Mississippi House Bill HB881

Mississippi 2023 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/16/23
• Refer: 1/16/23
• Failed: 1/31/23

Caption

Consumer credit record; provide maximum amount that may be charged for improving.

Impact

The enactment of HB 881 would significantly affect the operational landscape for debt service management providers in Mississippi. By instituting maximum fees, the bill aims to prevent potential exploitation of consumers through exorbitant charges for credit improvement services. This change is particularly important in a state where many individuals may struggle with debt, providing them with more reasonable options for improving their financial situation. It is anticipated that these regulations will foster a more transparent marketplace for financial services aimed at consumers with credit issues.

Summary

House Bill 881 is designed to amend the existing Section 81-22-13 of the Mississippi Code of 1972, which pertains to the fees charged by debt service management providers. The primary objective of this legislation is to impose a cap on the fees that can be charged for improving a consumer's credit record, history, or rating. It establishes specific maximum amounts that can be charged for various debt management services, thus providing a level of protection for consumers seeking assistance with their financial obligations. Additionally, it includes provisions for free initial counseling sessions, ensuring that consumers have access to essential information before incurring costs.

Contention

Discussion surrounding HB 881 may involve a range of viewpoints. Supporters of the bill, including consumer advocacy groups, may argue that this legislation is a necessary measure to protect vulnerable consumers from predatory practices in the debt management industry. However, there may also be opposition from some providers who could contend that the imposed fee caps hinder their ability to offer comprehensive services or that they do not adequately compensate for the costs associated with providing these services. The debate is likely to center on balancing consumer protection with the financial viability of debt management providers.