 24, 2026finance

Brimmer v. City of Overland Special Deterrent Fees Settlement

The City of Overland charged individuals Special Deterrent Fees. The court has approved a settlement requiring the city to refund these fees to eligible class members.

Up to $80

February 10, 2027finance

Non-Bank ATM Surcharge Settlement

Visa and Mastercard allegedly violated antitrust laws by creating operating rules that prohibited independent ATM operators from charging different surcharges based on the network used to process transactions. This prevented cardholders from getting lower fees when using less-expensive networks, causing them to pay higher ATM surcharges than necessary. Visa and Mastercard deny the claims.

…more

Distributed proportionally (pro rata) to each valid claimant after deductions for attorneys' fees, litigation costs, expenses, notice and administration costs, and service awards.