HR-9330-119
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 690.
Sponsored by Bryan Steil (R-WI)
What it does
This bill would create federal consumer protection rules for "earned wage access" services—apps and companies that let workers access wages they've already earned before payday. It would require providers to offer a no-cost option, disclose fees and limits, ban mandatory tips and debt-collection tactics for unpaid advances, and classify these services as not being credit or loans under federal law, which would also preempt state laws that treat them as such.
Who benefits
Users of earned wage access services (estimated to number in the millions, often lower- and middle-income hourly workers) who would gain fee disclosures, a no-cost option, and protection from debt collection and credit reporting. Earned wage access companies (such as DailyPay, EarnIn, and Payactiv) would benefit from a uniform federal framework and preemption of stricter state credit or lending laws. Employers using these services as a benefit would gain regulatory clarity.
Who is hurt
State regulators and consumer advocates who currently treat earned wage access as a loan-like product subject to interest rate caps or lending licensing would lose that authority in states with stricter rules. Consumers in states with stronger existing protections (some states cap fees or require licensing as lenders) could see those protections preempted. Traditional short-term lenders and payday lenders could face continued competitive pressure from a now more clearly legitimized product category.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that earned wage access helps workers avoid costly overdraft fees and predatory payday loans by letting them access money they've already earned, and that a uniform federal standard with mandatory no-cost options, fee transparency, and a ban on debt collection tactics protects consumers better than a patchwork of inconsistent state rules. They contend classifying these products as distinct from credit reflects their actual structure—no interest, no debt obligation—and that federal rules would encourage more employers to offer the benefit.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that stripping states' ability to treat earned wage access as credit or lending removes critical protections like interest rate caps, allowing providers to charge fees that function like high-cost short-term loans without the legal safeguards borrowers would otherwise have. They contend the preemption provision overrides state consumer protection judgments enacted through their own legislative processes, and that classifying tips and fees as neither interest nor finance charges could let companies use "voluntary" tipping to obscure effectively high borrowing costs.