By Prime Law Hub 
The health matching account services lawsuit involves serious allegations against Health Matching Account Services, Inc. (HMA), a Houston-based company accused of operating a fraudulent scheme resembling a Ponzi operation. Federal authorities, including the U.S. Department of Justice, filed a civil complaint in October 2025 seeking injunctive relief under the Anti-Fraud Injunction Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1345, to halt ongoing activities. This action followed customer complaints and an FBI raid, highlighting claims that HMA misled thousands of individuals by promising matching funds for medical expenses that were never available. A separate class-action lawsuit filed in November 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas alleges breach of contract and seeks substantial damages.
As of January 2026, these legal proceedings remain active, with a temporary restraining order (TRO) freezing HMA’s assets to preserve any remaining funds for potential victim restitution. This case matters now because it underscores vulnerabilities in non-traditional health savings products, potentially affecting how consumers approach medical expense planning amid rising healthcare costs. Primarily impacted are the over 9,000 individuals who enrolled in HMA’s programs, many of whom may face financial losses from inaccessible contributions. For patients relying on such accounts for out-of-pocket expenses, the lawsuit could lead to recovered funds but also highlights the risks of unregulated financial products in healthcare.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult qualified legal professionals for advice specific to their situations.
Background & Legal Context
Health Matching Account Services, Inc., founded around 2015 by Don Levit and Regina Gorog, marketed itself as a provider of innovative health savings solutions. Unlike traditional Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) governed by the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. § 223), which offer tax advantages for qualified medical expenses, HMA’s products were non-qualified medical savings accounts. These were promoted as “the ultimate medical savings product,” promising to match customer contributions—sometimes doubling or more—and allow reimbursements for eligible health costs, including those for pets through its affiliate, Pet Health Matching Account Services (PHMA).
Participants agreed to monthly contributions, typically ranging from $50 to higher amounts, with HMA claiming to add matching funds. For example, marketing materials suggested that for every dollar contributed, HMA would match it, building a balance usable for medical bills via debit cards or reimbursements. However, federal court documents allege this was illusory: HMA did not segregate or adequately fund these accounts, instead relying on new member inflows to pay existing claims, a hallmark of Ponzi schemes. By October 2023, over 8,000 customers had collective balances totaling about $33 million, but HMA’s bank account held only $130,000.
Prior to the lawsuit, consumer complaints mounted. The Better Business Bureau (BBB) revoked HMA’s accreditation and assigned a failing grade due to unresolved issues, including over 100 complaints about inaccessible funds. Customers reported that HMA eliminated debit card access, requiring upfront payments followed by cumbersome reimbursement processes, often denied or delayed. If payments lapsed, contracts allowed HMA to forfeit entire balances—a clause now central to breach claims.
This setup contrasts with established regulatory frameworks for HSAs, overseen by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and financial institutions, which require funds to be held in trust and accessible. HMA’s model, lacking such oversight, allegedly exploited gaps in consumer protection laws, drawing parallels to precedents like SEC v. W.J. Howey Co. (1946), where the U.S. Supreme Court defined investment contracts subject to securities regulation based on promises of profits from others’ efforts.
Key Legal Issues Explained
The health matching account services lawsuit encompasses federal criminal and civil elements. The government’s complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, alleges violations of wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343) and conspiracy to commit wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1349). Wire fraud involves using interstate communications (e.g., emails, websites) to execute a scheme to defraud. Here, prosecutors claim HMA used false marketing—advertising unavailable matching funds and inflated balances—to induce ongoing contributions and attract new members.
In plain terms, a Ponzi scheme promises high returns but uses new investors’ money to pay earlier ones, collapsing when inflows slow. Evidence includes bank records showing commingled funds, with customer contributions transferred to personal accounts controlled by defendants Regina Gorog, Elliott Gorog, and others. Victims reported seeing online balances that were fictitious, as collective accounts lacked sufficient reserves.
The class-action suit, Woodbright et al. v. Health Matching Account Services, Inc., focuses on state-law claims like breach of contract under Texas common law. Breach occurs when one party fails to perform as promised; plaintiffs allege HMA violated terms by not providing matches, imposing barriers to access (e.g., eliminating debit cards), and confiscating funds upon non-payment. This could invoke the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 17.41 et seq.), which protects consumers from false advertising.
Another suit, Mainini v. Health Matching Account Services, Inc., filed in November 2025, seeks recovery of fraudulent transfers under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, adopted in Texas (Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 24.001 et seq.), targeting insider transfers while HMA was insolvent. These issues highlight broader legal principles: fiduciary duties in financial services, where providers must act in clients’ best interests, and consumer rights under the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. § 45), prohibiting unfair practices.
Latest Developments or Case Status
As of January 2026, the federal case remains in preliminary stages. On October 22, 2025, the court issued a TRO enjoining HMA from enrolling new members, operating its website, or accessing bank accounts, preserving assets for potential restitution. An FBI raid in October 2025 seized files and computers from HMA’s Houston offices, part of an ongoing criminal investigation.
The class-action complaint, filed November 22, 2024, defines a class of all U.S. HMA enrollees since 2015, seeking $50 million in damages for breach and related claims. No class certification hearing has occurred yet, a process under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 requiring commonality of issues. The Mainini suit, filed November 11, 2025, alleges systematic fund transfers to insiders.
Social media and news reports through December 2025 indicate no resolutions, with discussions focusing on the $50 million fraud estimate. Hearings may involve discovery, where parties exchange evidence, potentially leading to settlements or trials.
Who Is Affected & Potential Impact
Primarily affected are the estimated 9,000 to 40,000 HMA members nationwide, many patients using the accounts for routine medical expenses like doctor visits or prescriptions. These individuals, often without traditional insurance or seeking supplemental coverage, contributed tens of millions, now potentially lost. For instance, if a patient deposited $5,000 over years but stopped due to access issues, HMA could forfeit the balance, exacerbating financial strain during health crises.
Businesses offering HMA as an employee benefit, like the Health Matching Reimbursement Account, may face secondary liability or compliance reviews. Regulators, such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), could scrutinize similar products, impacting the health fintech industry.
Possible outcomes include asset forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. § 982, distributing seized funds to victims via the DOJ’s Victim Compensation Program. However, with limited reserves, full recovery is uncertain. Adverse rulings could deter fraudulent schemes but raise costs for legitimate providers through increased regulation.
| Group Affected | Potential Impacts | Examples from Case |
|---|---|---|
| Individual Patients/Members | Loss of contributed funds; inability to pay medical bills; emotional distress from fraud. | Over 100 BBB complaints about denied reimbursements; fictitious balances shown online. |
| Employers Offering Plans | Reputational damage; potential lawsuits for endorsing fraudulent products. | Health Matching Reimbursement Account marketed to businesses but pre-funded claims allegedly unmet. |
| Pet Owners | Similar losses for veterinary expenses via PHMA. | Scheme included pet accounts with same matching promises. |
| Broader Industry | Heightened scrutiny; calls for federal oversight of non-qualified health accounts. | Parallels to regulated HSAs, prompting IRS or CFPB reviews. |
What This Means Going Forward
The health matching account services lawsuit signals the legal significance of transparency in health financial products. If proven, it could set precedents for applying fraud statutes to non-securities investments, expanding protections under laws like the Mail and Wire Fraud statutes.
For the public, it emphasizes due diligence: Verify providers through the BBB or state attorneys general, and prefer IRS-qualified HSAs with FDIC-insured accounts. Industry-wide, it may spur reforms, such as mandatory fund segregation, akin to ERISA requirements for retirement plans (29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.).
Readers should monitor court dockets via PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records) for updates, or join victim notification lists through the DOJ. Expert analysis suggests settlements are common in such cases, potentially providing partial restitution, but criminal convictions could lead to imprisonment for defendants.
Conclusion
The health matching account services lawsuit against HMA illustrates the perils of unregulated health financial innovations, potentially leaving thousands without expected medical support. While outcomes remain uncertain, the case reinforces the importance of regulatory compliance and consumer vigilance. Staying informed through reliable sources like the DOJ or federal courts is key, as developments could influence broader healthcare financing policies.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the health matching account services lawsuit about?
The lawsuit alleges HMA operated a Ponzi scheme, promising but not delivering matching funds for medical savings, leading to fraud and breach of contract claims.
How can affected patients join the class-action lawsuit?
Potentially eligible individuals may receive notice if the class is certified; contact attorneys from Loftus & Eisenberg or Crewse Law Firm for opt-in details.
What alternatives exist for health savings if avoiding similar risks?
Consider IRS-qualified HSAs through banks like Fidelity or HSA Bank, which offer tax benefits and fund security under federal regulations.
Could patients recover their money?
Partial recovery is possible via asset forfeiture or settlements, but depends on remaining funds; the TRO aims to preserve assets.
Is HMA still operating?
The TRO prohibits new enrollments and website operations; the company is effectively halted pending resolution.
What should I do if I suspect fraud in a health savings product?
Report to the FTC at ftc.gov/complaint or your state attorney general; consult a consumer protection lawyer.