Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Earned Wage Access topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears testimony on House Bill 152 to regulate earned‑wage‑access services
Summary
The House Commerce and Labor Committee held a second hearing on House Bill 152, which would create a registration and consumer‑protection framework for earned‑wage‑access (EWA) services. Industry witnesses described how EWA products operate, the optional fees charged for instant transfers, and consumer protections the bill would require.
House Bill 152, a proposal to create a consumer‑protection registration framework for earned‑wage‑access (EWA) services, received proponent testimony and questions during a second committee hearing.
Elise Hicks, senior manager of public policy at DailyPay LLC, told the committee DailyPay serves more than 4.4 million users nationwide and has partnered with hundreds of Ohio employers. She said EWA “provides access to wages they have already earned” and can be “an essential alternative to high‑cost options” such as payday lending. Hicks described industry best practices: a mandatory free option (ACH transfers that typically take 1–3 business days), an optional instant transfer fee (DailyPay’s instant transfer fee cited in testimony was $2.99 to $3.49), no interest charged, and a prohibition on requiring a credit report.
Andrew Herff of Schumacher Advisors testified on behalf of EarnIn and explained the direct‑to‑consumer and employer‑integrated business models. He said some EWA providers offer the service for free via delayed transfers, while instant transfers carry a small optional fee (he cited a range for EarnIn of $2.99 to $5.99 for instant transfers and noted voluntary tips are part of EarnIn’s model). Both witnesses emphasized that HB152 would codify guardrails already used by many providers and would require consumer disclosures, privacy protections and a free option.
Committee members questioned enforcement, frequency of use, demographic data, and the potential for multiple providers to be used simultaneously by a single employee (so‑called product stacking). Representative McNally asked whether the industry caps frequency of use; witnesses said providers do not impose a strict cap and that use patterns typically show initial higher frequency for customers who have an emergency and then lower use over time. Representative Pizzoli asked about the voluntary “tip” practice; EarnIn’s witness described it as a voluntary gratuity analogous to a tip for a ride service and noted that fewer than half of transactions include a tip and the average tip is about $1.
Both industry witnesses said their models absorb certain credit or nonpayment risk (for employer‑integrated models the provider is typically repaid via payroll remittance; testimony indicated that if an employee leaves payroll and a prior transfer cannot be recovered through payroll, the EWA provider may absorb some or all of that loss). Witnesses emphasized that HB152 seeks to exclude interest, late fees and harmful recourse (collection or credit reporting) and to preserve a meaningful free option for consumers.
No committee action or vote on HB152 occurred during the hearing; the record contains proponent testimony, cross‑examination by members and written testimony available on committee materials.
Ending
Proponents told the committee HB152 would protect consumers while preserving access to a lower‑cost liquidity option for workers who earn wages but are paid on periodic cycles. Committee members signaled interest in clarifying fee caps, the timing of no‑fee options, privacy protections and remedies for employers and providers in cases of payroll or employment changes.
