Referred to the House Committee on Small Business.
Requires providers that purchase accounts receivable (factoring providers) to give small businesses written disclosures before entering factoring facility agreements under $500,000 (or believed to be under $500,000). Disclosures must state discount amount/percentage, fees, reserve terms and amount, agreement duration, and a $10,000 example showing net proceeds.
Liberal-left opposes federal preemption; conservatives value uniformity
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a clear, narrowly tailored statutory disclosure requirement for factoring facility agreements under specified thresholds and defines key terms and a preemption rule.
Requires providers that purchase accounts receivable (factoring providers) to give small businesses written disclosures before entering factoring facility agreements under $500,000 (or believed to be under $500,000).
Disclosures must state discount amount/percentage, fees, reserve terms and amount, agreement duration, and a $10,000 example showing net proceeds.
The bill preempts state rules that are additional or inconsistent and defines key terms including a conclusive presumption that parties’ characterization of a sale is a true sale.
Substantively modest and noncontroversial but preemption and enforcement gaps invite stakeholder pushback; Senate procedural hurdles lower standalone prospects.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a clear, narrowly tailored statutory disclosure requirement for factoring facility agreements under specified thresholds and defines key terms and a preemption rule. It gives concrete detail on what must be disclosed but omits administrative, enforcement, fiscal, and procedural scaffolding that would normally accompany a new statutory obligation.
Liberal-left opposes federal preemption; conservatives value uniformity
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberal-left opposes federal preemption; conservatives value uniformity
Generally supportive of increased transparency for small businesses, but concerned about federal preemption and the conclusive-sale language.
Sees benefits for borrower awareness but worries the bill may block stronger state consumer protections and not go far enough.
Views the bill as a pragmatic measure to standardize disclosures and reduce information asymmetries, while noting tradeoffs around preemption and enforcement.
Seeks clearer enforcement and limited scope to avoid unnecessary costs.
Likely to view the bill as a modest, market-friendly transparency requirement that creates uniform rules across states.
Concerned about any unnecessary regulatory paperwork but generally favorable to predictability for commerce.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Substantively modest and noncontroversial but preemption and enforcement gaps invite stakeholder pushback; Senate procedural hurdles lower standalone prospects.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberal-left opposes federal preemption; conservatives value uniformity
Substantively modest and noncontroversial but preemption and enforcement gaps invite stakeholder pushback; Senate procedural hurdles lower…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a clear, narrowly tailored statutory disclosure requirement for factoring facility agreements under specified thresholds and defines key terms and a preem…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.