California Assembly Bill AB3148

California 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/16/24
• Refer: 3/11/24
• Report Pass: 4/2/24
• Refer: 4/2/24
• Report Pass: 4/10/24
• Engrossed: 4/18/24
• Refer: 4/18/24
• Refer: 5/1/24
• Report Pass: 6/10/24
• Refer: 6/10/24
• Report Pass: 6/20/24
• Refer: 6/20/24
• Report Pass: 8/5/24
• Refer: 8/5/24
• Refer: 8/22/24
• Enrolled: 8/28/24
• Chaptered: 9/14/24
• Passed: 9/14/24

Caption

Deferred deposit transactions: assessments.

Impact

If enacted, AB 3148 would significantly alter the financial landscape for businesses involved in deferred deposit transactions within California. By basing assessments on transaction amounts, the bill intends to create a fairer fee structure that reflects the economic activities of each participant in the market. This is anticipated to relieve smaller operators from disproportionate costs associated with having multiple locations, potentially encouraging small business growth and innovation within the industry.

Summary

Assembly Bill 3148, introduced by Assemblymember Chen, seeks to amend the California Deferred Deposit Transaction Law (CDDTL) to change how assessments for licensees are calculated. Currently, the assessment is based on the number of locations a licensee operates. AB 3148 proposes a new method where the fee would depend on the total dollar amount of deferred deposit transactions conducted by each licensee relative to the total transactions made by all licensed entities. This aims to ensure that fees are more proportional to the actual business done by each licensee rather than simply the number of locations they have.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding AB 3148 appears generally supportive among industry stakeholders. Advocates argue that the bill will streamline the regulatory process and reduce financial burdens on small businesses, which is seen as crucial for fostering local economies. However, some regulatory bodies may still express concerns about maintaining adequate oversight and ensuring that all entities contribute fairly to the costs of their regulation, given that larger operators may significantly increase their transaction volumes under the proposed structure.

Contention

Notable points of contention around AB 3148 include the balance of regulatory oversight against the need for fair business operations. Some legislators worry that by focusing assessments on transaction volume, there might be a lapse in regulatory scrutiny, particularly if smaller companies do not have the same volume of transactions as larger firms. Additionally, discussions may arise regarding how this fee structure could affect consumer protection initiatives if not properly aligned with regulatory objectives.