Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
The bill requires the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to jointly submit a report to Congress by December 31, 2025. The report must study credit-scoring models that incorporate specified additional “key factors” (e.g., brokerage statements, buy-now-pay-later and installment payment history, EBT transaction records, rental/utility/telecom payment history, bank transaction data, payroll deposit frequency, insurance payment history, relevant public records, and peer-to-peer transaction activity).
Privacy vs inclusion: liberals emphasize risks of surveillance and require strong safeguards; conservatives emphasize limits on data collection and regulatory overreach.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise statutory mandate for a joint agency study and report on additional key factors in credit-scoring models.
The bill requires the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to jointly submit a report to Congress by December 31, 2025.
The report must study credit-scoring models that incorporate specified additional “key factors” (e.g., brokerage statements, buy-now-pay-later and installment payment history, EBT transaction records, rental/utility/telecom payment history, bank transaction data, payroll deposit frequency, insurance payment history, relevant public records, and peer-to-peer transaction activity).
The report must describe how inclusion of those factors affects how creditors evaluate consumer creditworthiness.
Content-wise this is a low-impact, narrowly scoped study requirement that could attract bipartisan support because it simply directs federal agencies to analyze alternative credit-scoring inputs. Those features increase its chance relative to major regulatory or spending bills. At the same time, many study/report bills never clear committee or receive floor time without additional momentum or being attached to larger packages, and the subject touches privacy and industry interests that could generate targeted opposition or procedural delays.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise statutory mandate for a joint agency study and report on additional key factors in credit-scoring models. It specifies agencies, a clear deadline, and enumerates the factors to be examined, and it uses existing statutory definitions to clarify terms.
Privacy vs inclusion: liberals emphasize risks of surveillance and require strong safeguards; conservatives emphasize limits on data collection and regulatory overreach.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Privacy vs inclusion: liberals emphasize risks of surveillance and require strong safeguards; conservatives emphasize limits on data collection and regulatory overreach.
A mainstream progressive would likely view the bill as a constructive, limited step toward expanding credit access and reducing ‘credit invisibility’ for people with thin or no traditional credit files, provided the study addresses equity and consumer protections.
They would welcome examination of alternative data sources (rental, utilities, telecom, BNPL) because such data can help low-income consumers build credit when used fairly.
At the same time they would be concerned about privacy, algorithmic bias, the potentially stigmatizing or punitive use of public-benefit (EBT) data, and how companies might use such data without strong safeguards.
A moderate would likely view this bill as a pragmatic, non-prescriptive first step: an information-gathering task for regulators rather than an immediate regulatory mandate.
They would appreciate the potential to improve credit assessments and market efficiency by better understanding alternative data, but want high-quality, transparent methodology and clarity on costs and privacy implications.
They would look for balanced recommendations that weigh consumer protection, lender risk-management, and administrative burden.
A mainstream conservative would likely be cautiously supportive of an informational study but wary of the CFPB and FTC expanding regulatory oversight of private credit models.
They may accept the value of better information for lenders and consumers, especially if it reduces defaults, but they will emphasize privacy, voluntary market solutions, and limits on regulatory follow-through.
They will be particularly concerned about government involvement in collecting or encouraging use of sensitive data (EBT, payroll, bank transaction history) and potential compliance burdens for businesses.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Content-wise this is a low-impact, narrowly scoped study requirement that could attract bipartisan support because it simply directs federal agencies to analyze alternative credit-scoring inputs. Those features increase its chance relative to major regulatory or spending bills. At the same time, many study/report bills never clear committee or receive floor time without additional momentum or being attached to larger packages, and the subject touches privacy and industry interests that could generate targeted opposition or procedural delays.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Privacy vs inclusion: liberals emphasize risks of surveillance and require strong safeguards; conservatives emphasize limits on data collec…
Content-wise this is a low-impact, narrowly scoped study requirement that could attract bipartisan support because it simply directs federa…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise statutory mandate for a joint agency study and report on additional key factors in credit-scoring models. It specifies agencies, a clear deadline, and en…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.