California 2023-2024 Regular Session

California Assembly Bill AB2017

Introduced
1/31/24  
Refer
3/18/24  
Refer
3/18/24  
Report Pass
3/18/24  
Report Pass
3/18/24  
Refer
3/19/24  
Refer
3/19/24  
Report Pass
4/16/24  
Refer
4/16/24  
Refer
4/16/24  
Report Pass
5/1/24  
Report Pass
5/1/24  
Engrossed
5/16/24  
Engrossed
5/16/24  
Refer
5/16/24  
Refer
5/16/24  
Refer
5/29/24  
Refer
5/29/24  
Report Pass
6/20/24  
Report Pass
6/20/24  
Refer
6/20/24  
Refer
6/20/24  
Report Pass
6/26/24  
Report Pass
6/26/24  
Refer
6/26/24  
Refer
6/26/24  
Enrolled
8/21/24  
Enrolled
8/21/24  
Chaptered
9/24/24  
Passed
9/24/24  

Caption

Banks and credit unions: nonsufficient funds fees.

Impact

If enacted, AB 2017 will have a direct impact on the financial institutions operating within California, specifically those that charge nonsufficient funds fees. Banks and credit unions will need to adjust their fee structures and practices to comply with this new regulation. By prohibiting such fees during instantaneous transaction declines, the bill aims to alleviate the financial burden on consumers, particularly those who may face unexpected financial challenges.

Summary

Assembly Bill 2017, introduced by Grayson, aims to regulate the charging of nonsufficient funds (NSF) fees by banks and credit unions in California. This legislation establishes that banks and credit unions cannot impose a nonsufficient funds fee on consumers when a transaction is declined due to insufficient funds at the time of the transaction attempt. This measure seeks to enhance consumer protection by eliminating these fees under specific circumstances, which has been a significant concern among consumers who feel penalized for unintentional overdrafts.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding AB 2017 appears to be largely positive among consumer advocacy groups and the general public. Supporters argue that this legislation is a necessary step toward protecting consumers from unnecessary financial penalties that can exacerbate their financial situations. However, some critics express concerns regarding the potential loss of income for financial institutions that depend on these fees, suggesting that this could lead to changes in how banks and credit unions operate regarding overdraft protections and services.

Contention

Notable points of contention regarding AB 2017 include the balance between consumer rights and the financial sustainability of banks and credit unions. While the bill aims to protect consumers from excessive fees, it raises questions about how financial institutions will adapt to changes in revenue streams resulting from the prohibition of NSF fees. The discussions surrounding the bill highlight a broader debate about the responsibility of financial institutions to support consumers in maintaining their financial health versus their need to operate profitably.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

CA SB1075

Credit unions: overdraft and nonsufficient funds fees.

CA SB1415

Financial Institutions Law: annual report: overdraft.

WV HB2137

To create a special license plate for 100% disabled veterans

WV HB3022

Create license plate for autism awareness

CT HB05216

An Act Concerning Low-cost Bank Accounts.

MN SF2739

Certain higher education student bank account minimum standards requirement provision

MS SB2496

Mississippi Earned Wage Access Services Act; enact.

TX SB1379

Relating to a pilot program to increase the financial independence of foster youth who are transitioning to independent living.