[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6351113,"mediaKeyId","2231121-2ea78fce446da73b92e1dda7871a61fc","parentId",2231121,"title","Committee hears competing views on licensing and consumer protections for debt resolution providers","audioSeconds",2248,"startMs",2239000,"endMs",4487000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2231121-2ea78fce446da73b92e1dda7871a61fc&start=2239&end=4487","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2231121-2ea78fce446da73b92e1dda7871a61fc/thumbnail_2239000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6351113/Washington/Committee-hears-competing-views-on-licensing-and-consumer-protections-for-debt-resolution-providers","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6351113-7876477ec75b02578ab0bb41bb8f7ef6/orig.mp4?Expires=1777222914&Signature=SrF-n5IrVcyM9klkmqhwB8yhvg6r9uASW2Uu38SzcxTDoer-BIeHCkEKWa0Yc5ZKKyNpIXMiFR~E0F-VLrEz~OPfgSL7D9lAn8SDjU96P5pp4E786Q-hJ061sioKb05Nylw6X6imOamgmahLJIsU7efZU9WTbDj6DH5LZ7EZ-wpx5p3lyovZ0QdNbSbmLgSmNqhcNCQaSoOoCPFiLV57-S1l7lbyY7WwsQKR~8Sd12IW3MVcZkwskuAbc57uJg-oTHF4hzC8JvE-2wmsXhLD62plsM6YkQxUI0k~ftF6ML-e6Y59IRm3dlJmQtCMPmCktTqcGyBFr5P9HqIGbxd8CA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","House Consumer Protection & Business","date","2025-02-05T00:00:00Z","article","Lawmakers heard extensive testimony Wednesday on House Bill 1599, a proposal to expand Washington’s regulatory framework to include commercial debt resolution services providers and to move regulatory authority for these services to the Department of Financial Institutions (DFI).

Committee staff Megan Mulvihill summarized the bill’s provisions, telling the panel that beginning July 1, 2026, both debt adjusters and debt resolution service providers would be required to hold licenses issued by DFI. The bill would revise the definition of \"debt adjusting\" so it no longer includes debt settlement, add record-keeping and contract disclosure requirements, prohibit misleading advertising, and require that providers not charge a fee until a contract is signed, at least one debt has been renegotiated, and at least one payment has been made between the consumer and a creditor.

Sponsor Representative Christine Reeves told the committee the bill is intended to protect consumers while keeping options available for people dealing with unsecured debt. \"By regulating this space, what we're making sure is that we're holding these folks accountable to ensuring that they're providing safe, viable products that get folks to the end goal,\" Reeves said, noting her personal interest in improving consumer protections for low-income Washingtonians.

Supporters of the bill, including the American Association for Debt Resolution, argued licensing and alignment with the Federal Trade Commission’s telemarketing sales rule would create more options and stronger accountability. Steve Baums of the association said members cannot charge a fee before delivering the benefit of their services under the FTC standard and that the bill would provide oversight similar to those federal protections.

Opponents included legal-aid and consumer-advocacy organizations, who warned the bill would weaken Washington’s longstanding 15% fee cap on debt-adjustment services and could allow predatory for-profit providers to re-enter the market. Julia Kellison of the Northwest Justice Project described repeated client harm she sees in a debt-collection clinic, including seniors whose bank accounts containing Social Security were put at risk by third-party payment arrangements. \"It's a predatory nightmare,\" she said.

Other consumer advocates — including representatives from the National Foundation for Credit Counseling, the Statewide Poverty Action Network and Northwest Consumer Law Center — urged lawmakers to retain the existing protections and fee limits, arguing nonprofit credit counseling, bankruptcy and self-help options are safer alternatives for low-income consumers.

Industry witnesses, including Tom McBride and Steve Baums of the American Association for Debt Resolution, said modern debt resolution firms follow strict federal rules, undergo audits and achieve settlement rates they described as successful for many consumers. Baums told the committee that AADR members resolve a substantial volume of unsecured consumer debt nationally and said member programs typically deliver savings in the range of 30–35 cents on the dollar for enrolled debts.

Public-sign-in totals read into the record showed more opponents than supporters among those who signed in but did not testify in person; the committee closed the hearing without taking a vote. Committee members asked detailed questions about fee structure, consumer protections, record-keeping, and whether nonprofit alternatives could meet consumer needs; no committee action was recorded on the bill during this session.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Consumer Protection & Business - 2/5/2025 1:30 PM","oneSentenceSummary","Lawmakers heard extensive testimony Wednesday on House Bill 1599, which would require licensing and oversight of debt resolution services providers by the Department of Financial Institutions and set contractual and fee limitations for those providers.","taxTitle","Consumer Protection & Business, House of Representatives, Legislative Sessions, Washington","taxId",20258,"location","Washington","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6351118,"Committee weighs bill to bar rental companies from separately stating \"vehicle license recovery\" fees",1521,728000,2249000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2231121-2ea78fce446da73b92e1dda7871a61fc&start=728&end=2249","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2231121-2ea78fce446da73b92e1dda7871a61fc/thumbnail_728000.jpg","/articles/6351118/Washington/Committee-weighs-bill-to-bar-rental-companies-from-separately-stating-vehicle-license-recovery-fees","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6351118-d18bc86edc43921d274ec684418a514f/orig.mp4?Expires=1777222914&Signature=FlYGYOllOv6PDAcdwf0XYlV7o7wBiaIuvmoM507q1Brxx~qZLetu4AOqrKE7nW4JmCNaYM2wfQOZZaEFrob4VtCCOTg6Ev0FXbuH71hsUIgjz8X0JbysUcovAUBSANWg1NSRGiGO3bqj2eEnnmWK7wTxM52BbccvjOBrtT-GXQu8NXcea9JdUdC40NOiU7WQSKnMCjRj9GP7NUcJybYlmdtIK5Qaln4lnFOio65ZargyWbuiROKUhM7mCaURa11BhQ41kpffN7oDHm7j77~fdTYl7WM~5onRl2DeYPLr7a~b8makV0wySnbzTKHWbprdT~pR0PS-vvu-TCZZMnmoeA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Consumer Protection & Business Committee took testimony Wednesday on House Bill 1431, a proposal that would stop rental car companies from separately stating a vehicle license cost recovery fee in rental agreements and limit separately stated surcharges to those imposed directly by governments.

Peter Clodfelter, committee staff, told members existing law allows rental companies to separately state fees that recover the firms’ costs to license, title, register and plate rental vehicles. \"House Bill 1431 would limit the taxes and government surcharges that can be included and separately stated in a rental car agreement to those that are directly imposed on a rental car customer by a federal, state, or local government agency,\" he said. The bill would prohibit rental companies from stating or implying that Washington imposes a vehicle license cost recovery fee on customers.

Prime sponsor Representative Sharon Tomiko Santos said the change is intended to restore transparency. Santos reminded the committee that a 2009 law authorized rental companies to collect a per-day recovery estimate and reconcile it annually; she said the system has produced instances in which customers have been charged more than the actual cost. \"This bill attempts to address that problem, by eliminating that declaration and not allowing the rental car fees to be collected in that fashion,\" she said, and added she is willing to work on language to perfect the proposal.

Industry witnesses urged caution. Robert Muse, vice president of government affairs for Avis Budget, said Avis Budget discloses the recovery fee as a company recovery and does not present it as a government-mandated fee: \"We never say that it's mandated by the state.\" Muse said the recovery mechanism helps national-account customers compare base prices across jurisdictions. Brian Rothery of Enterprise Mobility said the companies present consumers the total price up front on their websites and that the per-day structure helps keep per-day pricing consistent for customers.

A tech industry trade group, the Chamber of Progress, testified in support of the bill. Robert Singleton told the committee the bill would \"eliminate some of the deceptive fees charged by rental car companies\" and said, according to his testimony, that consumers in Washington paid \"over 10,200,000.0 per year in unnecessary vehicle license fees\" (figure reported by the witness in testimony).

Committee members pressed rental-industry witnesses on how recovery accounting works and whether a recovery amount can ever reach zero during a year. Enterprise’s Rothery said companies monitor the aggregate amounts throughout the year and \"the total amount that we're able to collect, yes, that gets down to 0\" over an accounting period when reconciled, though the per-day charge to a customer does not become zero on a per-day basis.

No committee vote was taken during the hearing. Public testimony included industry groups opposing the bill and consumer or technology groups supporting greater transparency. The committee closed the public hearing and the bill remains under consideration.","The Consumer Protection & Business Committee took testimony Wednesday on House Bill 1431, which would prohibit rental car companies from separately stating a vehicle license cost recovery fee and limit separately stated taxes and surcharges to those imposed directly by government.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6351123,"Committee hears bill to raise civil penalties for scrap dealers who handle stolen telecom copper",735,2000,737000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2231121-2ea78fce446da73b92e1dda7871a61fc&start=2&end=737","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2231121-2ea78fce446da73b92e1dda7871a61fc/thumbnail_2000.jpg","/articles/6351123/Washington/Committee-hears-bill-to-raise-civil-penalties-for-scrap-dealers-who-handle-stolen-telecom-copper","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6351123-e01d9ed46aad6d7c8510db371342865e/orig.mp4?Expires=1777222914&Signature=LJaDpxvMJDSW1YGVByXud-HmVyBRFt3tPVE4l7kqwD50IwugvUgrZb1u1HhBUZILBvFPeMU6AtpzosFuA0BvvPKXiHBIqrEZdhBk672a0L3ost9~CVNwdDplho52ghQA5wI8LFauJjNHeuh30mCqKm8Ac7CVS~Y~iSCHKblldhgrxp~hnpVt9zB6yEwpvZOOymGeiDTeiwVdLQ5Xkgm0hgAUZGnFRaTPraGFZCFwG06eS0pOlYdtT5rMmKPIsmFgIwYxGM3woGzRfpfdQBCa2q0anfOzuGxovaNN~QGI64Rhwr98B49wWe-OYiVvYgsoNiLQ2XBnfnSS7u1X8NQdqQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","House Bill 1453 was the subject of a staff briefing and public testimony Wednesday, as lawmakers considered new civil penalties for scrap metal businesses that purchase stolen copper used in telecommunication cable.

The bill would make a first violation subject to a civil penalty of up to $10,000, a second violation up to $20,000, and a third violation could lead to loss of licensure for the scrap metal business, staff told the panel. The bill focuses specifically on copper used in telecommunication cable and does not extend those new penalties to fiber or other materials, the staff briefing said.

Committee staff member Megan Mulvihill said current law already requires scrap yards to be licensed, to keep transaction records, to cooperate with law enforcement and to check sellers against the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs No Buy database. Mulvihill summarized the bill’s change this way: \"House Bill 1453 establishes new civil penalties for scrap metal businesses that engage in a pledge for the purchase of or the trade of stolen copper that was used in telecommunication cable.\" She added that certain existing violations already carry criminal penalties.

Representative Dan Griffey, prime sponsor, told the committee his district still relies on some hard-wired phone lines and that thieves are removing long lengths of cable. Griffey said higher civil penalties would send a clear signal that stealing infrastructure — and the fencing of that material — will be taken seriously. He indicated he intends to offer an amendment that would require the recyclers to have acted \"knowingly\" to trigger the new penalty, saying: \"Dollars 10,000 fine first time if you knowingly purchase this.\"

Industry and service-provider witnesses described differing views. Robert Toms of Lumen Technologies said the problem is getting worse and that fiber thefts can be hard to distinguish from copper thefts in the field: \"It is the second worst state in our entire service area... and to, Representative Ryu's point, this often is negatively impacting fiber as well because it's hard to determine... whether it's copper or fiber.\" Lumen said the thefts cause service outages and substantial replacement costs.

Holly Chisa (also transcribed as Holly Chiza) of the Recycled Materials Association testified in opposition to the bill as written. She said scrap yards already are prohibited from purchasing stolen material and asked the committee to add operational changes before imposing larger civil penalties. Chisa told lawmakers the bill lacks a requirement that utilities report stolen material to law enforcement or to yard operators, there is no marking requirement on cable to identify an owner, and the bill does not include a ‘‘knowingly’’ standard. She said yards refer suspicious material to police and provide required transaction data but worry they could face large penalties for unwitting purchases.

Committee members asked whether the bill covers fiber and EV charging cords; Mulvihill said the new penalties in the bill are specific to copper used in telecommunication cable and would not by themselves apply to fiber or other items, though current statutory definitions of \"nonferrous metal\" might capture some different materials under existing law. Griffey and other proponents said they are also working with industry and law enforcement on broader statutory changes, including proposals to elevate the theft of telecommunications wire to a higher criminal class in some cases.

Public-sign-in counts and next steps: the record read into the committee showed a large number of supporters and one opposed among those who had signed in; the chair closed the public hearing and the bill remains under committee consideration. The committee did not take a vote on House Bill 1453 during this session.

The committee will continue taking input on definitions, notice and reporting requirements and the potential amendment to require a \"knowing\" element before the higher civil penalties would apply.","House Bill 1453 was the subject of a staff briefing and public testimony Wednesday, as lawmakers considered new civil penalties and possible licensure loss for scrap metal businesses that purchase stolen copper used in telecommunication cable.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6351109,"Consumer Protection & Business Committee reports three bills out of committee; one roll-call recorded",462,4492000,4954000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2231121-2ea78fce446da73b92e1dda7871a61fc&start=4492&end=4954","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2231121-2ea78fce446da73b92e1dda7871a61fc/thumbnail_4492000.jpg","/articles/6351109/Washington/Consumer-Protection-Business-Committee-reports-three-bills-out-of-committee-one-roll-call-recorded","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6351109-018bbadc6e6caa0f0f2541a466dda231/orig.mp4?Expires=1777222914&Signature=X~Y41ns2dK5JfBS4D87HJ8s8pIO43Ved0jxecnAkCBywGc9o2AAk54jBpikkhimpnbpU-uTRzr31lMr3~DitV8R2ax75m3UmTATXhNaByo0eKCTqJ1wYGZn03tc8PkoCLNm7jegxPJ6NfB76SrY6z169I9J8~7mBdTJTjgMGavB3oBnmN~443Yb1-sMkB5VDc0Q3RpOzitLH2YJjaj2IRli7gOcUa40tqj8hi5J1pryS~GHWuDtjH4X5qlEkQOcAcJLJCaVA-atcVVENSiC9n7tXoth79NarDAMj31ZZtethOCT1FawVyohzWjwMOc1eHWcKtZWoHzrPNfZeVO1sGA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","After public hearings, the Consumer Protection & Business Committee recessed and then moved to committee action on several bills. Committee members reported three bills out of committee with \"due pass\" recommendations.

Representative Christine Reeves moved that House Bill 1230 be reported out of committee with a due pass recommendation. Committee staff described HB 1230 as legislation requiring experience-rated group disability income insurers to include detailed experience-rating formulas in filings with the Insurance Commissioner; the Insurance Commissioner concurred. The committee used a voice vote; the chair announced 15 members present and 15 voting in the affirmative, and the bill was reported out with a due pass recommendation.

The committee then moved House Bill 1341, which implements a Liquor and Cannabis Board data-sharing change to permit verification of excise tax exemptions through the medical cannabis authorization database. Representative Reeves moved the bill; staff said the Liquor and Cannabis Board told them no personally identifying information would be shared and the verification would use card registration numbers. The committee again used a voice vote; the chair announced 15 members present and 15 voting in the affirmative and reported the bill out with a due pass recommendation.

Finally, Representative Reeves moved to report House Bill 1526 out of committee with a due pass recommendation. Representative Steele offered remarks in support; Representative Frijell voiced a no vote on policy grounds about alcohol availability. The committee conducted a roll-call standing committee report. The staff tally read: 14 ayes, 1 nay, 0 absent or excused. Representative Ryu registered the lone nay on the record. By the announced vote the committee reported House Bill 1526 out of committee with a due pass recommendation.

Each motion was seconded (a second was recorded though a seconder's name was not specified in the transcript). The committee recorded no amendments to these motions during the session. The bills were reported to the next stage with due pass recommendations as reflected in the standing committee report.","At the close of the hearing day the committee moved three bills to the next stage. House Bills 1230 and 1341 were reported out by voice vote (15–0 present and recorded as affirmative). House Bill 1526 was reported out after a roll-call vote, 14 ayes, 1 nay (Representative Ryu).","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee hears competing views on licensing and consumer protections for debt resolution providers

Committee weighs bill to bar rental companies from separately stating "vehicle license recovery" fees

Committee hears bill to raise civil penalties for scrap dealers who handle stolen telecom copper

Consumer Protection & Business Committee reports three bills out of committee; one roll-call recorded