Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
This bill amends the Truth in Lending Act to cap credit card annual percentage rates at 10 percent, inclusive of all finance charges. It bars use of non-finance-charge fees to evade the cap, creates remedies including forfeiture of unlawfully charged interest and a two‑year private right of action to recover paid interest, and subjects violators to existing TILA enforcement provisions.
Consumer protection vs. credit availability and market pricing
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward substantive amendment to the Truth in Lending Act that clearly specifies a 10% APR cap and associated civil remedies, and it includes a sunset and a technical conforming amendment.
This bill amends the Truth in Lending Act to cap credit card annual percentage rates at 10 percent, inclusive of all finance charges.
It bars use of non-finance-charge fees to evade the cap, creates remedies including forfeiture of unlawfully charged interest and a two‑year private right of action to recover paid interest, and subjects violators to existing TILA enforcement provisions.
The measure preserves stronger state consumer protections and automatically sunsets (removes) the cap and related amendments on January 1, 2031.
Major regulatory intrusion into credit markets, strong industry opposition, and high Senate hurdles yield a low chance absent extensive compromise or packaging.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward substantive amendment to the Truth in Lending Act that clearly specifies a 10% APR cap and associated civil remedies, and it includes a sunset and a technical conforming amendment. The central legal mechanism is specified within TILA and integrates by cross-reference to existing enforcement provisions.
Consumer protection vs. credit availability and market pricing
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Consumer protection vs. credit availability and market pricing
Likely broadly supportive as a strong consumer-protection measure that limits predatory high-interest credit card lending.
Views the civil remedies and fee limits as important tools to protect low- and moderate-income households from excessive finance charges.
May still worry about unintended consequences for credit access but overall sees the bill as advancing economic justice.
Mixed view: supports stronger consumer protections but cautious about market and implementation effects.
Values the cap's clarity but worries about reduced credit access, lender responses, and legal uncertainty.
Would favor phasing, targeted exemptions, or evaluation mechanisms to limit unintended harm.
Likely strongly opposed as an intrusive federal price control that distorts credit markets.
Views a 10 percent APR cap as undermining risk-based pricing, reducing credit availability, and imposing liability that could spur litigation.
Prefers market-based, state-level, or targeted consumer aid approaches.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Major regulatory intrusion into credit markets, strong industry opposition, and high Senate hurdles yield a low chance absent extensive compromise or packaging.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Consumer protection vs. credit availability and market pricing
Major regulatory intrusion into credit markets, strong industry opposition, and high Senate hurdles yield a low chance absent extensive com…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward substantive amendment to the Truth in Lending Act that clearly specifies a 10% APR cap and associated civil remedies, and it includes a sunset an…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.