Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
This bill amends the Credit Repair Organizations Act to tighten rules on credit repair businesses. It expands the statutory definition of credit repair organizations (including some attorney-related activity), bans taking payment before documented results, restricts repeated "jamming" disputes, strengthens disclosure and recordkeeping requirements, requires state licensing by Jan 1, 2026, sets formal rules for communications with data furnishers, and creates a $500 statutory damage per violation.
Left emphasizes consumer protection; right emphasizes regulatory burden and litigation risk.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive policy change that is generally specific in mechanisms and integrates into existing statute.
This bill amends the Credit Repair Organizations Act to tighten rules on credit repair businesses.
It expands the statutory definition of credit repair organizations (including some attorney-related activity), bans taking payment before documented results, restricts repeated "jamming" disputes, strengthens disclosure and recordkeeping requirements, requires state licensing by Jan 1, 2026, sets formal rules for communications with data furnishers, and creates a $500 statutory damage per violation.
Technocratic consumer-protection bill with moderate compliance costs; possible bipartisan support but faces industry pushback and Senate procedural friction.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive policy change that is generally specific in mechanisms and integrates into existing statute. It provides detailed prohibitions, disclosure and documentation requirements, timelines, and a per-violation damages remedy, but it omits funding and detailed administrative implementation or enforcement processes.
Left emphasizes consumer protection; right emphasizes regulatory burden and litigation risk.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Left emphasizes consumer protection; right emphasizes regulatory burden and litigation risk.
Likely broadly supportive: the bill prioritizes consumer protections, curbs abusive practices, and increases penalties for bad actors.
Progressives would view licensing, stronger disclosures, and an evidence-before-payment rule as important anti-fraud measures.
Cautiously supportive: the bill addresses clear consumer-protection gaps but adds compliance burdens and potential litigation exposure.
A centrist would like clearer implementation detail and phased timelines to limit unintended consequences.
Likely opposed: the bill expands federal regulation, adds liability, and mandates state licensing, which conservatives would view as burdensome to small businesses and attorneys.
They would be concerned about overreach and increased litigation incentives.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Technocratic consumer-protection bill with moderate compliance costs; possible bipartisan support but faces industry pushback and Senate procedural friction.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Left emphasizes consumer protection; right emphasizes regulatory burden and litigation risk.
Technocratic consumer-protection bill with moderate compliance costs; possible bipartisan support but faces industry pushback and Senate pr…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive policy change that is generally specific in mechanisms and integrates into existing statute. It provides detailed prohibitions, disclosure and docume…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.