Amend the amount a merchant or place of business may assess against returned checks.
Impact
The passage of SB 38 would directly impact state laws regarding the financial responsibilities of consumers when issuing checks that are not honored. By setting a defined amount that can be charged, it not only streamlines the process for merchants recovering lost funds due to returned checks but also establishes a clear boundary for what consumers might expect to pay in such situations. This could lead to a more organized financial environment where both parties have a clearer understanding of their rights and obligations in business transactions involving checks.
Summary
Senate Bill 38 seeks to amend the existing regulations concerning the fees that a merchant or place of business can assess against returned checks. Specifically, the bill proposes a cap on the fees that can be charged, limiting them to a maximum of sixty dollars, plus any applicable sales tax, when a check is not honored due to reasons such as a closed account or insufficient funds. This amendment aims to clarify and standardize the collection of fees in instances of returned checks, providing more protections for merchants while also ensuring that the costs imposed on consumers remain reasonable and predictable.
Sentiment
General sentiment towards SB 38 appears to be supportive, particularly from the business community that views this bill as a necessary update to existing regulations. Proponents argue that it empowers merchants by allowing them to recover some of their losses due to non-payment. However, there are concerns among consumer advocacy groups who fear that setting fees could pose additional financial burdens on consumers who may already be struggling financially. The balancing of interests between consumers and merchants is a critical point of discussion regarding the bill.
Contention
Notable points of contention surrounding SB 38 primarily revolve around the adequacy of the proposed fee cap. Critics argue that even a modest fee can be significant for consumers, especially those facing financial hardship. There is also a debate about whether the increase in fees could lead to unethical business practices, such as overly aggressive collection measures. Overall, discussions are highlighting the challenge of creating laws that protect businesses while simultaneously safeguarding consumer interests.
Proposing and submitting to the voters at the next general election an amendment to the Constitution of the State of South Dakota, limiting the amount of ad valorem tax on real property, and limiting the increase in the assessed value of real property.
Proposing and submitting to the electors at the next general election an amendment to the Constitution of the State of South Dakota, updating references to certain officeholders and persons.